Catalan

I don't know which gun the T-80UM2 Black Eagle uses, but AFAIK it's the same as the original T-80 uses - too small of a breech to fit a long-rod penetrator. Furthermore, the T-80UM2 was not accepted by the Russian Army for mass production and is generally thought as a poor design - one article said it was the conclusion of scientists having too much time and spare parts on their hands. One of the reasons why Omsk is now bankrupt.

But, the T-90, you're right, does have an improved casette which allows for longer rounds. Nevertheless, two-piece ammunition will always be at a disadvantage to one-piece ammunition (smaller penetrator), and I don't really trust Russian 'estimates' that they use to sell their tanks (as can be seen from their 'estimates' of the T-90).


Hooray for the M289A3.

__________________
If you enjoy modern military history then join modernwarstudies.net!

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i2...bees/siggy.png

Stan187

Some things from the Black Eagle design are long overdue to be intergrated into Russian tank design. Mainly reffering to a better autoloader, and compartamentalized ammunition with blow out panels.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Catalan

It would be difficult because it would require an all knew turret design. The T-95, or whatever it will be called with production officially begins, will probably incorporate these changes - although, if speculation is true it will be a completely unconventional design.

zraver

The T-80UM2 uses a cassette style autloader not the old style carousel and also uses the new long rod BM-48 APFSDS. The new turret added a lot of room.

Catalan

The casette autoloader is the 'old style autoloader'. The T-72 uses what's called a casette autoloader, while the T-80 uses a korzina autoloader (although it has the same casette around the turret ring). The T-80UM2 turret had a rear bustle which allowed the ammunition to be stored in the bustle in disposable cartridges.

zraver

NO, the old style was the carousel autloader, think amusement park pony ride that goes around in a cirlce. The cassette style is similar to what the French use in the Leclerc. It autloaders out of the turret bustle not the hull.

Triple C

That is the part that I have been trying to understand. So 105mm could achieve an aceptable kill probablity against T-72A/M at 2km? M-774's peentration abilities seemed woefully inadequate against the T-72A (105 rifle's 375mm RHA v. T-72's 380mm turret front and 400mm glacis). M883, though lethal, suffered from teething problems in accuracy and were too few in numbers. Most M-1 tankers never saw M883 before they converted to 120mm. So what 105mm shells at the time we're shooting? M774 or M883?

This can have some interesting implications. If M744 could, as you put it, achieve penetration "against all Russian armor, though penetration was not 'ensured'" at 2km, then my understanding of Late Cold War tactics would change by a good deal.

If I understand Catalan's explaination correctly, beyond 1500mm Russian 125mm loses velocity too much to be able to get killing shots on M-1's?

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

Triple C

From what I understand, it's not so much Russians puffed up their protection levels, but because their tanks were being shot at all the wrong places. Repeted RPGs to the top, side, and hatches would produce specutacular losses, as those areas of the T-72 were poorly armored and crew survivability features were poor. My question was directed the claim that plain M-1s with M774 could knock out T-72 up front, since the published numbers suggerst the otherwise.

Triple C

That is the part that I have been trying to understand. So 105mm could hit T-72A/M and expect a reasonable degree of penetration? M-774's peentration abilities seemed inadequate against the T-72A (375mm RHA v. 380mm turret front v. 400mm glacis). M883, though lethal, suffered from teething problems in accuracy and were too few in numbers. Most M-1 tankers never saw M883 before they converted to 120mm. So what 105mm guns at the time were shooting? M774 or M883?

This can have some interesting implications. If M744 could, as Zraver put, achieve penetration "against the bulk of Rusisan armor, though to different degrees," then my understanding of Late Cold War tactics would change by a good deal.

If I understand Catalan's explaination correctly, Russian 125mm loses velocity too quickly to be able to get killing shots on M-1's due to lower velocity. Is this correct?

zraver

The sucess of 105mm gun vs T-72's is well established. Isreal vs Syria, Iran vs Iraq, Coalition vs Iraq etc Russian protection claims are over rated.

with 5 large drag causing fins yes you are correct.

