Jump to content

105mm vs T-72A armor...


 Share

Recommended Posts

Read an article in Armor |Magazine about how effective Israeli M-60 105s were against Arab T-72s. Every shot was a kill shot, but the Ruski tanks didn't always blow up, and would sometimes take 7,8 to even 9 shots from different passing tank crews.

 

This was what inspired German/US weapon designers to put small rings around the new 120mm DU round, which upon penetration of the enemy's armor, would break off the dart, super-heated and pinging around inside the tank setting anything and everything on fire.

 

Impressed with the 105, even if it WAS just against the vanilla T-72. More impressed with the 120mm rounds tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having studied some reports myself

one by Steven Zaloga, that Syrian T-72s were able to withstand 105 hits in the early stages of the conflict in Lebanon

And gave the Israelis a wake up call.

To be honest i am starting to Question IDF kill claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Marko said:

Having studied some reports myself

one by Steven Zaloga, that Syrian T-72s were able to withstand 105 hits in the early stages of the conflict in Lebanon

And gave the Israelis a wake up call.

To be honest i am starting to Question IDF kill claims.

(Frontal amour) Turret and glacis plate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the iran-iraq war, iranian m60s and chieftain tanks were lost to iraqi t-72 and t-62 tanks; the results should not be too surprising given that the t-72 was designed to fight contemporaries of the m60 generation, and assuming the 105 mm ammunition the iranians had were left over from mid 1970s stocks at best from the shah era, you even see the expected results if you match them up in steel beasts without depleted uranium APFSDS rounds given to the M60s. the m60s with older ammunition have difficulty against the t-72 at any range, and given that the iraqis are also presumed to use older ammunition from the 1960s, a fight may tend to be prolonged with the t-72 likely having a better chance to win with shot placement if it comes down to trading shots frontally. historically in the war there were other factors- particular local iraqi commanders could show some capability on the battlefield, while the iraqi military in general was hamstrung from the top down because it tended to operate directly from orders given by saddam hussein and its inflexible military culture, while on the other hand, after the purges during the islamic revolution, the iranians still did pick some innovative commanders, albeit ones which were politically reliable. the end result of all of this were two sides which were balanced out because their differences in weakness and strengths nullified either side's initiatives

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2021 at 10:49 PM, iamfritz said:

This was what inspired German/US weapon designers to put small rings around the new 120mm DU round, which upon penetration of the enemy's armor, would break off the dart, super-heated and pinging around inside the tank setting anything and everything on fire.

 

 

I was always under the impression that those had more to do with transferring the thrust from the sabot to the dart, rather than post-penetration damage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Which is simply a screw threading to connect one with the other.

"Dart" would be the whole assembly of the projectile less the sabot petals.

"Sabot" might mean the whole projectile, or just the dart part - that's where terminology gets fuzzy. Then there's also drive bands (does not apply in this case but might be described as "rings"), or front grooves for a segmented penetrator (at the front, to deal with layered armor, as in the 120mm DM33, but not to "ping around" in the interior post perforation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

Which is simply a screw threading to connect one with the other.

Right, that's what I thought they were...

I think we will have to wait for him to respond.  Maybe he meant some other feature that I am not aware of.

Hey, did you guys bolt Milan launchers on my Marders yet?  lol
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

Nope.

Oof.  I need that done, BAD, even if it only comes in the form of an AI controlled unit with permanently mounted launcher.  My 1A3s are getting...Ehmm...."Clubbed like baby seals"...In scenarios where they once did not get clubbed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2021 at 6:08 AM, Ssnake said:

Which is simply a screw threading to connect one with the other.

"Dart" would be the whole assembly of the projectile less the sabot petals.

"Sabot" might mean the whole projectile, or just the dart part - that's where terminology gets fuzzy. Then there's also drive bands (does not apply in this case but might be described as "rings"), or front grooves for a segmented penetrator (at the front, to deal with layered armor, as in the 120mm DM33, but not to "ping around" in the interior post perforation).

I used to have a VHS Armor tape that showed the rings breaking off and superheating upon penetration, bouncing around inside the target vehicle and killing crew and igniting hydraulic lines and gun rounds. Seems it was a GD or official army video. Armor magazine has talked about it too. I don't have any specific references on hand as this is something I saw long ago. As tiome comes to me (lol) I'll look up and provide references but I'm pretty sure I've seen it in multiple sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are concepts involving segmented rods, mostly to deal with layered armor designs that exert bending stresses on the penetrator rod during the early impact phase - such as reactive armors (be they explosive or not). You sacrifice a small piece of the tip to break off during the transfer of lateral stress to reduce the disturbance for the remaining rod.

And then, of course, once that the perforation of the armor into the crew compartment is complete there's a whole cloud of debris coming along with the remains of the penetrator rod; sheared-off rod pieces and eroded armor material in the perforation crater that hasn't flown back out of the channel. Needless to say, all these particles are quite heated from the excitement of having a massive piece of dense metal interacting with the armor array for a brief time, and there's going to be a fair number of them.

