Discussions on Russian Armour

[lastdingo]

Tanks aren't primarily meant to destroy tanks. The Russian tanks have the advantage of a large national inventory of decent HE-frag shells. A T-90 is OK if used properly and maintained properly.

It's also a huge threat to any modern Western tank - simply because it could easily knock out any of them with a flank hit. It's no safe bet that all Western "modern" (tanks (most of them are actually 70's or 80's designs) would be able to penetrate a T-90's glacis or turret front either.

 

[Rickshaw]

One would expect that the Russians have built on the development of previous tanks. In 1990, after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO and the US Army was forced to admit that ex-NVA (East German Army) T72M1s were impervious to all then fielded AT weapons used by either NATO or the US Army. Big embarrassment. In the same year, the fUSSR (just before its collapse) made an unsolicited bid to the UK Government as part of the Challenger I replacement competition. Their proposal, based on the T90 had a completely ceramic hull, which came as a huge shock to the British Army and NATO (and I suppose by extension the US Army). Ceramics are potentially much harder than most metals and the Soviet claim that they could fabricate large assemblies made of them showed how advanced they were in their use. I would expect the T90 to be much better in its armour than a T72M1 and something developed from it, like the mythical T95, better yet again. Western chauvinism usually prevents such considerations.

 

[Andrei_bt]

One would expect that the Russians have built on the development of previous tanks. In 1990, after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO and the US Army was forced to admit that ex-NVA (East German Army) T72M1s were impervious to all then fielded AT weapons used by either NATO or the US Army. Big embarrassment. In the same year, the fUSSR (just before its collapse) made an unsolicited bid to the UK Government as part of the Challenger I replacement competition. Their proposal, based on the T90 had a completely ceramic hull, which came as a huge shock to the British Army and NATO (and I suppose by extension the US Army). Ceramics are potentially much harder than most metals and the Soviet claim that they could fabricate large assemblies made of them showed how advanced they were in their use. I would expect the T90 to be much better in its armour than a T72M1 and something developed from it, like the mythical T95, better yet again. Western chauvinism usually prevents such considerations.

never read such BS before ;D

 

[Matej]

never read such BS before ;D

You can say it in other words, dont you?

Forum rules

 

[Orionblamblam]

You can say it in other words, dont you?
Forum rules

I had some vague recollection that there was a rule against both profanity and euphemisms for profanity, but either that's not listed, or my lysdexia is blocking it from my sight.

So, assuming that such a rule exists... how about instead of "BS," people use "what a bunch of Die Glocke" or "what a pile of steaming stealth blimp?" It's not a euphemism, but a direct metaphor for understood concepts.

 

[bobbymike]

Have we not been reading about Soviet/Russian supertanks completely impervious to everything just waiting for the order to roll right across Europe to the English Channel for about 60 years?

With the state of Russian industry are we really to believe they can produce and manufacture armor technologies beyond any of their western counterparts that have invested probably ten times the amount of money for materials technology?

Unless the post was being hyperbolic then I apologize for not "getting it".

 

[Matej]

So, assuming that such a rule exists... how about instead of "BS," people use "what a bunch of Die Glocke" or "what a pile of steaming stealth blimp?" It's not a euphemism, but a direct metaphor for understood concepts.

What about: "I completely disagree with what you wrote, because..."?

With the state of Russian industry are we really to believe they can produce and manufacture armor technologies beyond any of their western counterparts that have invested probably ten times the amount of money for materials technology?

Yes. I am not saying that the mentioned information is true, but Soviet/Russian companies produced many excellent products for the fraction of the costs compared to the west (where even the ordinary worker gets thousands USD per month). Especially when it is related to some partial isolated technologies or subsystems. Note that I am saying being developed, not mass produced and bought by the Russian military service. So if we are talking strictly about the possibility if that can happen, I say yes, it can. But if it really happen, this is the question for someone much educated in this area than I am.

 

[lastdingo]

One would expect that the Russians have built on the development of previous tanks. In 1990, after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO and the US Army was forced to admit that ex-NVA (East German Army) T72M1s were impervious to all then fielded AT weapons used by either NATO or the US Army. Big embarrassment.