Catalan

I will scan in my sources when I get to my other house. The casette is the part of the autoloader around the turret ring - the rounds are stored in casettes, in two pieces.

Catalan

I'm not entirely sure which ammunition we were using at any given time - it's hard to follow. Not many published works actually follow it. After the 1973 war I know that Israel exported the M111 to most of NATO, although it was soon obsolete (increase in protection of the T-72), but it was mentioned that there was already a new round to combat the new T-72.

Right now, MECAR has a 105mm round that penetrates ~510mm @ 2,000m and Rheinmetall's penetrates ~500mm @ 1,000m. Rheinmetall guarantees penetration of the T-72.

It would have - in the late 80s the Soviet Union, by all means, had a major advantage over us. The entire Warsaw pact had 2.5 times the amount of armor deployed to Central Europe than NATO. Even assuming that the United States was able to put its deployable armor on the ground (all of NATO's armor in Central Europe at that time would be estimated at around 10,000 vehicles), the Warsaw Pact would have over 20,000. The introduction of ERA rendered 90% of our anti-tank weapons ineffective until the deployment of tandem warheads on existig missiles.

By reading some of the articles published in the late 80s by Armed Forces Journal there was also a really big scare on the future Soviet tanks and their projected protection.

Beyond the loss of velocity, Soviet rounds are constricted in size. The autoloader forces them to store their rounds in two pieces, shortening the length of the penetrator. In Western designs the propellant sits around the penetrator, allowing for longer diameter to length ratios. Soviet ammunition could never achieve this due to the inherent design of their tank.

Triple C

The information of what shells for what time was gathered on tankneters. Some of those had been cold warriors. According to them they saw lots of M-774s.

The success of Israeli arms against Syrian T-72s was what prompted the Soviets to upgrade them to T-72A/M standard with increased armor. M883s had teething problems... Gulf War I M933 and M833 were 'fixed' versions. What were the Iranians popping when they were fighting Iraq?

By 1986s M-1A1 with 120mm and improved Chobham was introduced. I expect those to match the T-72 quite well.

Catalan

The Syrians were using the basic T-72. The penetration of the glacis plate by Israeli 105mm ammunition led to the development of the T-72A by the Soviet Union. The Iranians were using whatever ammunition they had been given by the West prior to the revolution, or copies of it thereof.

zraver

2A46M Autoloader: T-64 model

Genrally speaking if Vassily Fovanov says its so with Russian tanks it is.

With the threat of the T-series, massive numbers, WMD's and Germany's suicidal forward defense requirement the only options NATO had were technology and airpower.

The real Soviet edge was in the mid to late 70's. They could still nearly match us in the air and had superior armor and the US Army had missed an entire modernisation cycle thanks to Vietnam which also demoralize dthe nation. By 1985 the crucible had passed. The threat was still there but increasing numbers of 120mm gunned tanks, MLRS systems and hellfire armed helos along with unrivalled airpower more then countered the ERA scare.

Plus we also had the new Ohio's, MX's, and 688's employed en masse clearing the sea lanes and providing a wonderful deterent, stealth and SDI were forcing Russia into bankruptcy what it all meant was that the Soviet's window had passed.

By the time I had enlisted in 90 it was clear they had lost. They were still the bad guys but the edge was gone. All those journals your talking about switched thier context from "OMG the bear is coming" to "OMG the bear might catch up".

Even popular fiction felt the shift, Western fiction writers and movies shifted from an apocalyptic WW3 (Brother in the land, Alas Babylon, Red Dawn) style back towards a hooray for our side theme like Hackett's the Third World War and Clancy's Red Storm Rising. Even the book Red Army which portrayed a Soviet win, had the American's winning thier fight.

Added to this was the way the USN ass raped the Iranian navy in the tanker war, Reagen and Gorbachev trading visits, the Berlin Wall coming down (1989) , Soviets losing influence Africa, ME, and Central America all painted a picture of America triumphant and an evil Empire in decline.