Saudi M1A2 blowing up after hit by ATGM.

[Stratos]

Seems those Saudi M1A2 were hit by Iranian copies of the Konkurs anti tank missile.

 

Impressive at 0:23 hot the Abrams blow up.

 

 

 

[Grenny]

A good hit by that missle team.(older video from last summer btw) Then you see the blowout panels at work. That tank is out of the fight for some time, but chances are good that the crew is alive.(hopefully)

Edited April 11, 2016 by Grenny

[RedWardancer]

No weapon system is invulnerable.  Never know when your time is up...

[Damian90]

Dejawolf had a closeup after ammo cook off ended and there is something there visible that looks like a crew member running next to tank.

 

My own impression? Saudis uses ammo that probably expired it's safety date for propelant charges, making them less stable, and they definately not use ammo with insensitive propelant charges. This is why we can see such spectacular cook off, and small explosions that spread burning propelant charge around and on the tank itself.

[Grenny]

5 hours ago, RedWardancer said:

No weapon system is invulnerable.  Never know when your time is up...

Quiete true :-/

[delta6]

The last tank...Wasn't that a T-90????

[TankHunter]

1 hour ago, delta6 said:

The last tank...Wasn't that a T-90????

 

TOW vs T-90 in Syria.

[matsimus]

SCARY! damn those ATGM's....

 

P.S. Fuck Terrorism

[ashdivay]

Correct title of this should be "M1 takes a ATGM and WINS"

[Grenny]

Not exactly winning...but at least(probably) "only" a mission kill

[ashdivay]

37 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Not exactly winning...but at least(probably) "only" a mission kill

is losing the ammo store and a tank being out off action from mission a major blow to it (mission) ?

 

Would recovery of semi disabled asset a major resource drain for the rest of the unit ? Would complete loss be a better option than partial loss ?

 

What is Bundeswehr's opinion on abandoning combat equipment in hostile area ?

[Grenny]

missionkill= vehicle is unable to continue its mission. For a tank that means losing the ability to engage tgts or move or(in some cases) communicate.

[dejawolf]

if the crew survives a hit, the tank has served it's purpose IMO. 

[12Alfa]

On 2016-04-12 at 11:43 AM, ashdivay said:

Correct title of this should be "M1 takes a ATGM and WINS"

 It would, however, there are some sensitive people here with feelings

Edited April 13, 2016 by 12Alfa

[12Alfa]

On 2016-04-12 at 0:41 PM, Grenny said:

missionkill= vehicle is unable to continue its mission. For a tank that means losing the ability to engage tgts or move or(in some cases) communicate.

Well only the 120 mm ammo was lost, it would most likely still have  the 7.62 and 50, and able to move, mission incapable..... I would not think so in a 4 tank troop.

[Gibsonm]

Well the ready ammo would still be in the turret too if only the rear storage went up.

 

Whether the crew remained enthusiastic after that experience might be problematic.  

[Marko]

I wonder do the US use less advanced materials in there export models like the soviets used to ?

I have also read the soviets used IFF devices  in there AAA weapons as the Chechen's found out when a considerable amount of the AAA Weapons would not work when they tried to engage Russian aircraft.

I have long held the belief all those arms sales to the middle east will one day bite the west in the ass.

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Marko

[mpow66m]

Already are

Edited April 14, 2016 by mpow66m

[Damian90]

Quote

I wonder do the US use less advanced materials in there export models like the soviets used to ?

 

Only composite armor is different, probably weaker, less dense, as Arabs uses M1 versions that are lighter from what I know, compared to US and Australian variants.

 

And Soviets didn't used less advanced materials in export models. T-72M1 for WarPact and T-72M1 for middle east had the same armor as T-72A used by Soviet Army.

[Marko]

1 hour ago, Damian90 said:

 

Only composite armor is different, probably weaker, less dense, as Arabs uses M1 versions that are lighter from what I know, compared to US and Australian variants.

 

And Soviets didn't used less advanced materials in export models. T-72M1 for WarPact and T-72M1 for middle east had the same armor as T-72A used by Soviet Army.

 

 Sorry off topic.

Not saying your wrong Damian just stating what I have read in the past on the subject.

I wont pretend to be an expert on the subject but I have read numerous articles stating the armour was thinner on the soviet so called monkey model exports.

