Jane's Rewiev about Russian tank armour

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

------------------------

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 M829A2 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."

------------------------

[Battlefront.com]

Cool stuff. Not terribly surprising given the number of new weapons and ammo introduced into NATO forces during the 1990s. I'm sure the Soviets had a similar rush of activity when the Abrams, Leopard 2, and Challenger 2 came online.

Steve

[hcrof]

I have read that before somewhere but people didn't seem to think the information was accurate. I don't know either way but it might be best not to take the article at face value.

Im sure there is someone here with some specialised knowledge who can confirm or deny it.

[MikeyD]

I did see a separate Hungarian report from some years ago testing a pretty plain-Jane T72 hull (no added armor) vs then-standard NATO 105mm APFSDS. I can't recall the details of the experiment but no penetrations to hull or turret front. They even shot a Karl Gustav (AT4) HEAT at it. That managed to blow off a fuel pannier but started no fire and did no significant damage. The one hull penetration they did get was from an experimental 105mm long rod penetrator.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Great info….

However in similar tests in the early ‘90s the same result… not surprisingly… was discovered. The results were published in Jane’s Defence Weekly in about ’92…

BTW.. do not forget about the Russian Active, Hard Kill defensive aids. Defence Update… the Israelis Jane’s…. believes the Russian Arena hard kill system would have “devastated” the ‘90s generation of NATO ATGMs. Others now have the same, 15 years later…

The Soviets built up what I think of as the “corporate knowledge” in these matters and have held on to it…

All very interesting stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[hcrof]

I have always been a fan of Soviet armour but I didn't think their tanks were that well protected! Almost makes you want to test it out in some kind of game...

[dima]

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.

No, not by a long shot I am afraid.

BTW.. do not forget about the Russian Active, Hard Kill defensive aids. Defence Update… the Israelis Jane’s…. believes the Russian Arena hard kill system would have “devastated” the ‘90s generation of NATO ATGMs. Others now have the same, 15 years later…

The active defense idea is good on paper but less so in real trials. Too many stars need to allign for it to work. Besides, how do you even approach to use it against something like Javelin. The introduction of Javelin itself was a huge leap forward and no amount of ERA can compensate for it.

The state of current russian MBT, the T-90, leaves a lot to be desired. Its ERA actually provides less coverage than that on T-80. As for T-95 - it is still a vaporware.

I've done a lot of research for CMSF about true russian tank capabilities, a lot from semi-official, but verifiable sources and can say that a lot of it is overstated. (That doesn't mean that what we read about M1A2 in Jane's is all true. For example recent pictures of destroyed Abramses from Iraq show surprisingly thin side protection)

[John Kettler]

Marwek77 aka Red Reporter,

This confirms everything I heard in harrowing intel briefings circa 1985, and I have written extensively in the Syrian threat threads and elsewhere here on the true state of military affairs then, as opposed, say, to the delusions of the designers of Avalon Hill's MBT. I was at Hughes Missile Systems Group when we found TOW had been rendered basically obsolete at a stroke, and I was there for the crash fixes thereafter, many of which I was involved in from a battle analysis perspective. The only proper antitank weapon Hughes had left was the staggeringly powerful Maverick, with a 173 lb. shaped charge, and that wasn't an Army weapon, though I believe successful helicopter tests were later conducted. Was also aware of the vulnerability of long rod penetrators to Kontakt type ERA.

dima,

From what I saw, Drozhd would've worked fine on TOW, but I have no info on tests vs. a Hellfire class weapon, let alone Javelin. Arena would be far more likely to succeed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[TempV]

That's why I believe Shock Force 2 should be set in 80's of 20th century instead of modern times. NATO vs Warsaw Pact, this would be a perfect match. Besides, it's most beloved Western nightmare stamp: Orkish, oh, my pardon, Red hordes invade the lands of Free West.

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

When i was in the army, my commander - tank captain told me something about tests running in Germany... They were shooting with Leo's against the T-72M1 and the results were very negative for West Germans. He was in exchange program in Germany and riding a real Leo. This information told him German Officer who was participating on these tests. He showed me even some photos, but sorry i don't have any copy.

I also think CM:SF2 should be vanilla 80's with modules bringing new models

[kipanderson]

Hi,

That's why I believe Shock Force 2 should be set in 80's of 20th century instead of modern times. NATO vs Warsaw Pact, this would be a perfect match.

Absolutely…. Could not agree more.

Lobbied for years… truly years for a Fulda Gap CM but for some reason that eludes me the powers that be at Battlefront… do not agree… and they are the ones who count… .

Contemporary is fun… glad to have it… but Cold War is more fun.. .

All very good fun, lots of fun CM settings to come even without Cold War..

All the best,

Kip.

[Wengart]

The game could even have one of those Red (insert noun here) names.

[dima]

That's why I believe Shock Force 2 should be set in 80's of 20th century instead of modern times. NATO vs Warsaw Pact, this would be a perfect match.

Just need to take nukes (at least tactical nukes) into consideration. Not necessarily simulating them (cause that would mean BOOM - Mission Complete) but perhaps the aftermath of them on the battlefield.

[JonS]

... nukes ... the aftermath of them on the battlefield. ...

D'ya think? I'd have thought widespread devastation would be about all you'd need to do, and you can already do that.

Chem and Bio might need special consideration though, since their effects tend to be both persistent and immediate (radiation is persistent, but the effects tend not to be immediate).

