Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gatt on April 07, 2003, 04:06:05 AM
-
Capt. Clay Lyle, commander of the Apache Troop, spoke with CNN late Friday about a major tank engagement as his crew rumbled along a highway west of Baghdad.
Despite being outnumbered, the U.S. group vanquished the Iraqi Republican Guard force within minutes, thanks to superior armed vehicles and devastatingly powerful ammunition.
"My commander called me, gave me the warning order to be prepared to conduct an attack on 22 stationary T-72s [Soviet-built tanks used by the Iraqis] that the [U.S.] Air Force had identified," Lyle said.
"I selected a force, tank heavy, almost all the tanks in my troop, with some Bradleys [armored fighting vehicles] to go with it."
After U.S. aircraft assailed some Iraqi tanks, Lyle's squad, despite encountering an additional battalion of hidden Iraqi tanks and being outnumbered two to one, lumbered up the six-lane highway with guns blazing, turrets swinging from side to side.
The T-72s were a formidable presence, dug in and well protected behind barriers, anywhere from a range of half-mile to a mile away.
"It's different from small-arms and RPGs [rocket-propelled-grenades.] That can be intense, but there is the relative safety of being in a tank," Lyle said. It is quite a different feeling when you are "staring down T-72s dug in, in fighting positions."
The fire fight was forceful but brief. It was "10 minutes of probably the most intense fighting," Lyle told Rodgers and CNN anchor Aaron Brown.
The main gun rounds from the Iraqi tanks, for the most part, fell short or flew too high, Lyle said.
But the U.S. cavalry squadron hit its marks, destroying an estimated 20 or more armored Iraqi adversaries, without the loss of a single U.S. vehicle.
U.S. Bradley fighting vehicles, despite being lighter, wiped out some of the Soviet-vintage T-72 tanks, a significant military milestone.
The secret for success? The Bradleys fired smaller shells, but they were of a particularly punishing variety made with depleted uranium, which pierced the armor of the heavier Iraqi vehicles.
"I had two Bradleys... One destroyed three T-72s and the other destroyed two," Lyle said.
Very interesting! Didnt know "light" armed Bradleys could knock out heavy tanks.
-
You should probably post a link. I reported this the other day, and Baroda thought the idea of such a thing was extremely funny.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/05/sprj.irq.lyle/
Here it is ...
-
Hm, a 25mm depleted uranium shell destroying T-72's?
I find it somewhat odd that a T-72 can withstand a normal 120mm round from 1.5 km, yet be penetrated by a 25mm at maybe a third of that.
Maybe they hit 'um from the rear or something
-
Bradleys carry a nasty little sabot round, plus the TOW. They are not built to get into a slugging match, but they can punch pretty hard.
-
I don't believe it.
T-72s take at least 4 TOWs from the Bradley in DesertCombat, and the 25mm cannon does nothing.
-
I think the TOW could get a kill pretty easily on a T-72, but the 25 mm is not going to penetrate frontal armor. But there are lots of things on a tank you can damage when you are hitting it with a high rate of fire weapon.
-
Actually, I remember Spitfire MkVb easily knocking out Pzr's MkIV with Hispano 20mm shells during our Afrika Korp scenario as well.
-
The TOW has been improved since Desert Storm. It's not designed to penetrate from the front anymore. The new TOW2B is a fly-over design. It flies over the vehicle, then shoots down into the light armor on the top of the target.
-
The iraqi news agencies probably reported that the T-72's suffered minor scuffs and several coalition vehicles were destroyed..
You can't trust the media during wartime. Might aswell listen to bed-time stories.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The iraqi news agencies probably reported that the T-72's suffered minor scuffs and several coalition vehicles were destroyed..
You can't trust the media during wartime. Might aswell listen to bed-time stories.
is this the same iraqi news agency which states we are not in Bag-a-daddy ?
our media is bad enough, to compare it to sa-dummies propaganda machine is over the top .........
-
Americas Army is in no way threatened by iraqs theirs is just rediculous!
Imagine DU AH Hispanos! youd have to move after everyshot to keep it from circumnavigating the globe and smacking you in the arse.
-
They reported tank kills by Bradleys in the first Gulf War. This is "old news".
-
A 30mm depleted uranium bullet is said to be able to penetrate 12" of hardened steel. I dont imaging a 25mm shell is too far behind that.
MiniD
-
25 mm is not going to penetrate frontal armor. But there are lots of things on a tank you can damage when you are hitting it with a high rate of fire weapon. [/QUOTE]
Not to mention the over pressure and spalding effect swhich will be compunded by the high rate of fire. The effectiveness of sabot rounds is measured by the kinetic energy involved. The speed of the round makes a significantly bigger difference to the killing ability than the mass.
-
Depleted Uranium question:
What is the tougher material:
Tungsten tipped or Depleted Ur.? And why?
-
Bradleys can carry TOW missles. I bet they used them for the kills.
-
MiniD; I'd suggest there is a substantial difference between the 30mm Avenger gatlin gun of an A-10 and the 25mm slow firing gun of a Bradley.
The A10 doesn't knock out a tank with one or two rounds, usually hit with about 10, and there ain't much armor in the world that can withstand it.
The Bradley's probably used TOW's to knock the T-72's out. Or maybe they had infantry carrying the VERY lethal Javelin anti tank missile. That one is the most nasty piece of anti tank weaponry I have seen, and it is very very fortunate that only the US employs it in this conflict. Have a film of one being test fired against a combat loaded T-72 - nothing is left of the latter after the impact.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Depleted Uranium question:
What is the tougher material:
Tungsten tipped or Depleted Ur.? And why?
Wrong question.
Modern "soft" rounds are more effective then old-style "hard" projectiles with metalloceramic or tungsten-hardened cores. "Soft" round "wears-off" into a mushroom-shaped structure with the "leg" of the mushroom moving forward. It makes armour flow like liquid, but doesn't actually melt it (even a cummulative HEAT shells don't "melt" or "burn through" the armour).
