Grunting

Could somebody please tell me the state of play with both Russian and Chinese modern Armour? Are their tanks "comparable" to let's say, the Challenger or Abrams?
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

zraver

They certainly claim they are.

Armor- Russian and Chinese Armor is still less weighty than western MBT's. Of the weight they do have for armor they use some of it for active systems, and more still for ERA which can be vulnerable to counter measures such as tandem charges. Of the remaining weight able to be devoted to real armor they have as much or more frontal area to cover than a slab sided Western design. It is a myth that from the front T series type tanks are small targets. While the T-90 does have about half a meter smaller profile, its long angled turret and hull faces actually create more surface area facing the enemy on a level plain. The Russian's for thier part tacitly admit this, operational deployment of tanks now uses a reduced ammo load to help prevent the catastrophic flying frying pan that results when BAE results from a penetrating hit.

Gun Power- The Russians love to talk up the range of the Releks-M tube launched ATGM. They tend to ignore that it is slow, and being only 125mm does not pack a big enough warhead to seriously threaten the leading Western MBT (M1A2, Leo2A6, Chall2CLIP). For pure gun power both the Russians and Chinese claim thier 125mm guns are at least equal to the NATO 120mmL44. They are not. The 125mm uses two piece ammunition this limits the overall length of the penetrator and thus its ability to transfer energy and its over all weight both critical in achieving penetration. They both also use tungsten alloys vs DU. Tungsten alloys are actually worse for the environment despite the claims about DU and they are not pyrophoric and self sharpening like DU.

bugs

I think u lost him when you said BAE

__________________
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Firral

The weight of dynamic protection of 1.5 tons "Kontakt-5" and 2.3 tons "Relict" is 3-5 % from weight of the tank. It is not enough!!!
Besides the given kinds of dynamic protection counteract action armour-piercing sub-calibre of a shell on greater distances (at speed less than 1300-1400 km/s) because protective plates of the device are executed from two various materials, an acoustic impedance of a material of the protective plate arranged first on course of the getting means of defeat, it is less (from an aluminium alloy), than an acoustic impedance of a material of the second protective plate (from constructional steel).
Dynamic protection of type «Relict» from 70 % probability counteracts tandem charges.
Jet protection is rather effective, for this reason you have decided it to use on new M1 (look a picture below)
Let's not name the facts - a myth.



T-90 and M1A2
(I shall notice, that from sides of tower T-90 there is a jet armour which "hangs" and behind which already there is no basis of a tower, i.e. it influences the area of a target, but is not the purpose of a shell (behind them it is empty))

Not truly.
Reduction of loading of an ammunition is practice of use of the tank without lateral jet protection in Groznom in 95-96 years. Only in this case you can get in an ammunition load from RPG. Even if on the tank rubber "skirt" is established, this shot will not bring result.
You again have confused all :
3BM32 3BM39 3BM48 3BM52 - uranium cores.

New means of protection on M1A2:

Attached Images

OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg (483.5 KB, 87 views)

__________________

m1tch311

Ill elaborate on what zraver. Typically their inferior to western designs. A lot of Chinese tanks are copies of Russian ones with a few different nuts n' bolts. The modern day Russian MBT (t-90) is really not as good as the Russian want you to think. The t-90 is actually a marketing scheme. When the Russians went into Chechnya and lost a bunch of t-80s and t-72s that even further damaged the Russian export tank market. So the Russian with their "innovation" simply renamed a upgraded t- 72 and thus, the t-90 was born. The t-90 never saw action in chech so its name wasnt soiled while in fact a buncha identical t72s got destroyed.

P.S. T-90s are also cheaper than M1s so you could get more of these expendable tanks, Lenin said "quantity has a quality all its own".

__________________
My RIGHT as an American to PWN!!

bugs

I love those bricks...
maybe it`s time for a new tank.

Firral

War in the Chechen Republic 95 ' not a problem of the weak tank
War in the Chechen Republic 95 ' a problem of disgusting tactics

lastdingo

Gun & armor

Russian MBT frontal protection (of modern models with heavy ERA) is probably able to withstand 120mmL/44 hits - it's impossible to discuss this accurately in open domain. But remember that the increase of 120mm APFSDS penetration from about 1980 till today was primarily a function of ever longer and thinner penetrators. That increased their susceptibility to heavy ERA (and IIRC: DU is more susceptible to lateral influences than tungsten).

T-72, -80, -90 sides won't withstand a 120mm hit (except probably at some small spots).

Quite the same applies to most Western tanks - frontal armor penetration is very unlikely (at least gunners sight and coax machine gun create ballistic windows), side armor penetration by 125mm is very likely.

Both Western and Russian tanks are vulnerable in addition to such penetrations. Sensors can be damaged, tracks can be blasted apart, the engine is usually susceptible to some damage, optics can be shattered, blasts can un-zero the gun and take out electronics, turret roof is thinly protected, belly is usually not proofed against stacked AT blast mines, that fume remover of the barrel (forgot the translation) is susceptible, the crew can be shot and hit by fragments when unbuttoned and and and...
Mission and mobility kills are much easier to achieve than complete tank destruction.

Other weapons

Long-range missiles are not really relevant - they could be a problem for attack helicopters over open terrain, though.

Russian often have a remote-controlled (manual) heavy machine gun on top - an advantage in some situations, but a problem for camouflaging.

Sensors

Western sensors are superior in most modern tanks - especially at night (not so relevant at day if no smoke is in use).

Availability

The lower MMP / ground pressure and weight of Russian tanks allows them to negotiate more terrain and smaller bridges - that could be an advantage.

Maintenance of Russian tanks is a major drawback - time for exchange of parts, longevity of the barrel and repair times are rather poor.

Western tanks

M1s are numerous, as are Leopard 2 - but Leclerq and Challenger2 are extremely rare in the NATO (few hundreds each). Some M1s in depots have still 105mm guns IIRC.
Italian Ariete MBTs (some hundreds) are not fully comparable to the heavier tanks and their frontal armor might fail against newer 125mm APFSDS.
Older AMX-30, M60 and Leopard1 are still in service (Turkey has lots of old MBTs IIRC) and clearly inferior to newer T-72's versions.

The really important factors

But in the end, the operational employment and crew quality (training, tactics, morale, initiative) are much more important than the equipment itself.

Another very important point is the co-operation (most of it by training, not by orders) between indirect fire, tanks and infantry.
The tank is only a single part of the combined arms team and a tool, after all.

m1tch311

Agreed but the t-90 is still just a upgraded t-72 and a good marketing scheme. Those Russians are good marketers, quite a few t-90s have sold to India and Russia.

Skywatcher

Doesn't the latest Chinese tanks have heavier armor than the Russian ones? The ZTZ-99 has at least eight to ten more tons than the T-90.

As for the Chinese APFSDS penetration claims, the only reason I can think of is that the Chinese have messed around with the autoloader to fire both single and dual piece ammo.

zraver

[quote=Firral;493234]


Firral, you know me well enough that I don't usually speak out my arse. Take a good hard look at a T-90. With its sloping the real surface area is greater than the Abrams tank that uses near vertical slabbing to reduce the real area.

.l
.l
.l
.l
takes up less space than

..../
.../
../
./




Unless your in a T series you genrally want more ammo in combat.

As far as I know Russia has not deployed them. and I believe the 3Bm48 in a Tunsten-cobalt alloy.

Lastdingo

That may have held true through the M829A1, but not the next 2 generations. The A2 was designed to have improved penetration and sheer resistance vs the k5 type of ERA. The M829A3 is designed to defeat more modern HERA. The M829 is both longer but also heavier maintaining roughly the same 30/1 LD ratio used by almost all real long rod penetrators.One of things being rumored is a DU staballoy made with molybdenum that is very durable and able to resist sheer.

ground pressure is function of weight divided by on the gorund track length and width. A 20 ton tank with a thin enough track will have more ground pressure than a 60 ton MBT with wide and long tracks. Bridges of course are dependent on total load bearing so ground pressure is not as much of a factor. 46 tons does mean more bridges are open vs 62 tons but most armies with MBT's have CL 70 bridging capability.

Skywatcher,

yes, but whose is better? The Russians put thier ceramic insierts on the inside, the Chinese on the outside. The Chinese tanks are modular, Russians are not but the Russian's have a lot more experiance with military ceramics.

No, public domain pictures show a round no more than 650mm long 2 peace ammo. The Chinese claim thier gun creates more 'energy', but thats just propaganda. Ke is a function of mass and velocity- Ke=.5mxV^2 joules. They give a muzzel velocity equal to the newest 2A46m5 guns and the pictures show a typical L/D ratio. Since Russia uses both Tungsten and DU rounds the mass of the Chinese rounds cannot be noticeably greater than a Russian round of the same dimensions. The secrets in round design is not how to get it shaped right (its a dart) but how to get it to keep from deforming on impact so that it can transmit its Ke into force upon impact. Russia anjd NATO have been at that game for decades and for China to come out of nowhere and have the worlds best round is hogwash. No round in the world has penetration equal to 150% of its length. The best I have seen claimed and still find credible seems to top out around 115% for long rod penetrators and 125% for short rod penetrators

As I learn more i revise my estimates but I have found that most rounds penetration can be roughly estimated by taking estimated Ke and dividing by 10500 to 12,500 depending on how conservative you are

M829A3 if we assume a sabot and fin weight of 1kg thats a 9kg penetrator 4.5mx 1555m/s=10881112.5j/1000= 10.8mj of energy/ 11,500 (middle of the pack) penetrating 946mm RHAe. The M829A3 is 835mm long so 115% of 835 would be 960mm RHAe so my estimate is within that range

/12,500=906mm RHAe
/10,500=1036mm RHAe

A Chinese round with a penetrator weight of 6.5kg 650mm long traveling at 1750m/s generates 9953125j 9.9mj max penetration/ 10,500=947mm- way past the max of 812. shorter rounds can translate thier energy into force more effectively than longer rounds, but as total penetration is a function of length longer is better.

/11,500= 865 (again past the max of 812)
/12,500= 796


800mm seems to be the max the Chinese round will do.

Firral

Zraver, I spoke about the area of a target (i.e. a face-to-face projection) am is the area which you see in a sight. The area less, the it is more difficult to you to get in it.

Inclined sheets give more resistance APFSDS and to hollow-charge shells. At identical thickness of sheets, at an inclined leaf of the armour - thickness for penetration of shells
L=Li/sin A
Where: Li - true thickness of a leaf
A - corner of an inclination

Look at tower Merkava:




Thus, you have lacks at direct sheets of the armour.

3BM32 and 3BM39 - are very widely widespread
3BM48 - only on new tanks
3BM52 - it is not enough (still experimentally)

There are two kinds 3BM48:
3BM48 "Svinets" - with uranium (a material "B") the core
3BM48 "Svinets-2" - with the core from a tungstic alloy
Tungstic alloy has some advantages before uranium, but I cannot tell to you about yet it precisely.

bugs

SHOULD WE INCLUDE ucrainian armor ?

Firral

You are right only partially.
That sometimes name " T-90 early releases " has name T-72BU. It was issued since 1992.
Later, it have improved:
New welded tower
New engine B-92C2
Complex of management of fire (1А45 analogue T-80U)
The new device of a night image
Complex optics - electronic suppression TShU-1 «Shtora»
Equipments of remote undermining of a осколочно-demolition shell with a special fuse in the set point of a flight path
Antiaircraft-machine-gun installation with remote control
New multilayered the combined armour
The new built in dynamic protection «Kontakt-V», (which provides protection both against hollow-charge shells, and from APFSDS.)

It already was the new tank which is referred to T-90C, is perfect with other characteristics, than T-72BU.
At the moment, for the Russian Armed forces are made T-90A (It is improved T-90C)
On this tank:
New welded tower (it is a little changed T-90C)
New dynamic protection "Relict"
Rate of fire of the automatic device of a loading is increased
The quantity of dynamic protection is increased
New, more powerful engine B-99
More modern device of a night image
New structure of the multilayered combined armour (protection from APFSDS is increased)
Transmission is improved
On the battle parameters it is the tank in 3 times exceeds T-72BU.

PS: Unfortunately according to the arrangement (which have now suspended) on restriction of armed forces in the Europe, these tanks were made for the military units was beyond Urals Mountains.
However since 2008 they will complete military units of the central Russia. I hope that I can see it in operation. Earlier, I saw T-90A only on exhibitions of arms MAKS-2003.

Skywatcher

Zraver: I meant that couldn't China have developed its own long rod penetrator and modified their autoloaders to fire it?

Though they would probably still be using their two piece ammo for cost reasons/logistical, and the long rod penetrator goes the way of things like the 120mm anti tank gun and PL-9 as stuff that the PLA never bothered to adopt, for whatever reason.