Some of the former Warsaw pact nations built there own licenced versions of the T-72 the former Yugoslav M-84 stands out  and by all accounts some were better then the soviet ones

Also they did not export the T-64 because they did not wont its armour configuration and other advanced features. (At the time anyway) to fall in to western hands admittedly a lot of what I read was by Steve zagola Who has been wrong on a few articles he wrote on soviet armour.

There are some members on this forum who are very knowledgeable on the topic it will be interesting if they contribute .

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Marko

[Damian90]

T-72 and T-72M had thinner armor on the turret, actually both didn't had composite armor in the turret, simple, homogeneus cast armor. T-72A and T-72M1 had the same hull armor (steel + glass textolite + steel) and turret (steel + "sand rods" + steel), armor was the same for Soviet Army T-72A, WarPact T-72M1 and non WarPact T-72M1. What is interesting, T-80 and T-80B used exactly the same turret armor as T-72A and T-72M1, cast turret structure with "sand rods" core.




T-80 and T-80B turret armor.

 

T-64, T-64A and T-64B had different armor for the turret. There were 3 types of turret armor used by T-64 series, original one which was steel + aluminium + steel, improved armor which was cast steel + high hardness steel plates + cast steel, and the most famous one which was a turret steel structure, whith ceramic spheres molded in to that structure.

 

Original configuration, cast steel + cast aluminium core + cast steel.

Second variants, cast steel + high hardness steel inserts + cast steel.



Third variant, cast steel turret structure with ceramic spheres molded in to it.

There were also various different hull configurations for Soviet tanks.

 

Configurations changed with tank variants, and also production batches. For example a T-64B can have same hull armor configuration as T-64A, or if it's late production vehicle, it have have configuration of new build T-64BV, and on the other hand, a first production batch T-64B could had been upgraded to T-64BV standard, and this T-64BV will have old front hull armor configuration.

Armor of these Soviet tanks was not modular or semi-modular as in NATO 3rd generation MBT's. It's immposible then to replace this armor, or repair it. If vehicle was build once in such configuration, it stayed in such armor configuration, and if there was armor damage, besides patching external damage, there was no way to replace damaged glass textolite core and steel layers inside.

However what is important to understand, is that for example T-64, T-72 and T-80, or T-64A, T-64B, T-80B and T-72A, all had more or less similiar protection levels. It's a great misunderstanding that some people think, only because T-80 had a higher number in designation code, it was better protected, no, these vehicles were designed with same protection requirements. Any small differences were result of design choices made by engineers, and were not predetermined by requirements.

PS. Moderators can move this discussion to:

? 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Damian90

[1LeSvT]

5 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

Only composite armor is different, probably weaker, less dense, as Arabs uses M1 versions that are lighter from what I know, compared to US and Australian variants.

 

And Soviets didn't used less advanced materials in export models. T-72M1 for WarPact and T-72M1 for middle east had the same armor as T-72A used by Soviet Army.

I'm surprised that they even use tanks -man made armor protection changing their destiny. When I worked in Saudi Arabia as a contractor for the PCA (Presidency of Civil Aviation, their FAA) ....driving around I would see cars with kids sitting on the dash with their backs against the windshield, when I asked a Saudi coworker, he said many don't wear seat belts or look before walking across a road because of the "Will of God" - i was warned about the street crossing during a briefing before leaving the USA.

Edited April 14, 2016 by 1LeSvT

[matsimus]

On 4/14/2016 at 2:51 PM, Damian90 said:

T-72 and T-72M had thinner armor on the turret, actually both didn't had composite armor in the turret, simple, homogeneus cast armor. T-72A and T-72M1 had the same hull armor (steel + glass textolite + steel) and turret (steel + "sand rods" + steel), armor was the same for Soviet Army T-72A, WarPact T-72M1 and non WarPact T-72M1. What is interesting, T-80 and T-80B used exactly the same turret armor as T-72A and T-72M1, cast turret structure with "sand rods" core.




T-80 and T-80B turret armor.

 

T-64, T-64A and T-64B had different armor for the turret. There were 3 types of turret armor used by T-64 series, original one which was steel + aluminium + steel, improved armor which was cast steel + high hardness steel plates + cast steel, and the most famous one which was a turret steel structure, whith ceramic spheres molded in to that structure.