Sorry, it's hard to find English words for the terms they taught me 12 years ago.
Still I don't see any way for a 25mm cannon to damage a T-72. Maybe only optical equipment, periscopes/triplexes and fire control. Also hitting a cannon can be dangerous, it's almost inprobable but such things happen.
That guys (if they exist) are expremely lucky and brave. A 125mm D-81 shell should turn a Bradley inside-out, "fur inside".
-
Gotta agree with boroda here, The badleys 25mm shouldn't kill a T-72 from the front. The new TOW's have a much better chance of knocking them out.
Remember these guys reporting are the same ones that have said F-16 are taking of from carriers LOL.
-
Now I did see a program on the discovery channel a few years ago that said a Bradley could kill a T-72 from the rear with its 25mm cannon. Maybe the Bradleys maneuvered around for a rear shot.
-
Nope there were reports from GW1 of bradley knocking out T72s with the 25mm gun, and these were testimonials by the actual crews who did it not ignorant media guys. Why do you all think they shot at the thickest armor? The 25mm is damn accurate and very powerful and for example they can aim for the very thing gap under the turret and penetrate in the turret ring area. Onece a round gets inside a T72 its all over because thouse ignorant russian fools have unprotected and uncompartmented ammo lying all around in the aoutolader carusel and around the tank - T72s cook off like nothing else. :)
So yes its possible and it has happened.
-
A stream of 25mm-30mm projectiles from an APC - Bradley or even BMP-2 - could easily and quickly disable a T-72 - and probably any other tank - without actually penetrating it's main armor.
An AP penetrator from a tank would probably go through the APC without causing much damage. A HE tank round hitting close to an APC would probably tip it over.
Of course shooting with a HE or especially HEAP rounds (there was no indication that iraqis ever used DU ammo) requires much more precise range determination and better lead estimation on a moving target. If the Iraqi tanks were equipped with parallax rangefinders instead of laser ones, they might as well have been shooting blanks.
It's all about the first shot, quality of the crew, available intelligence and of course surprise.
It takes even a good gunner seconds to make a shot - if he is expecting the target to appear. A gunner obviously cannot stare through the sight for hours on end - after a few minutes of concentration he becomes useless and needs rest. That applies to any kind of gunner - a tank gunner, a sniper, etc.
The attacking APCs' gunners probably had good idea they will be shooting soon - and where the target would be. The defending tanks may have been unmanned - or with crews sleeping inside.
Attributing the victory to the machinery misses the main contributors - the training and exellent command, control, communications and intelligence that US troops posess.
miko
-
Sorry StSanta.. you're confusing ROF with penetration.
A depleted uranium tip should be able to penetrate that armor. A 30mm for sure, a 25mm would be to a lesser extent, but still capable.
Both should take similar amounts of rounds to take out a tank. Its just that one can get 10 rounds on target in .1 seconds while the other needs 3 seconds.
MiniD
-
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II uses the Gau-8 30mm cannon (basicly an electric GATLING gun that fires cannon rounds). It is the kinetic enfergy of the depleted uranium projectile that yields the effectiveness against armor, and not the rate of fire. The rate of fire allows you to put enough rounds on the target to assure that you hit and penetrate to something vital while flying at 400MPH. If you can place a round with sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate to and destroy something vital on the right place on the target, you don't need more than one round. The 25mm cannon fires a depleted uranium projectile with sufficient kinetic energy to get the job done provided you put the round in the right spot. Shot placement should not be ignored when you're talking about gun vs. armor.
It is not necessary to completely destroy a tank, have it brew up, or even kill all of the crew to effectively remove it from combat (knock it out). You merely have to make it unable to manuever, and unable to aim and fire effectively.
Frontal assaults on tanks are foolish, especially in a lightly armored vehicle. The U.S. learned this decades ago when fighting German Tiger tanks while equipped with the Sherman M4 which had less armor and a less effective gun.
To think that this lesson was completely forgotten and to assume that Bradleys would use a frontal assault against a T-72 is really foolish.
The advantages the Bradley had should be obvious to any who study armor tactics. First, the T-72s were stationary (while they may have been "hull down", unless they were buried the only exposed part of their hull was likely the REAR, where there is thin armor, and the engine and drivetrain are). Second, there were M1 Abrahms tanks involved in the action (if you're in a T-72, and there are M1 Abrahms tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles attacking you, which one are YOU going to be most concerned about?). Third, the Bradleys while exposed, were in motion, providing a somewhat difficult target. Fourth, the U.S. forces likely spent more money on training alone (you should see some of the training at Fort Knox for example) than Iraq spent on tanks, ammo, fuel, and personnel.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nope there were reports from GW1 of bradley knocking out T72s with the 25mm gun, and these were testimonials by the actual crews who did it not ignorant media guys. Why do you all think they shot at the thickest armor? The 25mm is damn accurate and very powerful and for example they can aim for the very thing gap under the turret and penetrate in the turret ring area. Onece a round gets inside a T72 its all over because thouse ignorant russian fools have unprotected and uncompartmented ammo lying all around in the aoutolader carusel and around the tank - T72s cook off like nothing else. :)
So yes its possible and it has happened.
GH, if the armour is penetrated - the crew is already dead. The particles from the inside of the armour simply shred everything inside, plus the "excessive pressure" kills everyone.
Storing ammunition as low as possible is IMHO the right way. At least a lucky shot at the turret will not blow the whole thing up. The absence of autoloader is the only reason to store ammo in a turret.
I have serious doubts that 25mm on a BMP will be able to penetrate T-72 from any angle.
I am not a specialist, Miko is the person who knows all this things much better then anyone here.
-
I wouldnt want to be in close quarters receiving end from Bradley in any tank. When your turret gets 5 round burst continously, something will break fast. Maybe the bullets wont penetrate, but they surely destroy everything external from that tank. Sights and whatnots, i bet the barrel dont like it too much if it gets few hits from 25mm DU round.