It wasn't the only such embarrassment (see the AA-11 shock and the unbelievably quick alarm reaction times of WP troops in East Germany). I seem to remember that the imperviousness wasn't that complete, though.

It was of course only about the frontal 90° and it was about 105mm L7-type APFSDS and most single stage HEAT warheads.

The lessons were basically
* get tandem HEAT ASAP! The brand-new Panzerfaust 3 was already obsolete at introduction, Panzerfaust3T had to be developed (just an example).
* the switch from 105mm to 120mm tank guns was actually belated, the Israelis and the U.S. Army were wrong in their belief that 105mm rifled sufficed for their early Chobham generation tanks (M1 Abrams, Merkava I).

Btw, can u point at a specific report (source)?

 

[Orionblamblam]

What about: "I completely disagree with what you wrote, because..."?

Because, let's face it, sometimes the other guys arguement is BS. Imagine the craziest conspiracy theory you've ever heard someone *seriously* expound. It's so crazy that it is beyond rational arguing against, and the only thing you can come up with that's even remotely calm is "prove *your* case." And even that doesn't usually work. As the saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position they got themselves into via unreasonable means.

[/threadjack]

That said... I'd dearly love to see some proof. An all ceramic tank? Armor that was *impervious* to all fielded anti-armor weapons? Such awesome, extraordinary and amazing, dare I say it, Wunder Waffen, would clearly sell *really* well on the export market. Where are they?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That said... I'd dearly love to see some proof.

That might have been in the training film that Rickshaw knows so well from his time as an Army projectionist in the 1970s…

An all ceramic tank?

Well the US built quite a few composite AFVs during the 1980s. Culminating in the composite hull Bradley in 1989. The hull was made up of two halves of polyester resin bonded S-2 glass fibre joined together by an aluminium alloy frame and turret cage. Tests indicated better protection than the legacy aluminium alloy/steel hull and 27% less weight.

So I fail to see how such a Soviet bid would be such a shock? Unless it was shock at them for making such a ridiculous no-chance bid.

 

[Orionblamblam]

An all ceramic tank?

Well the US built quite a few composite AFVs during the 1980s. Culminating in the composite hull Bradley in 1989. The hull was made up of two halves of polyester resin bonded S-2 glass fibre ...

Composites (fiberglass or carbon fiber w/resin) ain't ceramics, unless this is some oddball, "armor-specific" use of the term. But while I beg enough ignorance of armor lingo that "ceramic" may mean" fiberglass," I would have some difficulty in believing that the Soviets had "impervious" fiberglass that would shrug off a GAU-8A, a 120mm DU penetrator or a TOW missile. Hell, a Molotov cocktail would do entertaining things to a fiberglass battle tank.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

It wasn't the only such embarrassment (see the AA-11 shock and the unbelievably quick alarm reaction times of WP troops in East Germany). I seem to remember that the imperviousness wasn't that complete, though.

It was of course only about the frontal 90° and it was about 105mm L7-type APFSDS and most single stage HEAT warheads.

The lessons were basically
* get tandem HEAT ASAP! The brand-new Panzerfaust 3 was already obsolete at introduction, Panzerfaust3T had to be developed (just an example).
* the switch from 105mm to 120mm tank guns was actually belated, the Israelis and the U.S. Army were wrong in their belief that 105mm rifled sufficed for their early Chobham generation tanks (M1 Abrams, Merkava I).

Is this that same report where supposedly Russian T-72s with Kontakt-5 were supposedly invulnerable to everything fired at them? I believe that was revealed to be a fake.

Otherwise M774 and M833 should be able to penetrate the front of the T-72M1/T-72A. The M833 might be able to deal with somewhat better armor but I have no clue if this was ever proven. Also, by 1990 I believe a few tandem-charge weapons including the BGM-71E TOW-2A were in service, however the widespread introduction of ERA by the Soviets certainly caught NATO off-guard.

