PDA

View Full Version : OT: T72 Tanks and the like.........



LEBillfish
08-10-2006, 11:40 AM
Saw a military channel show on the A10 Warthog and it got me wondering..........Is a T72 or other Soviet tank so much more tough and powerful then a Tiger say?......The reason I ask is, if it isn't, couldn't they have just put .50 calibers in the A10 instead of the 30mm depleated Uranium Gatling gun to flip the T72's over and blow them up?.....Would have saved a lot of expense and also they could of carried more ammo to kill more tanks?

Anyone know?

Rood-Zwart
08-10-2006, 11:55 AM
T72 and such are made from delta wood, designed by the same guys who designed the LaGG3 (who where the same ones that p0rked all the US .50's...ej,the war was Cold and Cruel!!)

MEGILE
08-10-2006, 12:08 PM
Since 1988, Russian T-72s have been fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA). It's a type of armour that reacts to the impact of a weapon, ie a tank round, and reduces the damage to the vehicle.

An element of explosive reactive armour consists of a sheet or slab of high explosive sandwiched between two plates, typically metal, called the reactive or dynamic elements. On attack by a penetrating weapon, the explosive detonates, forcibly driving the metal plates apart to damage the penetrator. Against a shaped charge, the projected plates disrupt the metallic jet penetrator, effectively providing a greater path-length of material to be penetrated. Against a long rod penetrator, the projected plates serve to deflect and break up the rod.

ERA has a weakness however. Reactive armour can be defeated with multiple hits in the same place.

An example of ERA
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7088/russiantks6.jpg

The Russian claim, an ERA plate can resist a single 105mm round fired from 2,000m.

faustnik
08-10-2006, 12:09 PM
.50 cal worked by flipping Tigers over. T-72s have a lower center of gravity so, require more flipping power.

LEBillfish
08-10-2006, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Megile:....ERA has a weakness however. Reactive armour can be defeated with multiple hits in the same place..

hehe.....So does that mean A10's should have their .50 calibers synced?


Originally posted by faustnik:
.50 cal worked by flipping Tigers over. T-72s have a lower center of gravity so, require more flipping power.

Well, then shouldn't you just shoot them then at a lower point from further away?.....That way you'd have more leverage and could flip them over with .50 calibers like a tiger....

faustnik
08-10-2006, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:


Well, then shouldn't you just shoot them then at a lower point from further away?.....That way you'd have more leverage and could flip them over with .50 calibers like a tiger....

But, T-72s like to hide next to sand dunes.

zugfuhrer
08-10-2006, 01:27 PM
Reactive armour don€t initiate by hits from non-explosive projectiles slower than 2500m/s?

Reactive armour needs to be initiated by explosives or very fast projectiles like the penetrator created by HEAT-cone (High Explosive Anti Tank ). All handheld antitank-rifles like the RPG, Carl-Gustav, AT4, Miniman, Tow, Sagger, Hellfire, Bill, and modern Antitank mines use HEAT for armour penetration.

Its called chemical energy penetrator.

The other method is kinetic energy penetration. Subcalibre ammo like APFSDS Armour piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot and full calibre ammo like the 30 mm APt Armour Piercing Tracer projectile don€t initiate TNT (a mix of wax and penthyl) plastic (a mix of mineral oil and penthyl) or other modern explosives unless they hit the detonator.
Depleted uranium is used in AP because of its high weight and it ability to create sharp fragments when deformed by the impact. After penetration it creates uranium-oxide dust which cover the inside of the vehicle with a small layer of white dust, it is poisones and creates Beta-radiation for a short period of time. It is dangerous to inhale the dust. It can cause lung-cancer.

Reactive armour is constructed to disturb the penetrator from a HEAT warhead. If initiated it is useless against kinetic penetrators.
The disturbance of the HEAT-penetrator is as the penetator (Velocity in the tip of the penetrator is aprox 5000m/s) initiates the explosive layer in the reactive armour module.
The explosion pushes a metal plate away and this disturbs the HEAT-penetrator.
To be full functional the pentrator must be undisturbed for full penetration.
If the penetrator is particulated it loose most of it penetration and will be more like a shrapnel.

Standoff is also much vital for the penetration.
PzKW IV H got hard-hardened plates on its sides to make HEAT-projectiles detonate on it and loose its penetrating power and to move the hard-hardened cap, and to split velocity projectiles.

Treetop64
08-10-2006, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Saw a military channel show on the A10 Warthog and it got me wondering..........Is a T72 or other Soviet tank so much more tough and powerful then a Tiger say?......The reason I ask is, if it isn't, couldn't they have just put .50 calibers in the A10 instead of the 30mm depleated Uranium Gatling gun to flip the T72's over and blow them up?.....Would have saved a lot of expense and also they could of carried more ammo to kill more tanks?

Anyone know?

That's actually kinda funny, Billfishy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
08-10-2006, 01:47 PM
nice haul fish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEBillfish
08-10-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
nice haul fish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh my.....whatever do you mean? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

BBB_Hyperion
08-10-2006, 04:04 PM
Hmmm intresting point how good are 50s with depleted uranium rounds ?
Anyone got tests at hand i bet that bad they cant be .)

Of course the ideal design for anti tank weapons is something different.

Interestingly, the current 30x173 API loading for the GAU-8/A used in the A-10 tankbuster develops 207,000 joules, and also uses a Hartkernmunition shot, although with a depleted uranium rather than tungsten carbide core.

Ideal around 200,000 joules.

(from )
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

So 50s dont have the mass to compete nor the speed.