Meanwhile other Bradley can flank fast to get a side shot. Range shooting is whole another matter ofcourse. Then you need big caliber stuff.
-
BTW... one thing that is being somewhat overlooked here...
Some bradlys have the equipment necessary to knock out a T-72. Of course, they must rely on alot of missing by the T-72, because they all have enough to easily knock out any bradly.
BTW... I saw a pretty good special on snipers where they had .50 cal rounds that were penetrating the engine armor of T-72s.
MiniD
-
Boroda: GH, if the armour is penetrated - the crew is already dead. The particles from the inside of the armour simply shred everything inside, plus the "excessive pressure" kills everyone.
Not necessarily. The inside is covered with 2-3 inches of reinforced rubber to contain the paricles.
The hull-down position may look impregnable but you would be surprised at the amount of earth a well-placed MBT round or a stream of APC projectiles may churn in a matter of fractions of a second.
With cannon ammo - vs. the guided missles - the hull down serves mainly for consealment and for buying those precious fractions of a second rather than actual protection - unless you entrench in granite or prepared ferro-concrete position.
As for a round penetrating between a turret and a hull - it is unlikely but with a lot of rounds it will happen sooner or later. Locking the turret and or damaging the turret-cannon joint is much likelier than direct penetration and as effective in disablimg the tank.
miko
-
the T72 damage model is porked , HTC can you fix it?
also perk the bradley
-
The T72 is the biggest piece of crap ever to be built. Way over rated.
I've seen Bradleys kill T72s with 25mm, no problem.
-
Miko,
You need to take a lesson of spalling and concussion with AP rounds.
AP round going through an APC, would do some bad thing inside the tank, regardless of it going through or not.
the armour does not just dissapear to thin air from the area of penetration, nor does the air inside just be calm as ever..
In such a confined space as APC, theres little space to miss with the effects of AP round going through side to side.
Also, in a fight, wounded crew member is pretty much same as dead, maybe even worse, when you just cannot note him off as dead, but as someone screaming down your ear and in need of immediate first aid.
-
Yes sir,
The crews would "Pepper" the heck out of the T72s.
We, sitting in our M1s would just shake our heads and laugh.
-
I don't believe and AP round even deforms much when going through the flimsy obstacle like an APC and the thin armor is unlikely to spall - just to form a rather neat hole.
On the other hand the effect of a piece of a stale bread shot out of a 125 mm T-72 cannon at the side of a BMP up close leaves quite a dent... :)
Certainly, the crew will be heavily concussed or dead, but the vehicle can remain combat-worthy. The driver upfront may not even be affected much.
Just like a mine blowing under the driver does not necessarily hurt the crew in the main compartment.
miko
-
T-72 and other soviet tanks were not designed to be used in small numbers by highly-qualified crews in defensive operations though they certainly could, with good crews and support (air cover, intel, etc.).
They were designed to be used en-masse (50,000+ rolling simultaneously) in offencive operations manned by poorely-trained crews. They are not supposed to survive many hits.
Where do you think the extra 20 tonns of weight on US tank goes? Not the larger cannon. Not the heavier engine. Just thicker armor.
Americans/westerners do not have many tanks and are not wastefull with the lives of the crews, so one tank is supposed to survive quite a lot of fighting - and a lot of fighting in tank time means few minutes.
miko
-
Ah... now you are coming around Miko. This was one of the great things about the T-34. I am told that German tank commanders envied its functionality and simplicity. What you lack in head to head performance, you've made up for with swarming tactics.
I remembre the old saying from WW2: "The Tiger can take out any 7 soviet tanks. The problem is there's always 10 of them."
But this thread is about armor penetration with a 25mm or TOW missile. I don't know much about a TOW, but I know a bit about depleted uranium rounds. I think "no way that could penetrate a T-72s armor" is an incorrect assertion.
MiniD
-
Bradleys are killing T-72's with ease. Next question?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
But this thread is about armor penetration with a 25mm or TOW missile. I don't know much about a TOW, but I know a bit about depleted uranium rounds. I think "no way that could penetrate a T-72s armor" is an incorrect assertion.
There is no way a 25mm round can penetrate a T-72 armour if not shot from above. I mean a round from 25mm cannon.
Depleted Uranium isn't magic. It's just a very dense and soft material, pyrophoric (sp?) when pure.
-
I disagree baroda... especially since anything fired from above it usually at less than a 45 degree angle to the armor... and still penetrates with ease (well... 30mm that is).
I'm sure there are parts of the tank that cannot be penetrated. But I'm also sure there are parts that can. Depleted uranium is something of a magical round. It melts the steel as it goes through it. Kenetic energy is transfered to thermal very quickly. Its armor penetration capability is astounding.
MiniD
-
Mini D: But this thread is about armor penetration with a 25mm or TOW missile. I don't know much about a TOW, but I know a bit about depleted uranium rounds. I think "no way that could penetrate a T-72s armor" is an incorrect assertion.
Fortunately I was in no position to verify that, so I have no opinion except pointing out that the thickness of the armor is extremely uneven in different places and that ground-based tank killing machinery still mounts huge cannons rather than a bunch of 30mm autocannons.
A 14.7 mm round (used in anti-armor rifles and for simulating main cannon ammo) fired from 50 yards leaves about 1/4 inch deep dent in the turret of a T-72.
A 125 HE round with practice (non-explosive detonator) - about 30 kg, 1 inch walls fired from behind from 150-200 yards goes through the rear armor of the T-72, passes through the engine and gets stuck in the armor of the battle compartment without penetrating it.
Could a .50 cal AP round penetrate the engine compartment 1-2? inch armor? Maybe yes, maybe no. The stuff inside that compartment is pretty sturdy, so the round would have to have enough power left to cause damage.
miko
-
Miko, I think you are still confusing issues.
The effective range of artillery is much greater than that of a cannon. The need for the large guns is still there. Nobody is laying claim to a 25mm round taking out a T-72 before the T-72 was in range to fire.
