Would APDS have been able to kill a T-64A/72Ural glacis from the front?

[Bobjack1240]

In this simulation, (M60A1 vs T-64 (Early) | Armor Penetration Simulation) 105mm M728 apds rips through a T-64 glacis. However, this is without the 20mm backplate that was installed after 1972. Would the backplate have made that much of a difference?

 

Would M60A1/M48A5 have been hopeless without apfsds because M-735 was only procured in a very limited timeframe? M-774 replaced it and started procurement with 40,000 rounds produced in Fiscal Year 1979 (Congressional hearings).

Edited July 14, 2022 by Bobjack1240

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Bobjack1240 said:

In this simulation, (M60A1 vs T-64 (Early) | Armor Penetration Simulation) 105mm M728 apds rips through a T-64 glacis. However, this is without the 20mm backplate that was installed after 1972. Would the backplate have made that much of a difference?

 

Would M60A1/M48A5 have been hopeless without apfsds because M-735 was only procured in a very limited timeframe? M-774 replaced it and started procurement with 40,000 rounds produced in Fiscal Year 1979 (Congressional hearings).

Interesting.  Most feedback we have received has been the opposite - the upper glacis of the T64 being too good at resisting the 105mm.  At what ranges have you seen this?  

[Bobjack1240]

I would assume 1 km. The creator of the video didn't say the range. He also did a M-735 video at 1.5 km so I would assume somewhere between 1-1.5 km.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Is there supposed to be a video in the first post? If so it's not showing up on any device I have.

Note that it was only the original T-64 that had the 80+140 upper front hull armor array. The T-64A and T-72 Ural had 80+105+20.

[Bobjack1240]

 

[Bobjack1240]

Even with the 80+105+20, would there have been any chance for M-728 apds? Or would 105mm gun tanks be basically hopeless without M-735 or M-774 apfsds.

[IICptMillerII]

To answer your question, yes. M728 was not sufficient to punch through the frontal hull armor of the T-64A.

However, there is currently an issue in game where the frontal armor of the T-64A is overperforming against M735 and M774. It is a known bug and will hopefully be fixed whenever Cold War gets another round of bug fixing. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Thanks for the video.

It's too bad he choose the original T-64 armor to simulate rather than the far more prevalent T-64A and B.

[MikeyD]

I'm old enough to remember when 105 APFSDS was introduced. Not long after, the Pentagon finally admitted to the press that that, yes, the previous APDS sabot round was indeed crap. Same old APDS problems we heard about from WWII British guns. Erratic flight path due to the chance of the round not separating cleanly from the sabot. The likelihood the high-hardness round would skip or shatter on a highly angled plate. When introduced, the M738 APFSDS was supposed to be NATO's savior but it didn't quite live up to the billing. Then the Pentagon PANICKED! They didn't really solve their endemic APFSDS problems til the M900 round and that round needed a strengthened gun breech with an altered recoil system to handle it.

Edited July 15, 2022 by MikeyD

[Bobjack1240]

This was at 1.5 km. M-735vs T-72 Ural glacis. There's another test firing sim on Tankograd where the round has much more penetration at 1 km range.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Bobjack1240

[Amedeo]

The T-64 was designed to be frontally protected against 105mm APDS at normal combat ranges so the T-64A and the base T-72 should be impregnable to M728 hits, save for weakened zones/lower hull or point blank hits.

For what concerns the performance of 105mm APFSDS against Soviet tanks, there are a few older threads with many details. Just search the forum for M735.

[Centurian52]

The round in the video is hitting a weak point in the armor that has to be carved out to make room for the driver, so it is traveling through significantly less textolite than it would if it had struck further down or to the left or right (it looks like the round travels through a little over half as much armor (2/3rds?) as it would have needed to if it had struck some other part of the plate). One of the things that became apparent to me the first time I watched that video was just how much larger the driver's weak point is in reality than it appears when you are just looking at the frontal surface of the armor. On the surface the hole in the armor is just large enough to accommodate the driver's optics. But when you consider all three dimensions, that is a sizeable chunk of the frontal armor that is significantly thinner, all because the driver needs to be able to see where he is going.

[chuckdyke]

How does the fighting compartment of an M60 compare with the Leo1?

 

[Erwin]

Interesting.  Thanks...

[decimated550]

On 7/14/2022 at 11:37 PM, MikeyD said:

I'm old enough to remember when 105 APFSDS was introduced. Not long after, the Pentagon finally admitted to the press that that, yes, the previous APDS sabot round was indeed crap. Same old APDS problems we heard about from WWII British guns. Erratic flight path due to the chance of the round not separating cleanly from the sabot. The likelihood the high-hardness round would skip or shatter on a highly angled plate. When introduced, the M738 APFSDS was supposed to be NATO's savior but it didn't quite live up to the billing. Then the Pentagon PANICKED! They didn't really solve their endemic APFSDS problems til the M900 round and that round needed a strengthened gun breech with an altered recoil system to handle it.

 

wow maybe the Soviets should have attacked in 1979, against our overmatched and underfunded forces.  They could have had both germanys under their control   the M1 M2 M109 AH64 were still in testing