(Kinetic energy 1/2 m v^2)

A Tiger tank can compete to todays tanks in armor thickness but it is not the same type of armor. Todays armor consists of different layers some metal some plastics etc like a web. Mostly welted and round for maximum deflection and less spots for the perfect hit.

anarchy52
08-10-2006, 04:22 PM
Latest ERA like Kontakt-5 and Kaktus offer improved performance against KE penetrators.
It was the main design goal behind the development of the most recent ERA generation.

MEGILE
08-10-2006, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Latest ERA like Kontakt-5 and Kaktus offer improved performance against KE penetrators.
It was the main design goal behind the development of the most recent ERA generation.

A new technology of electric reactive armour is in development, where the armour is made up of two conductive plates separated by some space or by an insulating material, creating a high-power capacitor. In operation, a high-voltage power source charges the armour. When an incoming body penetrates the plates, it closes the circuit to discharge the capacitor, dumping a great deal of energy into the penetrator, which may vaporize it or even turn it into a plasma, significantly diffusing the attack. It is not public knowledge whether this is supposed to function against both KE-penetrators and shaped charge jets, or only the latter. This technology has not yet been introduced on any operational platform.

MEGILE
08-10-2006, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:


So does that mean A10's should have their .50 calibers synced?


The A-10 has a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun... synching in the traditional sense of a WW2 fighter, for example a P-51, is not an option.

Given the weight of each delpleted uranium round, the muzzle velocity and rate of fire.. even ERA would not save a T-72.

LEBillfish
08-10-2006, 08:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Charos
08-10-2006, 10:11 PM
Its been top secret for over half a century now - in fact I could only find one picture.

I present to you the 50 Cal Silver Bullet.

http://homepages.gemsi.com/tmsurplus/PenSilver.JPG

LEBillfish
08-10-2006, 11:30 PM
So does this mean you can use .50 caliber to flip over and kill T72's like Tiger tanks?
OR
you must use 30mm to flip over and kill T72's like Tiger tanks?
OR
you can only use .50 caliber to flip over and kill T72's like Tiger tanks if they are synced?
OR
neither .50 caliber or 30mm will flip over and kill T72's like Tiger tanks?
OR
.50 calibers never flipped over and killed Tiger tanks so there is no way they can a T72?

I'm so confused now..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

BBB_Hyperion
08-11-2006, 02:39 AM
I am convinced that all 1:72 Tanks can be killed and flipped over by 1 50 round alone . A true antitank weapon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
08-11-2006, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
nice haul fish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh my.....whatever do you mean? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just what I was thinking, Pingu. She`s becoming almost as good and almost as random as Raaaid.

MEGILE
08-11-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:

you must use 30mm to flip over and kill T72's like Tiger tanks?


It entirely depends on the gun platform. For example, there is a stark contrast between the power of an MK-108 and the GAU-8/A, even though both weapons use 30mm ammunition.

Dtools4fools
08-11-2006, 09:32 AM
Hard to find data on Chobham armoured tanks, but T-72 has 280mm turret armour and 200mmm glacis, so quite a tiny little bit more than a Tiger I...

Thought that composite/Chobham armour cannot yet be shaped into round shapes, that's why Challenger, M1A2, Leo 2 have flat frontal armour surfaces and T-72 round turret is cast armour only (plastered with ERA).

In any case non-synced 0.50cal hits into driversperiscope will easily disable any of those tanks, multiple hits will even blow'em up.

Usually two 50ies are sufficiant, anything more is overkill and plain gamey.
*****

****

MEGILE
08-11-2006, 09:54 AM
The debate of chobham vs. cast armour + ERA is an interesting one.

The effectiveness of Chobham armour was demonstrated in the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003, where no Coalition tank was destroyed by either the obsolete Iraqi armour or ATGWs.

In some cases the tanks in question were subject to multiple hits by both KE-penetrators and HEAT rounds, but the old Russian ammunition used by the Iraqis, in their Polish licence built T-72s, their old T-55s bought from Russia and upgraded with "Enigma" type armour, and T-62 tanks left them completely incapable of penetrating the front armour of Coalition tanks. It's also worth noting that the Iraqis rarely actually hit the Coalition tanks, because of lack of training and inferior optics. To date, only 5-10 Chobham-protected tanks have been defeated by enemy fire in combat, including an M1 that was hit on the side skirts, below the turret ring by a PG-7VR, a tandem charge RPG, in the Second Gulf War. The jet penetrated the skirting armour, side hull armour, traversed across the tanks interior and penetrating a further 1.5 to 2 inches into the hull armour on the other side.

LEBillfish
08-11-2006, 12:21 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/popup-tagflag.jpg

zugfuhrer
08-14-2006, 02:31 PM
This latest ERA, how does it work?
I can se problems with how to ignite against a APFSDS and not against a .50 projectile.
Improved performance?
How much does it reduce the effect of KE projectiles?
I dont see the point in using both Reactive armour and spaced armour.
I think that if reactive armour is put on spaced armour, the constructor have no high thoughts about the spaced armour.
Leo2, M1, Challenger, LeClerc dont have reactive armour on the tanks, because they dont need it.
I have read that the APFSDS of the ammo to Iraque T-72 was not eaven made of tungsten, but of steel.
Perhaps it is enough for steel-armour but not for modern armour.
Any more info about the tandem charge. It is a way to deal with reactive armour but the standoff between the skirting armour and the hull armour is so big that it must severely reduce the penetrating capacity of the RPG.
The first charge shall ignite the reactive armour and the second shall penetrate armour.


I dont think that eaven the TOW-2 has the capacity to penetrate through both sides of the tank under the best conditions.
Because the front of the penetrating mass of the HEAT-charge travels at aprox 5000m/s and the rear of it only with 1500m/s the penetrator will be separatet very quick and loose its effect.
Who has published thoose figures?
I am very interested.

HayateAce
08-14-2006, 03:14 PM
Once again, ur avatar is scaring my children.