Jump to content


Photo

T72 Trials In The Bundeswehr And The Us Army?


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#41 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,962 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 11 October 2015 - 0532 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 ?

 

In terms of FCS, yes. In the early-mid 90s Russia did export T-72s, which was a downgraded version of T-72B, with better protection.

 

IIRC Yugoslavia integrated thermal sights and even offered them, maybe Bojan knows more.

 

A few years ago there were news of a Croatian upgrade acquired by Kuwait for the M84 fleet, but nothing materialized.



#42 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,762 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 11 October 2015 - 0601 AM

...

IIRC Yugoslavia integrated thermal sights and even offered them, maybe Bojan knows more.

...

Originally production of thermal sights was planned to commence in early '90s, new "Vihor" tank was supposed to be outfitted with those, and there was a plan of retrofitting M-84s with those. Nothing came out of it, technology transfer from Texas Instuments was only partially completed when a war started.

 

Post 2000s various modernizations were offered that used French made thermal sights. Nothing came out of those, through same sight was integrated into BOV M10 and BOV M11 artillery recce and command vehicles for export purposes..



#43 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,873 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2015 - 1222 PM

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).

 

Well, let's talk about this (one of my favorite topics)...we know for sure that some T-72M1s carry turrets that are better armored than others (probably depending on where it was built and/or who the intended user will be). We also know that while the relationship between the T-72M1 and the T-72A is very close, the glacis armor designs used are different - even visibly with the T-72A (1979ish) not requiring the 16mm glacis face-plate that was deemed necessary on the T-72M1 (1982ish).



#44 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,762 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 13 October 2015 - 1624 PM

Jim, apparently T-72M1 did not get T-72A style glacis due the fact that line that was building them mastered older type of glacis, so cheapest way to improve performances w/o stopping production was add-on armor that gave them protection more-less same as T-72A glacis.

IDK who else did T-72M1, but Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia had same technical documentation for T-72M1 turret.


Edited by bojan, 13 October 2015 - 1625 PM.


#45 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 15 October 2015 - 0113 AM

Heh, so T-72A didn't get the 16mm plate welded on its glacis?

 

So, the T-72A had a more efficient layer?



#46 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 October 2015 - 0415 AM

The Polish-made T-72M1 tanks had the T-72A glacis layout and a 16 mm thick plate welded ontop:

 

SptaeB2.jpg



#47 Pavel Novak

Pavel Novak

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Czech Republic

Posted 15 October 2015 - 0736 AM

T-72A from 1979 have different armor than T-72A from 1985. Armor change in export T-72, T-72M and T-72M1 corresponds to armor change in soviet T-72 but with some +/- 5 years delay.



#48 Schwarzie

Schwarzie

    Crunchie

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

Posted 15 October 2015 - 1443 PM

Do you know whtat the white filler material is composed of? Some fibreglas substance with corundum pellets in it?



#49 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,762 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 15 October 2015 - 1511 PM

No, AG-4 textolite.

http://www.eurokompo...les-protection/

Depending on phenolic resin used color varies from almost white to dark brown.



#50 DavidDCM

DavidDCM

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 15 October 2015 - 1625 PM

 

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).

 

Well, let's talk about this (one of my favorite topics)...we know for sure that some T-72M1s carry turrets that are better armored than others (probably depending on where it was built and/or who the intended user will be). We also know that while the relationship between the T-72M1 and the T-72A is very close, the glacis armor designs used are different - even visibly with the T-72A (1979ish) not requiring the 16mm glacis face-plate that was deemed necessary on the T-72M1 (1982ish).

 

 

I thought later T-72A did have the 16mm glacis.

 

I always interpreted it as the early T-72A simply having the same glacis as the original T-72.

 

Early T-72A (no plate):

t-72.26446sfsfr.jpg

 

Late T-72A:

t-72a_aksay_22.09.07-eosr5.jpg


Edited by DavidDCM, 15 October 2015 - 1625 PM.


