Where's the T-80?

[Alexey K]

Actually, T-80 and T-72 were byproduct of failed attempts to mass produce T-64. T-64 was all new design which proved to be plagued with problems and hard to manufacture. Generally speaking, it has too innovative. But USSR needed new tanks urgently so they decided to pursue quick and dirty solution - produce three lines of tanks each tailored to specific factory. It was short term achievement that has cost of long term problems.

[Krasnoarmeyets]

Actually, T-80 and T-72 were byproduct of failed attempts to mass produce T-64.

T-72 (original object 172) was intended as T-64A with a "mobilization" engine from V-2 line (because Khar'kov had troubles with real mass production of 5TDF). However, UKBTM considered T-64s tracks, wheels and suspension unreliable and prone to failure, so it executed a "working initiative" and introduced many features from its object 167 prototype, including AZ-type autoloader instead of MZ-type. Thus object 172M was born.

T-80 was ultimately the result of a long effort to produce a tank with a gas turbine engine, which have been going on in some form or other since 1950's. The latest stage was started in 1967. The most advanced vehicle at the time was T-64A, so that was the base provided to SKB-2 for its work. The original tank (object 219sp1) only had the engine replaced, but Leningrad engineers soon also determined that T-64 drive was insufficient for increased power and speeds of the gas turbine, and came up with their own design (that proved to be the best of the three) on the next version (object 219sp2), which became the T-80.

After that, T-72 largely went its own way, while T-80's fate continued to be closely intertwined with T-64 and other KhKBTM designs.

[antaress73]

the T-80UM would be nice... less firepower since it cannot use the new ammo but more armored (640mm upper hull against HEAT and 800mm against HEAT on the turret) ... so it should survive better against for example direct fire Javelin or Ukrainian soviet missiles which presently kills the T-90A and T-72B3 frontally when hitting the upper front hull armor. It should be better at surviving hits by Ukrainian armor too. As for the M1A2.. well.. no amount short of 900mm will stop the M829A4

[Krasnoarmeyets]

so it should survive better against for example direct fire Javelin or Ukrainian soviet missiles which presently kills the T-90A and T-72B3 frontally when hitting the upper front hull armor

 

Actually, they all should be on relatively similar armor level for the glacis (composite + K-5). T-90A probably has somewhat better composite filament structure and somewhat higher protection (its new welded turret should also be more protected), while T-72B3 ERA coverage on the turret is not as good as on T-80U / T-90. But they all should be impenetrable for these ATGMs at such projections. Are you getting these frontal kills even with the 1.01 ERA fix?

[antaress73]

Yeah .. Kontakt-5 isnt useful against tandem warheads .. Javelin direct fire mode (600mm).. Frontal kills on upper Hull for t-72b3 ans T-90A .. Relikt on T-90AM stops it. With the 1.01 patch yes

Edited March 8, 2015 by antaress73

[Krasnoarmeyets]

Curious. T-72B type 1989 (protection standard for T-72B3) should have 650-700 mm equivalent vs HEAT without ERA (1000 - 1100 with K-5 ERA), T-90A - 800-900 mm eq. vs HEAT without ERA (up to 1400 with K-5 ERA). And Ukrainian "Metis", "Konkurs" and "Shturm" complexes all have ATGMs with monoblock warheads (the tandem warhead ATGMs for them (9M131, 9M113M, 9M120 and further modifications) were all introduced by Russia in post-Soviet time). How often does that happen (maybe some lucky strikes on weak spots, like driver's viewport)?

P.S.: With "Javelin", though, there may be other factors. Does anybody know what its exact flight path in direct-attack mode is? What section of the target's profile does it select and at what angle does it make contact with it?

Edited March 8, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[antaress73]

Front upper Hull for javelin direct fire mode: All the time except for the AM where relikt stops it.

Older soviet missiles are stopped by kontakt-5 .. Not an issue

[antaress73]

Front upper Hull for javelin direct fire mode: All the time except for the AM where relikt stops it. So protection must not be better than 600mm against HEAt.

Older soviet missiles are stopped by kontakt-5 .. Not an issue

[Vanir Ausf B]

Curious. T-72B type 1989 (protection standard for T-72B3) should have 650-700 mm equivalent vs HEAT without ERA (1000 - 1100 with K-5 ERA), T-90A - 800-900 mm eq. vs HEAT without ERA (up to 1400 with K-5 ERA).

 

T-72/B upper hull without ERA is 510mm vs HEAT. And keep in mind that is line of sight resistance. A Javelin will be striking it at a steep angle, negating much of the slope.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Krasnoarmeyets]

Are you sure that you are not thinking of at least type 1984 initial T-72B, or even an earlier version? Because IIRC, various sources already give 490-500 mm vs HEAT to T-72A glacis (and that is before early 1980s "Deflection" study which gave it an additional 30 mm armor plate), and B is further uparmored.

So, does the "Javelin" in direct-attack mode make a jump at the end of the trajectory / fly at higher trajectory relative to target an makes a dive at terminal stage, or does its warhead produce a directed stream at an angle to the flight vector? Does it specifically select the lower part of the target profile to strike? At what angle would its HEAT stream typically meet the targeted area?

Edited March 9, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[akd]

Normal:

 

Direct (not used in game):

[Vanir Ausf B]

Are you sure that you are not thinking of at least type 1984 initial T-72B, or even an earlier version? Because IIRC, various sources already give 490-500 mm vs HEAT to T-72A glacis (and that is before early 1980s "Deflection" study which gave it an additional 30 mm armor plate), and B is further uparmored.

 

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-244.html

Good discussion about this. Look specifically at post #3657

 

T-72B(M)/T-90 is 540mm vs. HEAT.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html

 

 

So, does the "Javelin" in direct-attack mode make a jump at the end of the trajectory / fly at higher trajectory relative to target an makes a dive at terminal stage, or does its warhead produce a directed stream at an angle to the flight vector? Does it specifically select the lower part of the target profile to strike? At what angle would its HEAT stream typically meet the targeted area?

I have never seen a Javelin fired in direct attack mode in the game. I have no idea how antaress73 is getting them to do that. It's not like there's a direct attack mode command. The only time I have seen a Javelin hit the hull of a tank was when fired at very short range, like 100 meters, so didn't have the distance to climb to altitude.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Krasnoarmeyets]

akd:

Ooh, nice diagrams... Thank You!

Vanir Ausf B:

Hmm, interesting... Thank You for the second reference - I would have to study that, and also probably ask Fofanov where he gets the material properties coefficients.

[John Kettler]

akd,

 

That's a very strange interpretation of direct fire. To me, it looks like some sort of half baked Javelin high dive flight path.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[antaress73]

Under 100 meters yes happenrd two or three times