And, once again, I think you are underestimating the capability of a depleted uranium tipped round.
MiniD
-
Mini D, I think you have a mistaken impression that I am arguing with you. I am not. I clearly said I have no opinion or knowlege on the penetrating capabilities of DU-cored (not tipped) 25mm rounds.
What in my anecdotes about 14.7 steel-cored bullet, 125mm HE round without a detonator and stale piece of bread made you think I am denigrading the penetrating qualities of the 25mm DU round?
I know that western (US, UK, Germany) main battle tanks use 125, 120 and 105mm cannons that fire DU AP rounds of much higher weight and at much higher velocities than 25mm or 30mm cannons.
Those guys must have some idea what they are doing.
miko
-
Originally posted by Boroda
There is no way a 25mm round can penetrate a T-72 armour if not shot from above. I mean a round from 25mm cannon.
Depleted Uranium isn't magic. It's just a very dense and soft material, pyrophoric (sp?) when pure.
It happened. T-72 sucks. If it hurts you that much, get some counseling.
-
Miko.. you keep bringing up the larger artillery as reasons the 25mm is not effective.
Once again, its about range. How much farther can an M-1 fire than a T-72? Which has the range advantage? How many times farther is that than a 30mm's range?
If you're firing a round at 3 miles, you want it to kill whatever it hits. If you can put rounds into it from 1000 yards, you have an entirely different set of parameters to work with. The Bradly is only good in one of those scenarios, the MBTs are good in both.
Once again... I'm not arguing that the Bradly is an effective anti-tank weapon. Just that it can penetrate a tank's armor with the 25mm. Of course, in order for it to get into range, it has to rely on one hell of a lot of missing by the tank or an inept tank crew.
MiniD
-
Two things are important for armor penetration: The relation between density of mass of the bullet and the armor and the length of the bullet. Whether they're 25mm or 120mm isn't that important (120mm rounds are usually longer than the 25mm ones though).
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Miko, I think you are still confusing issues.
The effective range of artillery is much greater than that of a cannon. The need for the large guns is still there. Nobody is laying claim to a 25mm round taking out a T-72 before the T-72 was in range to fire.
And, once again, I think you are underestimating the capability of a depleted uranium tipped round.
MiniD
MiniD, JFYI: Miko served in Soviet Army as a tank gunner/commander, on a T-72.
My "opinions" are mostly theoretical, and I have some knowledge on how modern weapons work, but I didn't complete my studies. Had to quit in 92 when my College administration made it obligatory to attend lectures, so I had to choose - job or studies.
Now let me tell a story about a T-72 turret, that I promised :)
Disclaimer: I repeat it as I heard it from my professor, "selling it for the same price I bought it".
T-72 turret has 2 layers of armour with a layer of sand between them.
How it happened: in early-70s they tried to make turret lighter and OTOH capable to withstand more damage. So they designed it with 2 layers of armour, empty space inside. Turrets are moulded into sand forms. Then they are mechanicaly shaped, I mean the "precise" surfaces like the bottom ("pogon") where it is mounted to the hull. So they made 10 new experimental turrets, and 2 of them were out of order: they couldn't get the send out of the interior space. When the turrets were brought to the shooting range, some engineed said: "Well, why not try to shoot at the bad turrets?". And they turned out to withstand damage much better then "empty" ones. So now all T-72 turrets are filled with sand :)
This story was told us to explain that things as armour penetration are almost unpredictable under conditions that are far from ideal. And usually almost anything makes penetration smaller.
Again: DU isn't magic. It has it's limitations. I bet good ol' RPG-7 will do more damage. Even from short distance.
Did you hear about a company of T-70s that "killed" a Tiger in 1943? They were armed by 20mm ShVAKs. I think it's pretty obvious that they simply destroyed the suspension, broke periscopes and gun sights and jammed the turret. No way to penetrate the armour.
-
Mini D: Miko.. you keep bringing up the larger artillery as reasons the 25mm is not effective.
No. Whoever sold you that mind-reading device has certainly fooled you. :) Brought the larger anti-tank armament as an indication that western designers armed their main ground-based tank-killer - main battle tank - not with four 25mm cannons but with a single 125 mm one.
They must have had some reasons about the general efficiency of those. Which says nothing about short-range efficiency of 25mm DU rounds in some situations. So you may want to thrain your mind-reader on them.
Once again, its about range. How much farther can an M-1 fire than a T-72? Which has the range advantage?
I have no idea - and pretty sure very few people really do. If youc ompare the caliber, weight, muzzle velocity and ballistic properties of the M-1 and T-72 DU penetrators, you may find them very close.
What most "armchair tankers" forget is that in all past and curent conflicts:
1. US tanks fired while moving on stationary enemy tanks - it makes huge difference whether the target is moving or standing still since even at the incredible penetrator speeds a tank can move few of lengths in the seconds it takes the projectle to arrive.
2. US tanks usually had initiative and fired first - which means they had time to set up that crucial first shot after which subsequent shots are easy since the distance is automatically substracted.
3. There was never indication that the enemy tanks ever had DU penetrators. If it's true, then they had to rely on the HE or HEAP rounds that are starting at about three times as slow and worse downrange. Those rounds have much higher trajectory, making correct range estimate way more crucial. They arrive few seconds too late which make lead estimation way more crucial - basically impossible. They are trully 1/4 of a range compared to a DU penetrator. When they actually hit the target, HE causes little damage while HEAP is easily defeated by reactive and composite armor.
4. The Iraqi T-72 apparently have clumsy inaccurate parallax rangefinders despite good laser ones available for the last 20-25 years.
5. The quality of american crews is incomparably better.
So yes, against a basically unarmed stationary target that cannot shoot back for the lack of the proper ammo, you can say that the M-1 range is far greater.
I am sure that if american crews were using T-72 tanks with the proper ammo against entrenched M-1s manned by iraqis, the outcome would have been much the same.
Once again... I'm not arguing that the Bradly is an effective anti-tank weapon. Just that it can penetrate a tank's armor with the 25mm. Of course, in order for it to get into range, it has to rely on one hell of a lot of missing by the tank or an inept tank crew.
And I am not arguing otherwise. Anyway, since you are so interested in that, could you look up the real specks for those ammo - muzzle velocity, velocity at 1000 yards, how much armor it's supposed to penetrate, etc.
In Russia such info is probably classified but I would not be surprised if it were public in the US.
miko
-
Doesn't anybody remember the footage of 20mm vulcans fluff'n up abandoned t72s in 91 ?
-
Boroda: T-72 turret has 2 layers of armour with a layer of sand between them.
The technical term is "ceramic"... :)
That kind of multi-layered variable-material armor, possiby even withs some cavities, was intended to defeat the HEAP rounds that used a narrow stream of molten metal formed by specially-shaped charge. Along with the reactive armor it was quite effective - which made armaments side concentrate back on the true and tried "throw a heavy piece of metall really fast" method.
miko
-
Miko, from what I read in Western sources, D-81 (2A36) cannon rounds loose it's velocity too fast. So at short distances it penetrates up to 1.5 times more then Rheinmetall 120mm. At about 1km enemy cannon is told to be better. They say it's because our rounds are lighter. The muzzle velocity is 1800m/s vs. 1600m/s for enemy cannon.
When I studied we didn't have such charts, mostly because Western 120mm was quite new when I was in college. And even if we were told that range/velocity charts - they were in our "secret notebooks". I only have a xerox of my "secret notebook" from first year, on "energy-cintaining materials" course...
Interesting that now both Rheinmetall and Soviet designers are developing larger caliber tank cannons, 150 and 152mm. AFAIR they are rifled, but I may be mistaken. Looks like they are relying on an impact impulse now, not on velocity...
-
Boroda: The muzzle velocity is 1800m/s vs. 1600m/s for enemy cannon.
I had a distinct impression that it was above 2100 m/s - at least 40% more energy than at 1800 m/s. Of course that was what the officers told us - I have no way to know.
Fast light rounds have flatter trajectory. Soviet tanks were supposed to close fast in attack in overwhelming numbers and western ones to be defending and capable of taking a lot of punishment before being disabled.
miko
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Muzzle velosity and projectile weight are the key factors. The US 120mm and Russian 125mm APFSDSDU rounds have insanelly high muzzle velosities. Much more than can be generated by a 25mm or 30mm weapon. The speed of which the projectile can be accelerated down the barrel is determined by the projectile's base area, just like the pistons in an engine; wider bore=more HP, longer stroke=more tourqe.
Muzzel velocity does not matter. If at all it's impact velocity ;)
Mass does matter, because to increase it at the same shape of the bullet it requires a larger density of mass, which is good for penetration.
Increasing the diameter does not really help. You can put more energy in, but it doesn't increase speed, because at larger diameter the bullet is also considerably more heavy. A certain diameter is required to build bullets that are stable enough at the required length. If there was an infinitly tough material the cheapest bullet to penetrate thick armor would look like a weapon the first humans on earth invented ;)
-
The russian round actually has additional propellant charge stored behind it's guide ring. That's where it gets a lot of extra energy. The ring is kept together by a copper band that seals the bore and the ring is split into 3 sectors, IIRC, and has special holes drilled into it in such way that it flies apart once it leaves the barrel.
I am not at sure that the fins are wide enough to stabilise the projectile in the barrel.
miko
-
Urban Myth or surprising fact?
There was an old Army "fact" that if you happened to be in a buttoned-up M-113 (I assume it would apply to any light-skinned fighting vehicle or APC) and a sabot round passed through it the occupants would be sucked out through the exit hole. I knew a guy who even knew some guys that tried it on the range once with a fox or coyote :)
Doesn't seem likely to me, but stranger things...
So, truth or myth :)
Charon
-
Debate it all you want.
Bradleys: 5
T-72s: 0
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Muzzel velocity does not matter. If at all it's impact velocity ;)
Mass does matter, because to increase it at the same shape of the bullet it requires a larger density of mass, which is good for penetration.
Increasing the diameter does not really help. You can put more energy in, but it doesn't increase speed, because at larger diameter the bullet is also considerably more heavy. A certain diameter is required to build bullets that are stable enough at the required length. If there was an infinitly tough material the cheapest bullet to penetrate thick armor would look like a weapon the first humans on earth invented ;)
Velocity is more important than mass. The simple Kenetic energy equation shows this: E = 1/2 mv^2. What that says is that if you double the mass, you double the kenetic energy. If you double the velocity, you quadruple the kenetic energy.
-
I watched as Captain Lyle was interviewed on CNN by Walter Rodgers following the engagement, and the Bradley's fired at the Turrets of the T72 and used their 25mm cannon for the tank kills. This interview wasnt that much longer after they patched up an iraqi officer who had been laying in a berm thought to be dead for upwards of five hours. CNN has been doing their part helping out. This iraqi officer was given primary first aid by a CNN security officer who was retired SAS, also they have on reporter who is a Neurosurgeon and has performed two operations (not current info, last i saw him on the television was 2 days ago).
-
Remember even if it doesnt penetrate the energy goes somewhere. That somewhere is often through the amror where the inside flakes of into shards and can richochet at super high speeds through the inside of the tank ripping everything including electronics and flesh to shreds. Its like shooting a beebee gun into a barrel. It will go ping-ping-ping-ping several times before dropping down.
-
Does someone have a hart showing armor penetration for DU rounds fired for instance from the Avenger cannon and the 55mm Bradley one?
MiniD, I wasn't confusing the terms, but I wasn't very clear either :). Blame it on the flu (hopefully not SARS lol).
The 30mm Avenger cannon round not only has a higher ROF, it also has a higher initial muzzle velocity IIRC - courtesy of the airspeed of the plane that boosts it slightly, as well as a higher mass.
And I wasn't talking single round penetration but rather general weapons effectiveness. With the Avengers very high ROF, higher mass and veloity, it is a much more potent weapon. Add then to the fact that the rounds impact at a better angle and you have overall a much better weapon.
As it has been said, there's a difference between destroying and disabling a tank 25mm DU rounds could very well do signifiant damage to the rear of a T-72, but fired on the frontal armor at very shallow range penetration seem unlikely. The huge 125mm gun on an M1 is not solely for range - penetration at all angles is also what it was designed to do.
But I wanna see some numbers before I trust claims made on a battlefield. If we were to go by what the fighting sides claim, we'll end up with more shot down planes than were actually built :).
Wonder what the gunners of the T-72's were up to. Sure, I'd focus on the Abrams too. OTOH, knowing that the Bradleys fall easier and have TOW missiles, I wouldn't hesitate in choosing a Bradley at short range rather than an M1 at long. And as a commander I'd know the propaganda value of images showing US hardware blowing up in small pieces. But in the end I'd do the smart thing rather than die; pop a stolen smoke grenade inside the vehicle and exit. With a little luck my commander will think I got hit and not shoot me, and with a little more I'll have enough time to leg it outta the way from a soon exploding and burning tank.
So far, the M1s and Challenger II tanks have performed their job admirably. What other tanks are there of that generation? I know the Israelis have one they're mighty proud of and claim is better than the M1, and I know the Germans have a new Leopold (sp?). Also, what's the latest Russian tank called, and anyone got any specs on it?
-
my understanding, based on hearsay, is that the T-72 main gun has a higher max range, but the Abrams main gun has a higher effective range. The T-72 can shoot farther, but the abrams can hit farther out. As Miko says, it's not simply ballistics.
-
Though it was pretty late, I'm pretty certain that a t.v. reporter stated the group he's imbedded with took out a T-72 with a Bradly. So while on camera with CNN, the guy asked the gunner how many rounds and I think he said 30 fired and then the guy added that about 10 hit.
-
The T72 125mm main gun is only effective up to 2.5k. After that is pretty much up to chance. It is no match for the german built 120mm smooth bore gun of the M1 which can kill at 4k. I truly believe that the bradleys are capable of taking out the T72 with its cannon. The T72 is over rated the armour is not as good as people think. Although it is still a beast of a tank the sights and the autoloader are crap. The tanks are as good as the old M60's with better main gun. I could be wrong about all this but thats what i was taught when i took the foreign vehicles course to get my license on the soviet equipment. I will say its a blast to drive though.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
The T72 125mm main gun is only effective up to 2.5k. After that is pretty much up to chance. It is no match for the german built 120mm smooth bore gun of the M1 which can kill at 4k.
Well, D-81 was designed in early-60s. The cannon is still "up to date", NATO developed the cannon that can match with it only 20 years later. Even the first M-1s had a 105mm rifled cannon.
The very idea of a smooth-bore high-muzzle velocity cannon was introduced in late-fifties, a D-61 115mm cannon on T-62. At that time it was absolute "overkill". US tanks simply could't be compared to Soviet MBTs. BTW, in Vietnam the most effective tank was a PT-76, floating light tank with 76mm gun.
Originally posted by jamusta
I truly believe that the bradleys are capable of taking out the T72 with its cannon. The T72 is over rated the armour is not as good as people think. Although it is still a beast of a tank the sights and the autoloader are crap.
Well, I still think that 800mm of frontal armour, plus active protection is impressive :)
25mm rounds penetrating T-72's turret is a fairy-tale. Just like someone tieing a 125mm in a knot with bare hands.
Originally posted by jamusta
The tanks are as good as the old M60's with better main gun. I could be wrong about all this but thats what i was taught when i took the foreign vehicles course to get my license on the soviet equipment. I will say its a blast to drive though.
M-60 is almost 2 times taller.... That's it. M1 is taller too. It's important.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, I still think that 800mm of frontal armour, plus active protection is impressive :)
Is this a typo? 800mm... that's 2 1/2 feet of armor?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Is this a typo? 800mm... that's 2 1/2 feet of armor?
MiniD
It's 800mm (0.8m) of armour when measured horisontaly. Parallel to the ground.
The armour plate at very small angle, on "normal" it's much thinner. But the projectile hitting it straight forward will have to penetrate 800mm.
At least it's what I remember.
Made a brief search:
Frontal armour plate is at 68 degrees from vertical.
Turret armour angles are from 10 to 25 degrees.
BTW, most of Iraqi T-72s were made in Poland. So it's definetly not the tank Miko served on.
-
I think that a frontal penatration of any type of T72 is also extremly unlikly. Certainly in the main armour belts on the turrent and the hull it is impossible with out some kind of manufacturing fault in the tank. These things are not battle mechs. You cant wear away the armour. But a long burst at short range would tear off the sighing equimpment, maybe kill the gun itself. Maybe light up the fuel on the rear deck.
And boroda. Wasnt the 100 mm on the T54/55 also a rifled gun.
US tanks simply could't be compared to Soviet MBTs.
By the time the T62 appeared in numbers the west had M48s, M60s and centurions with 105s.
The simple fact is that the tale of Russian armour in the 60s 70s 80 and 90 and now the 2000s..is one of horrible one sided defeats.
-
Oops, sorry.
http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/t-72.html
It says - effective thikness against kinethic rounds equals to 500mm of homogenous armour, plus 250-280 with dynamic protection "Kontakt-5", 800-830mm total.
Against HEAT (cummulative) rounds - 650mm + 500-700mm with dynamic protection, 1150-1350mm total.
That 800mm still can be true, depends on how you measure it.
-
A 25mm on a bradly wont penetrate the frontal armor on a T72, side and rear might be a different story - but it will penetrate the turret ring and a few other wulnerable areas. So a kill is possible.
105mm cut through the Iraqi T72 front sphere no problem.