Or, BFC (or whoever) could make a blanket decision along the lines of "in this iteration of WWIII no NBC weapons are used" - and even then scen designers could sort-of elide the decision by fiddling with unit fitness levels and motivation, if they want to.

[Zwolo2003]

------------------------

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.

etc, etc."

------------------------

Gents,

I would hate to spoil the fun, but over at the TankNet forum the original post was examined and considered a fake. Given that TankNet seems highly credible as far as Internet sources go, I would consider the claim that Soviet tanks of the 1990s are "effectively impenetrable" as definitely unproven (and to me, highly dubious).

Link : http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=27279

Zwolo

PS as opposed to the Soviet tanks of 1980s when 105mm-armed tanks (including the original Abrams) could certainly have problems penetrating T-64 and T-80s from the frontal aspect

[TempV]

Firstly, the original post was about Soviet Cold War era tanks, and test were conducted with NATO Cold War era ammo. It doesn't matter when they were tested but it does matter what APFSDS was used. Similar tests were conducted in 90's by British then Americans with T-80U which they aquired with the help of third party IIRC, and this tests also proved NATO AP ammo having troubles penetrating Kontakt-5. In fact, it was M829A1, the "silver bullet". So if instead of Perestroika a conventional war would occur between NATO and Warsaw Pact, the NATO tank wouldn't be so succesfull as it supposed basing on Gulf War results. Actually a development of M829A2/A3 was caused by Kontakt-5. In contrast, British and Germans began to equip their newer tanks with longer guns.

Secondly, there is exaggeration about "fake". That discussion isn't about fake source, but mostly about effectiveness of heavy ERA.

[Secondbrooks]

When i was in the army, my commander - tank captain told me something about tests running in Germany... They were shooting with Leo's against the T-72M1 and the results were very negative for West Germans. He was in exchange program in Germany and riding a real Leo. This information told him German Officer who was participating on these tests. He showed me even some photos, but sorry i don't have any copy.

I also think CM:SF2 should be vanilla 80's with modules bringing new models

Funny how during one test BMP-2's 30mm AP round pierced T-72M1's armor and exited thru commander's or gunner's hatch. Destroying lots of expensive sensoring gear which were inserted inside tank's turret to monitor effects of impacts from 30mm AP-rounds.

Bad luck as 30mm happened to hit some "go-thru" and basically didnt' face much any armor at all... Untill it rammed itself thru hatch.

[Battlefront.com]

TempV,

Similar tests were conducted in 90's by British then Americans with T-80U which they aquired with the help of third party IIRC

I found that hard to believe, but I did some quick research and found that indeed... the British imported at least one T-80U through a shadow company set up to appear that the tank was going to Morocco. This happened in 1992. When the British were done testing the tank it went off to the US for further testing. It appears it was just the one.

Wow... amazing how easy it was to trick the Russians into selling off one of their newest and most advanced tanks.

Steve

[dima]

Wow... amazing how easy it was to trick the Russians into selling off one of their newest and most advanced tanks.

Steve

At that time there was no tricking was needed. The country was falling apart, nobody cared about anything, there was no leadership (unlike today).

Nobody wanted to continue building or maintaining the army or military complex.

Plants that were building missiles yesterday were converted to build frying pans (i kid you not).

As a result a lot of "secrets" were leaked. Just had to pay, and not that much actually.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I know. A few years later it was still pretty bad when I had a deposit down on a BMP-3. They were coming off a base in St. Petersburg. Story was the general in charge was selling stuff so he could keep his soldiers paid. That long shot ended with me getting my money back after the broker was jailed for immigration violations. Long story

Steve

[MikeyD]

Wow... amazing how easy it was to trick the Russians into selling off one of their newest and most advanced tanks.

Have you ever heard the story about how the Russians got their hands on an Abrams? The tale I heard, General Dymanics was showing the tank on a promotional tour through the Middle East. When the Abrams roadshow got to Egypt the tank 'somehow' managed to be loaded aboard the wrong ship at the port! One Abrams special-delivery straight to Russia.

[Sgt Joch]

Without turning this into another heated debate about whether Russian or American hardware is better, is there any credible evidence that CMSF's modeling of American and/or Russian tank capabilities is fundamentally wrong?

The M1 Abrams (and Challenger2 ) in game is highly vulnerable to any flank or rear shot, whether RPG, ATGM or main tank gun. I have seen M1s knocked out by frontal shots from T-72s, T-90s, even a BMP-3 in one case (lucky shot :mad:).

Although US tanks generally tend to have the upper hand over Russian tanks in CMSF, that is more due to the fact that in many scenarios: 1) most Syrian tanks (T-55s, T-62s, early T-72s) are obsolescent; and 2)US tanks generally have higher experienced crews than Syrian tanks.

and when you look at something like this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuMO3gqAJLY

..I doubt Kontakt or Relikt would make a huge difference.

[Homo ferricus]

and when you look at something like this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuMO3gqAJLY

..I doubt Kontakt or Relikt would make a huge difference.

Isn't that the famous "tank full of explosives" video? They loaded it up with C4 or sumfink to make the explosion huge and dramatic for propaganda's sake.

[ChrisND]

Isn't that the famous "tank full of explosives" video? They loaded it up with C4 or sumfink to make the explosion huge and dramatic for propaganda's sake.

I thought that was to simulate a full load of ammo and fuel.

On second look, HOLY CRAP that is a huge explosion. Just how much C4 did they put in there?!

[Sgt Joch]

I thought that was to simulate a full load of ammo and fuel.

that is what I thought also, when you fire at an "empty" AFV, you get more this effect: