But the aluminum hull didn't react well to fire.
Posted on 06/10/2018 8:00:47 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Your son was in error. The T-72 is demonstrably not aluminum and never was. Go look at the one at the Patton Tank Museum or Fort Benning. The Soviets weren’t dumb enough to make a tank out of aluminum. On the other hand, the US was. M
Also, keep in mind that some of the actual T-72s your son saw were the deliberately gimped export models, and they weren’t even the best of those at the time. The remainder were locally produced (bad) copies called the Lion of Babylon - it is debated whether these were all local production or merely local rebuilds. Again, go look at the ones here in the US to see the differences if you doubt it. There’s actual Russian ones at Fort Benning in the museum there; there’s an Iraqi one on display at Fort Hood. I’ve seen a Russian built one and an Iraqi ‘built’ one up close in person in museums and shows. They’re worlds apart in quality.
Your assumption that that’s a shot trap between the turret and hull is also in error. What you’re seeing is explosive-reactive armor blocks on top of a classic Soviet/Russian ‘inverted frying pan’ turret. Also, modern ATGMs don’t ricochet like that - neither do modern antitank rounds. Otherwise, the gap between the turret and hull of the M1 Abrama would be a problem (and it does look like a shot trap) but it isn’t.
This is what a T-90 turret looks like with some of the ERA removed: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/T-90_snorkel.jpg
That’s not how ERA, even heavy ERA works. It doesn’t deflect penetrator rounds down through the hull - and modern APFSDS sabot rounds don’t ricochet off much anyway.
You’re also forgetting that the T-90S has an active protection system that will destroy the TOW before it gets close enough to damage the tank... and no NATO main battle tank, until the crash program to mount the Israeli Trophy system on a few US Abrams tanks, has an APS. At all. Which is why the Turks are having their Ex-German-Army Leopard 2A4s and 2A5s ripped apart by Russian Konkurs missiles. Single Konkurs take out NATO standard tanks, where in the Chechen wars taking out a Russian APS-protected tank took at least six fired in a swarm attack to saturate the defense.
Presenting the M551 Sheridan tank, the only tank fielded by a major power in the post-WW2 era that was made of aluminum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan
Yup, we were the idiots who made an aluminum tank.
I think he’s still trying to get the can open. :P
It’s Kontakt-5 ERA. Versus the US M829A3 and M829A4 rounds it is ineffective.
“However patents from Alliant Techsystems (ATK) show us a different possibility of the M829A3 design: instead of utilizing an elongated DU penetrator with conventional tip to defeat tanks fitted with heavy ERA by “brute force”, it is suggested to use a special tip assembly to overcome ERA. The tip is a solid steel construction with a length “greater than 100 mm”, while the main penetrator has a length of “about 630 mm, preferably greater than about 650 mm, and more preferably greater than about 670 mm”. Specifically the last value is interesting, because this is very close to the reported length of the penetrators used in the previous M829A1 and M829A2 APFSDS rounds. Furthermore the thickness of the rod was increased from 22 to 25 mm, which result in a 67% higher bending stiffness (and thus better performance against ERA).
Such a penetrator design has a big benefit against targets protected by heavy ERA, which is what the main target of the M829A3 development was. The solid steel tip will punch a hole into the ERA, but is designed with a special weakpoint at the connection to the main penetrator; it will break of instead of transfering the stress created by the interaction with the ERA-plates onto the main penetrator. While the M829A1 was unable to defeat the contemporary Soviet tanks with Kontakt-5 heavy ERA, the M829A2 was designed as “brute force” solution against Kontakt-5 armed Soviet tanks. The M829A3 was the “elegant way” to defeat better armored tanks with Kontakt-5 or the follow-up ERA.”
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/02/m829a3-apfsds-penetration-power-common.html
BAM! There it is.
And when you’ve spent your formative years memorizing the Koran, there isn’t much time left for learning practical stuff like how to be a mechanic.
Is there a market for our military contractors to build a less expensive and better suited tank in the Middle East for not only the US but our allies or do we leave that to the Russians?
So glad your hindsight is so clear, maybe you should have said something 15 years ago....
What we did in IRQ, politics notwithstanding, was honorable. Things change, that’s the difficult part of waging war then waking away from the peace- it’s called a vacuum, and the worst sort often fill it up and march on.
We (Obama) left a vacuum and voila’ IRN and SYR/ISIS tried to fill it.
There isn’t one at Knox. They hauled off almost all the historic armor from the Patton Museum to Benning several years ago, with the idea that a new museum would be built there for it there. Hasn’t happened yet. It’s all sitting in warehouses (best case) or outside (hope not).
Exactly
8 of those 12 years your hero Clinton was in office.... You have a problem, take it up with him.
Thank you for posting this.
Armor ping —> T-90’s replacing some M-1’s in Iraqi Army
But the aluminum hull didn't react well to fire.
I don’t think their M1’s have a lot of the “special features” that ours have. For instance our export models (including the ones bought by Australia) do not have the DU armor package.
Makes sense. If you can’t get the spare parts, why have them.
T-90’s will do what they need them to do for the most part, and they can likely buy more of them. Quantity has a quality all it’s own.
It was all about making it air transportable/droppable.
And even with all it’s faults, it still had a long service life.
Is this it?
https://www.meforum.org/articles/other/why-arabs-lose-wars
(Author is Norvell B. De Atkine)
I found it fascinating.
“This M1 Abrams was probably built for warfare in Europe not a sandy desert.”
Yes the Abrams was designed to go toe to toe with the Soviets in Europe, BUT it has handled itself quite well in the deserts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In fact besides Iraq and Saudi Arabia buying the Abrams, the Australians, Egyptians, and Moroccans have also bought the Abrams.
Although the details depend on the model, the M1 characteristically comes with highly effective targeting optics, electronic control systems and software, and fire suppression system. Against the Iraqi Army, we could see and hit them at night, in rain or sandstorms, and at longer range. Personally, I am all for the Iraqis adopting Russian tanks and equipment. That will make it easier if we or an ally has to settle their hash again in the coming years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.