M256 120mm firing APFSDS will go through a sand berm, through the T72s glacis, through everything and out the back. This happened often.
T62 wasnt very popular.
T54/55 was a damn good tank in the mid 1950s.
-
jamusta: The T72 125mm main gun is only effective up to 2.5k. After that is pretty much up to chance. It is no match for the german built 120mm smooth bore gun of the M1 which can kill at 4k.
T-72 has a 125mm smoothbore cannon.
Dinger: T-72 main gun has a higher max range, but the Abrams main gun has a higher effective range...
Which may be due to higher quality of the sight/ballistic computer/stabiliser + crew profficiency. A powerfull gun is no use if you do not hit the target.
The T-62s I saw all had rifled guns - I do not remember the caliber.
miko
-
T62 had an oddball 115mm gun...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
T54/55 was a damn good tank in the mid 1950s.
Speaking of Bradleys and T55s.
Seen M3s kill T55s frontal with 25mm.
-
I said in the 1950s :) BTW was that turret or glacis shot? I think T55 has 200mm cast turret and 100mm rolled on the glacis, so figure rougly 200+mm on the glacis because of slope.
Hey can you tell us what what American 120mm APFSDS will penetrate at various ranges?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I think that a frontal penatration of any type of T72 is also extremly unlikly. Certainly in the main armour belts on the turrent and the hull it is impossible with out some kind of manufacturing fault in the tank. These things are not battle mechs. You cant wear away the armour. But a long burst at short range would tear off the sighing equimpment, maybe kill the gun itself. Maybe light up the fuel on the rear deck.
It's exactly what I meant. BTW, T-72 has equal protection on front and sides, at least it's what that site says.
Originally posted by Pongo
And boroda. Wasnt the 100 mm on the T54/55 also a rifled gun.
By the time the T62 appeared in numbers the west had M48s, M60s and centurions with 105s.
The simple fact is that the tale of Russian armour in the 60s 70s 80 and 90 and now the 2000s..is one of horrible one sided defeats.
When Russians had 100mm cannon on medium tanks, Americans still had 76mm and 90mm. Protection couldn't be compared. Powerplants were mostly gasoline engines. We passed that stage in late-30s.
As for defeats - "it's the man, not the machine". Soviet military think that Arabs are not soldiers. They simply can't fight. That's why Iraqi defence looks like a surprise, even like a miracle... Compare the results of Arab tankers and Israelis fighting in the same T-55s...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I said in the 1950s :) BTW was that turret or glacis shot? I think T55 has 200mm cast turret and 100mm rolled on the glacis, so figure rougly 200+mm on the glacis because of slope.
Hey can you tell us what what American 120mm APFSDS will penetrate at various ranges?
Not off my head, sorry.
If I remember right, a little of both mostly Turret though. The scouts would light them up pretty good, enough for a total kill.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It's exactly what I meant. BTW, T-72 has equal protection on front and sides, at least it's what that site says.
When Russians had 100mm cannon on medium tanks, Americans still had 76mm and 90mm. Protection couldn't be compared. Powerplants were mostly gasoline engines. We passed that stage in late-30s.
As for defeats - "it's the man, not the machine". Soviet military think that Arabs are not soldiers. They simply can't fight. That's why Iraqi defence looks like a surprise, even like a miracle... Compare the results of Arab tankers and Israelis fighting in the same T-55s...
No the T72 absoultely does not have the same level of protection on all sides on any part of the tank, whoever is telling you this is lier.
The 100mm gun on the T55 was only somewhat more powerful than the Panthers 75mm/L70 of WW2. With 1950s ammunition it was still somwhat less powerful than the 88/L71 of Tiger II.
Caliber by itself means nothing. For example the soviet 85mm on T34/85 was rougly as powerful as the 75mm/L48 of the Panzer IV.
US 90mm guns reached performance levels equal to and higher than the 88/L71 during the 1950s.
-
That can't aply to the sides too baroda. The tank is only 11 1/2 feet wide. With 2 feet per track and 2 1/2' per armor side, that would leave about 2 1/2 feet of total width. Since the entrance seems to be close to that itself, and offset (not allowing 2 1/2 feet even to the side of the turret), I'll have to call bs.
I did notice references that have refered to pitches on the armor too. With the armor being thicker at the bottom and tapered at the top (on the turret specifically). Starting at 950mm and "thinning" to 500mm.
I have to say... its about a foot thicker than I was thinking it would be regardless.
MiniD
-
I miss spoke. Wasnt the 100 on the T54/55 also a smooth bore gun..
-
As for defeats - "it's the man, not the machine". Soviet military think that Arabs are not soldiers. They simply can't fight. That's why Iraqi defence looks like a surprise, even like a miracle... Compare the results of Arab tankers and Israelis fighting in the same T-55s...
To the rest of the world the Syrians and Egytians fought just like WW2 Russians. Only without the depths of reserves to take WW2 russian level casualties.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I miss spoke. Wasnt the 100 on the T54/55 also a smooth bore gun..
No it was a standard rifled WW2 tank gun.
-
Pongo: To the rest of the world the Syrians and Egytians fought just like WW2 Russians. Only without the depths of reserves to take WW2 russian level casualties.
That is pretty much true. My uncle was wounded in a Kursk battle in a T-34. Sending them head-on into the enemy fire was a pretty standard method of the soviet command.
Since they could not run away, like egyptians did, their casualties were enormous.
miko
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Velocity is more important than mass. The simple Kenetic energy equation shows this: E = 1/2 mv^2. What that says is that if you double the mass, you double the kenetic energy. If you double the velocity, you quadruple the kenetic energy.
If a certain minimum level of E is exceeded it doesn't matter much if it increased further. For a given projectile the maximum penetration depth is limited mainly by (edit: remove shape, add) length and density of mass, no matter how much kinetic energy it has, if E it exceeds the minumum required.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
If a certain minimum level of E is exceeded it doesn't matter much if it increased further. For a given projectile the maximum penetration depth is limited mainly by shape and density of mass, no matter how much kinetic energy it has, if E it exceeds the minumum required.
