4800 replies to this topic

[geronimo]

Is it true that when it comes to T-80Us, only command versions are equipped with Shtora? That'd make them easier to recognize and shoot, i.e. for the opponent's tanks

Of course you could mount Shtora on other tanks as well but indeed, the only pictures I've seen of in-service tanks (Russia and Cyprus) show it mounted only on the T-80UK.

[Corinthian]

Great pix Harkonnen. Many thanks!

[Stefan Kotsch]

It is probably not completely correct, if one says, SHTORA is not installed. The IR jammer is only one shtora component of many.

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

It is probably not completely correct, if one says, SHTORA is not installed. The IR jammer is only one shtora component of many.

And I'd say, the most conspicuous, the most finicky, and the least useful one

[Harkonnen]

It is probably not completely correct, if one says, SHTORA is not installed. The IR jammer is only one shtora component of many.

I said - The stora-1 dazzlers on the turret not installed. Other components are existent.

[Stefan Kotsch]

Ok ok, but you was not meant.


(often however SHTORA is reduced to the IR-Jammer)

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Has this been discussed here before?

Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was "effectively impenetrable" have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on "The Future of Armoured Warfare" in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour" – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, "Relikt", which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the "Lion of Babylon" (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military's best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

I can't find anything remotely resembling this on Jane's except for their 7/97 report. This looks like a shameless fake. You can see the original e.g. on my site, and compare it.

The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour" – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Interesting U.S. Army Spokespersons they got there

[m4a1]

It was discussed there, but I must throw my two cents to it. There is stated that K-5 makes Russian/Soviet (T-72A/ tanks immune to antitank weapons fire. However, I am still not certain if T-72B(M) would sustain sth like Hellfire II with tandem warhead, or HOT-3 perhaps. Knowing the advantage of II gen ERA over tandem warheads, can't be the penetration reduction (ab. 50% in case of "really huge warhead") just not enough? Does anyone know, were those tanks tested by Hellfire II?

[Lampshade111]

That test was many years ago. Don't know why Janes brought it up. Also was the M829A1 tested or the original M829?

Did they just test the Kontakt-5 on the turret or the stuff on the hull too?

Edited by Lampshade111, 28 January 2008 - 1904 PM.

[eurico_viegas]

Has this been discussed here before?

Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was "effectively impenetrable" have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on "The Future of Armoured Warfare" in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour" – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, "Relikt", which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the "Lion of Babylon" (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military's best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."

Gorka, where did you find this one? Last thursday this article showed up on a portuguese forum...

Edit: also, wouldn't Mr. Ogorkiewicz know that it's M230 instead of M320?

Edited by eurico_viegas, 28 January 2008 - 1912 PM.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Gorka, where did you find this one? Last thursday this article showed up on a portuguese forum...

Edit: also, wouldn't Mr. Ogorkiewicz know that it's M230 instead of M320?

Was published in a Spanish forum (in English). It looked very much like the original 1997 one (which I had) so I gave it credibility!

[Harkonnen]

http://ru.youtube.co...feature=related

About SPRUT SD history

[jakec]

Was published in a Spanish forum (in English). It looked very much like the original 1997 one (which I had) so I gave it credibility!

This fake is doing the rounds of all the military/wargaming forums at the moment.

[Marsh]

This fake is doing the rounds of all the military/wargaming forums at the moment.

Hi,
I put this earlier on the militaryphotos site where the same fake article was doing the rounds...

I found my hard copy of the article written by Richard Ogorkiewicz for IDR July 1997. In essence the first two paragraphs of the material published on the Sino-defence site are from the article, the remainder is not. Funnily enough, I attended the SMi Armour/Anti-Armour conference in 1997 where Leyland Ness gave his presentation. That's why it sounded so familiar. His information where treated with a mixture of scepticism and concern. Richard Ogorkiewicz treated Mr Ness's information with respect, as it matched material originally released at an earlier syposium at the Royal Military College at Shrivenham by Martin Held, the leading light behind ERA.

So, in conclusion. The material on the Chinese site, Spanish site etc, etc or at least the first two paragraphs, is based upon an article published in 1997. The rest of the text on the Chinese site, spanish site etc etc was not written by Richard Ogorkievicz but does represent the views held in 1997 by a defence correspondent called Leyland Ness.

cheers
Marsh

Edited by Marsh, 29 January 2008 - 0734 AM.

[Harkonnen]

On 4 February at 77 years old 2008 died the chief "general" designer of the T-80 tank and it's modification Nikolai Sergeevich Popov

14 Dec. 1931 - 4 Feb. 2008

This person is one of the prominent in not only design of Soviet tanks but also in the history of it in general.

[Mirlo]

Hi,

I am again and asking like always technical data about the Rogatka tank. Could somebody advise me about the:

1- Cross country speed of T-72B Rogatka
2- Highway speed of the T-72B Rogatka
3- Endurance of this tank

Thanks in advance

best regards

Mirlo

[Harkonnen]

Hi,

I am again and asking like always technical data about the Rogatka tank. Could somebody advise me about the:

1- Cross country speed of T-72B Rogatka
2- Highway speed of the T-72B Rogatka
3- Endurance of this tank

35-45
65
500 km

[Mirlo]

First of all, Thank you for the info Harkonnen!!!!

I have even more questions about the mobility of the T-72 Rogatka:

1- vertical obstacle??
2- Fording??
3- Trench??
4- Gradient??

I also would like to have info regarding the com system. Does sombady know what radios and how many has a T-72B Rogatka. Also it seems to have a navigational systems?? does somebody know which one is??

Best regards

Mirlo

[Mirlo]

Hi, more questions regarding the Rogatka FCS.

As fas as I know the gunner has two sights: SOSNA-U as main unit and TPD-1K as an auxiliary unit. First could someone confirm if this is correct?? second is what sights has the Commander?? and is the TPN-3 included in the Rogatka FCS??.

Best regards

Mirlo