 

Original configuration, cast steel + cast aluminium core + cast steel.

Second variants, cast steel + high hardness steel inserts + cast steel.



Third variant, cast steel turret structure with ceramic spheres molded in to it.

There were also various different hull configurations for Soviet tanks.

 

Configurations changed with tank variants, and also production batches. For example a T-64B can have same hull armor configuration as T-64A, or if it's late production vehicle, it have have configuration of new build T-64BV, and on the other hand, a first production batch T-64B could had been upgraded to T-64BV standard, and this T-64BV will have old front hull armor configuration.

Armor of these Soviet tanks was not modular or semi-modular as in NATO 3rd generation MBT's. It's immposible then to replace this armor, or repair it. If vehicle was build once in such configuration, it stayed in such armor configuration, and if there was armor damage, besides patching external damage, there was no way to replace damaged glass textolite core and steel layers inside.

However what is important to understand, is that for example T-64, T-72 and T-80, or T-64A, T-64B, T-80B and T-72A, all had more or less similiar protection levels. It's a great misunderstanding that some people think, only because T-80 had a higher number in designation code, it was better protected, no, these vehicles were designed with same protection requirements. Any small differences were result of design choices made by engineers, and were not predetermined by requirements.

PS. Moderators can move this discussion to:

? 

 

Now THAT is some interesting stuff!

[Damian90]

5 hours ago, matsimus said:

 

Now THAT is some interesting stuff!

 

Yep, we also know today armor structure for T-72B, T-90, T-90A, T-80U and T-80UD.

 

T-72B and T-90 uses exactly the same turret and hull, and exactly the same armor in them.

 

T-72B/T-90 turret armor.

 

T-72B/T-90 hull front glacis plate armor.

 

As we can see this armor is rather simplistic, turret is protected by simple NERA array, while front glacis plate by spaced steel armor.

 

The T-90A most likely uses the same armor, why? Because it's weight didn't changed compared to T-90, and also because there was no requirement for increased protection levels. T-90A was actually a result of Russia's economic problems. Normally Russian Army wanted cast turrets for T-90 simply because production lines were open, casting was faster and cheaper process than welding rolled armor plates. However the last facility able to made cast turrets was closed, and Russian Army was forced to order tanks with turrets welded from rolled plates. Now, T-90A turret is based on project from 1980's to design a new tank codenamed Object 187. Object 187 used similiar but better protected welded turret. This turret design was base for two lines of welded turrets developed in the former Soviet Union, one for T-90A, and second used in improved T-80UD and it's further evolution T-84.

 

This is presentation from UKBTM design bureau. As we can see in LS Dyna program, they use exactly the same NERA type armor array as in T-72B/T-90, but placed in obviously between rolled plates. We can also see both CAD model of T-90A turret, and photo from ballistic tests of such turret.

 

Now about T-80U and T-80UD. 

 

Both tanks used different armor arrays.

 

T-80U and T-80UD.

 

The T-80U is said in descriptions to use an internal cast forms for semi-liquid polymer filler that works similiar to NERA but based on a different principle. T-80UD on the other hand uses a steel/ceramic/steel package.

 

T-80U turret armor.

 

Hull armor is also different.

 

T-80U.

 

T-80UD.

 

What is important to note is that both T-80U and T-80UD were somehow obtained by NATO/West and tested, also in Sweden (probably also Germany and US) were made exact copies of their armor layout and tested.

 

 

The improved T-80UD and T-84 series uses new welded turret also with steel/ceramic/steel inserts.

 

T-90A and T-84 turret comparision.

 

More detailed turret design of the T-84 series, what is worth to note is that turret special armor modules are replacable.

 

Another detail worth to note is that T-72B, T-90 and T-90A ERA cover is less tight than ERA cover of T-80U, T-80UD and T-84.

 

Notice large non protected bY ERA gaps on turret, and also front hull glacis plate not protected bY ERA in it's upper part.

From up to bottom. T-80U, T-80UD, improved T-80UD, T-84 and T-84BM "Oplot". Notice how tight is ERA protection both on turret and hull. Gaps in ERA cover are minimal.

[dejawolf]

second T-90 hit in syria, this time a T-90A:

https://southfront.org/another-t-90-survives-a-missile-hit-in-syria/