#51 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,033 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 15 October 2015 - 1643 PM

 

 

Early T-72A (no plate):

 

 

 

it's not 72A, it's T-72 mod 1978 IIRC

 

Late T-72A:

 

Late

pic_13.jpg


Edited by Wiedzmin, 15 October 2015 - 1646 PM.


#52 DavidDCM

DavidDCM

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 October 2015 - 1238 PM

Early T-72A (no plate):


it's not 72A, it's T-72 mod 1978 IIRC


Ah, so I was under the impression that the 1978 model is already called T-72A due to the changes in turret.

I think I read it in the Zaloga Osprey book, that there were 3 models called T-72A.

First (Obr1978g) - like in my 1st picture above
Second (Obr1979g) - my 2nd picture
Third (Obr1983g) - your picture

All of them commonly called T-72A.

Edited by DavidDCM, 16 October 2015 - 1239 PM.


#53 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 16 October 2015 - 2217 PM

a TN thread on Canadian testing of the T-72 http://www.tank-net....showtopic=40194



#54 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,873 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 November 2015 - 0007 AM

BTT...



#55 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,873 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2015 - 2358 PM



 



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).

 

Well, let's talk about this (one of my favorite topics)...we know for sure that some T-72M1s carry turrets that are better armored than others (probably depending on where it was built and/or who the intended user will be). We also know that while the relationship between the T-72M1 and the T-72A is very close, the glacis armor designs used are different - even visibly with the T-72A (1979ish) not requiring the 16mm glacis face-plate that was deemed necessary on the T-72M1 (1982ish).

 

 

It's pretty clear that the design or configuration of the T-72M1 turret frontal armor is shared between the better protected T-72M1 (fitted with CERMET), and the lesser protected T-72M1 (fitted a common sand filler). The image below, apparently, is providing a good look at the better protected turret, with the Korund ceramic filler = CERMET.  

 

T-72M1_CERMET%20Composite%20Armor_Sweden



#56 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,033 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 18 November 2015 - 0131 AM

 

It's pretty clear that the design or configuration of the T-72M1 turret frontal armor is shared between the better protected T-72M1 (fitted with CERMET), and the lesser protected T-72M1 (fitted a common sand filler). The image below, apparently, is providing a good look at the better protected turret, with the Korund ceramic filler = CERMET.  

 

 

 

there no such thing "CERMET" in T-72 and T-80, T-72A, T-72M1, T-80B they all used sand,



#57 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 18 November 2015 - 0345 AM

Corundum sand is a common blasting media.  That might be "ceramic" and "sand."  S/F....Ken M



#58 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,438 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 18 November 2015 - 0541 AM

Is the ceramic/sand supposed to increase protection against HEAT?


Edited by Rick, 18 November 2015 - 0542 AM.


#59 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,762 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 18 November 2015 - 0601 AM

Both HEAT and KE.



#60 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,873 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 November 2015 - 0940 AM

 

 

It's pretty clear that the design or configuration of the T-72M1 turret frontal armor is shared between the better protected T-72M1 (fitted with CERMET), and the lesser protected T-72M1 (fitted a common sand filler). The image below, apparently, is providing a good look at the better protected turret, with the Korund ceramic filler = CERMET.  

 

 

 

there no such thing "CERMET" in T-72 and T-80, T-72A, T-72M1, T-80B they all used sand,

 

 

Wiedzmin; while there has been some debate about the exact composition of the sand filler being used, the most likely answer (IMO), is the common sand used during the turret manufacturing process. As far as the use of "CERMET" is concerned, there's simply too much evidence that supports two different types of filler materials being used (different colors, textures, live-fire test results, etc.) Awhile back someone posted here that the sand being used isn't hard-packed or solid, but loose grains...to the point that after a turret penetration, the sand poured out of the holes punched into the armor. I'm also pretty sure that the cut-away pic I posted doesn't show the sand filler...that's Korund, the "CER" in CERMET.      






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users