If all NATO weapons were tested the 120mm gun on the Leopard 2 with late 1980s ammunition could almost certainly punch through the front of a T-72A, giving me more reason to doubt such a report.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Unless it was shock at them for making such a ridiculous no-chance bid.

Actually, a bid like that might be a sort of tactical brilliance. There are *lots* of ridiculously good reasons why the very-recently-former Soviets would not win a contract to design and build important Western defense systems. But even though they'd know that going in, they'd also know that when they inevitably lost, they'd be able to spin it as Western chauvenism. This might play well to *other* potential customers.

 

[collins355]

The source is an article in Janes International Defence Review 7/1996 by German specialist Manfred Held which said a NATO briefing had indicated that tests on a former East German T72 fitted with K5 ERA had shown it could resist 120mm strikes (exact round not specified).

The article was later rehashed and faked by Chinese hacktervists online this decade.

The original article still stands, however. A year later Janes published a followup:

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This was the reason the US upgraded their DU penetrator and a lot of non-DU users turned to L55 tubes. The new rounds could penetrate Kontakt 5. Still this is a long way from declaring invulnerability.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Wouldn't a shotgun blast of DU flechettes go a long way towards ruining the invulnerability of a reactive-armored tank? The first shot wouldn't ruin the tank, but it'd set off a large area of the reactive armor (which I'd think would go a long way towards ruining the tank *crew*, if not the tank), leaving the tank open for the next round to come zipping right on in.

All hail the shotgun, king of the battlefield!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Kontakt-5 was a reasonably cost-effective solution to up-armouring the Soviet Union's legacy tank designs, but it was "invulnerable" from a small range of angles from the front, in specific locations only. Sides, rear, not to mention the parts of the front not covered by the Kontakt-5. Far more relevant to overall combat capability was the poor FCS and electronics, mediocre gun etc of the basic tanks. T-95 needed to solve these aspects too to compete with last generation Western tanks - but in so doing, would unlikely to have been affordable.

Interested to see what's under the tarp - radar, presumably.

Oh, and I don't have a problem with Andrei calling "BS" on a post - he runs http://btvt.narod.ru and knows a lot more about Soviet/Russian tanks than most of the posters on this forum.

 

[Andrei_bt]

East German Army) T72M1s were impervious to all then fielded AT weapons used by either NATO or the US Army

This is a joke? Why Iraqi T-72M1 were destroyed by AT weapons used by the US Army?

In the same year, the fUSSR (just before its collapse) made an unsolicited bid to the UK Government as part of the Challenger I replacement competition. Their proposal, based on the T90 had a completely ceramic hull, which came as a huge shock to the British Army and NATO (and I suppose by extension the US Army).

UssR never participated in Challenger I replacement competition. The T-90 never utilized completely ceramic hull or any ceramics inj the hull.

Ceramics are potentially much harder than most metals and the Soviet claim that they could fabricate large assemblies made of them showed how advanced they were in their use.

T-90 does not utilize ceramics.

I would expect the T90 to be much better in its armour than a T72M1 and something developed from it, like the mythical T95, better yet again. Western chauvinism usually prevents such considerations.

Th o. 195 hull is based on the object 187 created in beginning 90-s.

 

[lastdingo]

East German Army) T72M1s were impervious to all then fielded AT weapons used by either NATO or the US Army

This is a joke? Why Iraqi T-72M1 were destroyed by AT weapons used by the US Army?

Well, no joke - and it's widely known why the Iraqi tanks were so easily destroyed by 120 and even 105mm guns:

They were what's known as "monkey models" - looking like the real thing, but ridiculously low quality.*
Their shells were even worse. The penetrators were made of a material that shattered on impact - not a tungsten or uranium alloy.



The U.S. does this as well. The F-15's sold to Saudi-Arabia are essentially monkey models because the Israelis insisted on it.

 

[Andrei_bt]

East German Army) T72M1s were impervious to all then fielded AT weapons used by either NATO or the US Army

This is a joke? Why Iraqi T-72M1 were destroyed by AT weapons used by the US Army?

