Author Topic: Wow!, Bradley's knocking out T-72s? (Read 4302 times)

Puke · « **Reply #60 on:** April 07, 2003, 08:49:30 PM »

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.

jamusta · « **Reply #61 on:** April 07, 2003, 09:45:36 PM »

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.

Boroda · « **Reply #62 on:** April 08, 2003, 10:16:43 AM »

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Mini D · « **Reply #63 on:** April 08, 2003, 10:44:51 AM »

Quote

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

Boroda · « **Reply #64 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:10:15 AM »

Quote

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.

Pongo · « **Reply #65 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:11:25 AM »

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.

Quote

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.

Boroda · « **Reply #66 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:18:55 AM »

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.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #67 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:19:07 AM »

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.

miko2d · « **Reply #68 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:25:05 AM »

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

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #69 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:31:59 AM »

T62 had an oddball 115mm gun...

Monk · « **Reply #70 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:32:30 AM »

Quote

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.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #71 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:36:01 AM »

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?

Boroda · « **Reply #72 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:41:44 AM »

Quote

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.

Quote

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...

Monk · « **Reply #73 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:46:12 AM »

Quote

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.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #74 on:** April 08, 2003, 11:50:57 AM »

Quote

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.