 

I haven't seen your video, so I can't comment on what's shown in it. It strikes me as odd however that one would create deliberate failure points near the rear end of the penetrator rod. Near the tip, as described, it can make sense. Late in the penetration process you'd normally want to avoid adding weak points for deliberate rod fragmentation. It might help to increase the fragment count after a successful penetration ... but it would also reduce the chances of a successful penetration, and I don't think anyone would want to risk that. If in doubt, you always opt for a few more centimeters of penetration depth, and be it just in anticipation of better armor of future enemy tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

There are concepts involving segmented rods, mostly to deal with layered armor designs that exert bending stresses on the penetrator rod during the early impact phase - such as reactive armors (be they explosive or not). You sacrifice a small piece of the tip to break off during the transfer of lateral stress to reduce the disturbance for the remaining rod.

And then, of course, once that the perforation of the armor into the crew compartment is complete there's a whole cloud of debris coming along with the remains of the penetrator rod; sheared-off rod pieces and eroded armor material in the perforation crater that hasn't flown back out of the channel. Needless to say, all these particles are quite heated from the excitement of having a massive piece of dense metal interacting with the armor array for a brief time, and there's going to be a fair number of them.

 

I haven't seen your video, so I can't comment on what's shown in it. It strikes me as odd however that one would create deliberate failure points near the rear end of the penetrator rod. Near the tip, as described, it can make sense. Late in the penetration process you'd normally want to avoid adding weak points for deliberate rod fragmentation. It might help to increase the fragment count after a successful penetration ... but it would also reduce the chances of a successful penetration, and I don't think anyone would want to risk that. If in doubt, you always opt for a few more centimeters of penetration depth, and be it just in anticipation of better armor of future enemy tanks.

Penetration over ribbing, got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2021 at 6:49 AM, iamfritz said:

Read an article in Armor |Magazine about how effective Israeli M-60 105s were against Arab T-72s. Every shot was a kill shot, but the Ruski tanks didn't always blow up, and would sometimes take 7,8 to even 9 shots from different passing tank crews.

 

On 6/28/2021 at 9:39 PM, Marko said:

Having studied some reports myself

one by Steven Zaloga, that Syrian T-72s were able to withstand 105 hits in the early stages of the conflict in Lebanon

And gave the Israelis a wake up call.

To be honest i am starting to Question IDF kill claims.

 

No idea what are these reports based on. The IDF engaged very few T-72s for a very short period of time (opened fire only 10 minutes before the ceasefire, AFAIK), ambushing them from a distance, thus all T-72s remained in Syrian hands and only they and their Soviet patrons know how effective was the T-72's armor. Did anyone ever get any reliable information from them?

 

The following article, written by Israelis in Russian, sums-up the reliable sources:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080915064512/http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/t72-myth/index.html

The Syrian T-72s were ambushed while moving SW in the Beqa'a Valley on the road between Sa'alouk and Amick. These weren't T-72A, but the export version of the earliest model, the one with the searchlight on the left. Most T-72s were hit by TOW missiles (of the earliest model, BGM-71A) launched from M151 jeeps. If any T-72s were hit by Israeli tank fire, the firing tanks were surely Centurions (Shot Cal Bet). No M60s nor Merkavas participated this battle. IAF AH-1 Cobras also claimed some kills.

At night, the IDF had planned to tow the leading T-72's wreck, which was located (in pieces) in no-man's-land just 800 meters from the Israeli positions, and even crafted a special wagon for it. However, the towing operation was aborted and instead SOF were sent to examine the wreck.

 

One could learn about the T-72's armor performance against 105 mm rounds from the fact that the Soviets up-armored the T-72's front hull following tests carried-out with IMI M111 rounds, which were captured during the Sultan Ya'acoub battle on board of IDF M48A3s. See the difference between T-72M and T-72M1.

After the war, to gratitude the Syrians for the captured Israeli M111 and ERA, the Soviets exclusively supplied Syria with T-72A tanks from Soviet army stocks, as opposed to the monkey models usually supplied to WP countries and all other Soviet allies. It was the only time during the Cold War that a Soviet Army version of the T-72 was supplied to a foreign army. AFAIK, the T-72A tanks were issued to the Syrian Republican Guard.

 

The 120 mm gun was eventually accepted into IDF service only in 1990, with the Merkava Mk. 3, when the combined T-72 fleet of the Syrian and Iraqi armies was over 2,000 vehicle strong. However, there were other means to handle that threat.

 

Edited by Iarmor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Iarmor said:

 

No idea what are these reports based on. The IDF engaged very few T-72s for a very short period of time (opened fire only 10 minutes before the ceasefire, AFAIK), ambushing them from a distance, thus all T-72s remained in Syrian hands and only they and their Soviet patrons know how effective was the T-72's armor. Did anyone ever get any reliable information from them

I read the article here. T-72: Main Battle Tank 1974-1993 (Osprey New Vanguard) by Zaloga, Steven J…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've been searching for that video(s) and can't find it/them. That "ribbing" to hold on the SABOT looks just like what I saw as rings that flake off, superheated, and bounce around in the enemy vehicle superheated and killing or destroying everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...