From: antispam@uvic.ca (Robb McLeod) Subject: Re: T-90 verus M1A2 Date: 1997/07/03 Message-ID: Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) References: Organization: University of Victoria Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated From antispam@uvic.ca (Robb McLeod) In article , "John M. Atkinson" wrote: > > >> T-64: > >Postdated by the T-72, which was punched with great regularity by US >ATGMs in Desert Storm, and knocked out by various tanks in Israeli >service which use the 105mm L7 gun. I notice you don't cite that >stunning example of Soviet 'technical superiority'. Are you aware that the T-72 was never introduced to Europe, except in Hungry, by Soviet forces? T-64s and T-80s only. Surprised? I have been told that the M111 "Hetz" could not penetrate the frontal armor of the T-72, and the real key to killing it was the "Shafta" warhead on the TOW. A couple of T-72M1s gave the USMC great trouble in Desert Storm for awhile. They proved capable of withstanding hits from Super Dragons to the front, and had to be taken out by a pair of AH-1W Super Cobra's firing Hellfires under the cloak of the burning oilfields. Every US Army tank was either a M1A1 or a IPM1 in the 4th ID, which carried M900 ammunition. My data supports that those rounds can penetrate the frontal armor out to 3 999 m, the maximum that the fire control computer in the M1 series can accept. So, what's the formula to compute the penetration of long-rods? (T*[sec(theta)^0.75]/D) - 1 = (v^2/u^2)*[(D/L)^0.3]*(M/D^3) T = target thickness, in cm theta = angle of obliquity D = diameter of penetrator, in cm v = velocity of penetrator, in m/s u = penetrator constant L = penetrator length, in cm M = penetrator mass, in g 'u' is about 4 000 for heavy steel penetrators and is about 3 500 for tungsten/Du penetrators. I have better numbers but you can't have them. M111 'Hetz' Mass = 3950 g Diameter = 3.07 cm Length = 36.7 cm Muzzle Velocity = 1 455 m/s Uh oh. That's not a lot is it? Now,the thickness of the frontal armor on the T-72G. Glacis: 528 mm Turret: 400 mm So, do you think they use combination armor, or is that solid steel? Your choice; either way you lose. So where'd the 280 mm come from that the Israeli's gave us? Well, that's the thickness of the exposed lip of the glacis that projects beyond the side armor: 110 mm deep @ 68^. >> T-80B: >> T-80BV: >> T-80U: >> T-90 > >OPFOR is no longer intended to simulate the Russian Army, which is the >only force equipped with these vehicles. I might also ask what >percentage of the Soviet tank force is comprised of these vehicles? And >the Russian Army is no threat to anyone-the state of it's logistics, >disciple, and the trustworthiness of officers is such that they'd have a >hard time taking on Lichtenstein, much less the US. The MBTs used by >OPFOR are T-72s, typically. Oh, not all that high, only about 25%. That's about 16 000 T-80Bs of various types and about 4 000 T-80Us, plus about 150 T-90s have been procured. List cost is about 2.2 million USD. Pakistan has some, as does Cyprus. >Max effective range of the 120mm gun is 4km. And much less with MILES >equipment, depending on freshness of batteries. > >> US ATGMs: >> >> TOW: >> Improved TOW: >> TOW-2 >> TOW-2A: > >All punched T-72s quite well in Iraq and in Israeli service. So? My numbers suggest that that should be the case. The T-72 technology was almost 25 years old, yours was delivered brand new. >I might also point out I don't believe published armor or penetration >values-the Russians are lying to inflate the export value of their >tanks, and the US classifies weapon performance, so it's no more than a >guess. Besides, anyone who believes that a half-dozen numbers >accurately reflect the complexities involved in shell performance needs >to remove head from the appropriate point of contact. See above formula. The effect yaw has on penetrator peformance is the only remaining factor on penetration, no? The adiabatic shear mechanism whereby the long rod radially displaces the armor material and self-sharpens as it cuts down into the slope is accounted for. Perhaps the dilatancy effect whereby ceramic armor erodes a penetrator should be explained? I really do understand this stuff and I can compute the figures to a very high degree of accuracy when I have accurate figures, which is more and more the case nowadays. The Russians are very conservative in their armor estimates. I know this from experience in working with the numbers. The Germans claim that Kontakt-5 shatters their Du penetrators, BTW. Pity. If anyone inflates their figures it is the USA. It certainly isn't the British. They're penetration critira is the velocity at which the penetrator perforates the target and has no exit velocity. The US critim is a 50/50% chance of penetration, and penetration is defined as being able to see light through the hole, as opposed to the standard "ballastic limit" wherby spall punches holes in a thin aluminium target. Also, the testing method uses reduced charges fired in a evacuated underground chamber at a lesser range than is claimed. This means that there isn't as much penetrator yaw at the claimed "range" than you'd normally expect, and penetrator performance is higher than the results you'd expect in real conditions. >> Then there's radioelectric combat. BLUFOR never has to deal with all of its >> radio links being jammed as the would have to in real combat. > >Excuse me? When have you been to Ft Irwin? I've read accounts of >BLUFOR units being jammed off the air. I've also read about the best >way to counter that-track it and drop MRLS on top of the jammers. Waste of resources. They deployed roughly 1 200 jamming units in East Germany, mounted in trucks and trailers. If you drop on a jammer, a Smerch will hammer your MLRS. >If BRDMs are killing Bradleys, you've just made my point that OPFOR is >granted many advantages over real life. Do the damn math-14.5mm mg vs. >armor of a Bradley. Humvees, not Bradleys. They're looking at LAVs in the reconaissance role. Actually, I have a question. Why are there books in the PX written by people who've won at the NTC if winning is no big deal? -- Robb McLeod rmcleod@uvic.ca (Please replace the "antispam" with "rmcleod" if replying via email)