The physics of the process is too complicated to be described in terms of high-school classes. Some processes can't even be described using current state of mathematics.
The only thing you can rely on is practice, experiments. Last problem in explosive/impact theory solved analyticaly was the "powerfull singular explosion". The book was published in USSR in spring, 1945, and in summer, after Hiroshima, rapidly removed from libraries. All later studies use experimental data and numerical methods. No common solutions.
-
Heres what I found which is basically the same that I was taught in the military. Except I was told the engine was only 780hp V12. Also told that It only could penetrate M1 armor up to 1k.
Designations T-72S (export), SMT M1988
Date of Introduction 1985
Proliferation Current Using Countries (all models of T-72)
Algeria Angola Armenia
Azerbaijan Belarus Boznia-Herz.
Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic
Finland Georgia Hungary
India Iran Iraq
Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Libya
Poland Romania Russia
Slovakia Syria Tajikistan
Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan
Yugoslavia United States (in displays)
Description
Crew 3
Combat Weight (mt) 44.5
Chassis Length Overall (m) 6.91
Height Overall (m) 2.19
Width Overall (m) 3.58
Ground Pressure (kg/cm 2 ) 0.90
Automotive Performance
Engine Type 840-hp Diesel
Cruising Range (km) 500/ 900 with external tanks
Speed (km/h)
Max Road 60
Max Off-Road 45
Average Cross-Country 35
Max Swim N/A
Fording Depths (m) 1.2 Unprepared/5.0 with snorkel
Radio R-173 and R-134
Protection
Armor, Turret Front (mm) 520/950 against HEAT
Applique Armor (mm) Side of hull over track skirt, turret top
Explosive Reactive Armor (mm) Kontakt or Kontakt-5 ERA
Active Protective System Arena available
Mineclearing Equipment Roller-plow set, and plows available
Self-Entrenching Blade Yes
NBC Protection System Yes
Smoke Equipment Smoke grenade launchers (8x 81-mm left side of turret), and 32 grenades. Vehicle engine exhaust smoke system.
ARMAMENT
Main Armament
Caliber, Type, Name 125-mm smoothbore gun 2A46M/ D-81TM
Rate of Fire (rd/min) 4-6/2 in manual mode
Loader Type Autoloader (separate loading) and manual
Ready/Stowed Rounds 22/23
Elevation (°) -6 to +14
Fire on Move Yes, up to 25 km/h. Depending on the road and distance to the target, most crews may halt before firing.
Auxiliary Weapon
Caliber, Type, Name 7.62-mm (7.62x 54R) Machinegun PKT
Mount Type Turret coax
Maximum Aimed Range (m) 2,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day 1,000
Night 800
Fire on Move Yes
Rate of Fire (rd/min) 250 practical, 600 cyclic in 2-10 round bursts
Caliber, Type, Name 12.7-mm (12.7x108) AA MG NSVT
Mount Type Turret top
Maximum Aimed Range (m) 2,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day 1,500/1,000 antiaircraft
Night N/A
Fire on Move Yes
Rate of Fire (rd/min) 200 practical, 600 cyclic in bursts
ATGM Launcher
Name 2A46M
Launch Method Gun-launched
Guidance SACLOS, Laser beam rider
Command Link Encoded infrared laser beam
Launcher Dismountable No
FIRE CONTROL
FCS Name 1A40-1
Main Gun Stabilization 2E42-2, 2-plane
Rangefinder TPD-K1M laser rangefinder
Infrared Searchlight Yes
Sights w/Magnification
Gunner
Day TPD-K1, 8
Field of View (°) 9
Acquisition Range (m) 3,000 with LRF, 5,000 without
ATGM/Night 1K13-495 5.6x (8x ATGM)
Field of View (°) 6, 40 min (5 ATGM)
Acquisition Range (m) INA
Commander Fire Main Gun No
MAIN ARMAMENT AMMUNITION
Caliber, Type, Name
125-mm APFSDS-T, BM-42M
Maximum Aimed Range (m) 3,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day 2,000-3,000
Night 850-1,300
Armor Penetration (mm) 590-630 at 2,000 meters
125-mm Frag-HE-T, OF-26
Maximum Aimed Range (m) 5,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day INA
Night 850-1,300
Armor Penetration (mm) INA
125-mm HEAT-MP, BK-29M
Maximum Aimed Range (m) 3,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day INA
Night 850-1300
Armor Penetration (mm) 650-750
125-mm HEAT, BK-27
Maximum Aimed Range (m) 3,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day INA
Night 850-1,300
Armor Penetration (mm) 700-800
Other Ammunition Types Giat 125G1 APFSDS-T, Russian BM-42
and BM-32 APFSDS-T. Note The Russians may have a version of the BM-42M with a DU penetrator.
Antitank Guided Missiles
Name AT-11/SVIR
Warhead Type Shaped charge (HEAT)
Armor Penetration (mm ) 700 behind ERA/800 conventional
Range (m) 4,000
Name AT-11B/INVAR
Warhead Type Tandem Shaped charge (HEAT)
Armor Penetration (mm ) 800 behind ERA /870 conventional
Range (m) 4,000
-
Originally posted by ccvi
If a certain minimum level of E is exceeded it doesn't matter much if it increased further. For a given projectile the maximum penetration depth is limited mainly by (edit: remove shape, add) length and density of mass, no matter how much kinetic energy it has, if E it exceeds the minumum required.
I'm really not sure what you mean here. What do you think a small 22 caliber bullet would do to the turret of a T-72 hitting it at say a tenth of C? You did say "no matter how much kinetic energy it has."
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm really not sure what you mean here. What do you think a small 22 caliber bullet would do to the turret of a T-72 hitting it at say a tenth of C? You did say "no matter how much kinetic energy it has."
It wouldn't penetrate. It would vaporize on it's way to the target releasing the energy of rougly 1/20th atomic bomb.