Well, no joke - and it's widely known why the Iraqi tanks were so easily destroyed by 120 and even 105mm guns:

They were what's known as "monkey models" - looking like the real thing, but ridiculously low quality.*
Their shells were even worse. The penetrators were made of a material that shattered on impact - not a tungsten or uranium alloy.



The U.S. does this as well. The F-15's sold to Saudi-Arabia are essentially monkey models because the Israelis insisted on it.

There are no so called "monkey models" because the protection, fire control, mobility of T-72M sold for export was the same as T-72A.
And by the way "destroyed by 120 and even 105mm guns" - can yo show a photo of iraqi T-72Ms destroyed by APFSDS ?

 

[lastdingo]

...and the T-72A was poorly protected in comparison to T-72B!

Hilmes (2009) offers frontal protection values for T-72A as 250-400 mm RHAeq KE and 250-490 mm RHAeq CE for T-72A.
He also offers 520 mm RHAeq KE and 950 mm RHAeq CE for the T-72B turret front.

1980's 105mm APFSDS had typically about 330-360 mm RHAeq KE penetration.
http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm

The very latest APFSDS of Germany was capable of defeating only 520mm RHAeq KE protection in 1991. The two earlier generations of German 120mm APFSDS were incapable of the same.

The British were in 1991 introducing a 120mm APFSDS that had only about 530 mm RHAeq KE penetration. Their older 120mm APFSDS was apparently incapable of penetrating a 1990 state-of-the-art T-72 turret front.

The U.S. M829 - much hyped up since Clancy's jingoistic book - was barely able to offer a bit more than 520 mm RHAeq (~550), which could easily translate into an inability to penetrate the latest T-72 turret front armour as well, since the DU's advantage is in slicing through steel with tip forward while the T-72's protection was so strong because of an entirely different mechanism (the attempt to break the long rod with lateral force in order to distribute its kinetic energy on a larger base armour area).

Both the U.S. and the WP emphasized hull-down fighting a lot, so turret armour is much more relevant than hull armour. Tanks which expose their hull would very often move in zig-zag to make hits less likely and thus expose their thin side armour anyway.


Finally 75 of the East German T-72's underwent a modernization in the late 80's and likely featured better protection than the T-72A by the time of the re-unification while none of the Iraqi tanks were up to 1980's T-72 standards despite all of them were delivered in the 1980's.



According to what's publicly known today it's possible that by 1991 Western tank cannons were pretty much defeated by the newest Soviet turret front armour.

Guess why we introduced new APFSDS versions and even some L/55 barrels despite the lack of threat evolution!

 

[hs1216]

according to what's publicly known today it's possible that by 1991 Western tank cannons were pretty much defeated by the newest Soviet turret front armour.

The same tanks that did so well in Chechnya?

 

[lastdingo]

The tanks that were destroyed en masse in Grozny were hit by multiple light anti-tank weapons (HEAT) in other places than the front armour.

Guess what? The Chechens didn't go head-on with those tanks.
The world is kinda complex.

 

[Avimimus]

Ahh... it sounds like a forum again.

There was an excellent article published by Graviteam (no longer available - although I think I saved a copy) on the T-72. This article consisted of a bunch of after action reports showing the T-72's ability to sustain damage. One of the stories consisted of a tank out maneuvering an ambush by a dozen (outdated) anti-tank missiles, another was of a tank fighting with ERA missing and an internal fire (and possibly some of the crew dead). Basically - the tank isn't guaranteed to blow off its own turret with the first hit.

We've also seen a number of M1 Abraham's lost in Iraq due to attacks with fewer and equally primitive anti-tank weapons than were used in Chechnya. The rear armour is pretty dismal if I recall correctly? It can be very hard to build perfect defenses against being disabled or attacked at close ranges etc.

My conclusions were:
1) Tanks are made out of metal or composites - both of which are hard. To destroy the tank you have to destroy what is inside them after penetrating the armour.
2) No tank is invulnerable - you light a big enough fire around it and it cooks the crew (and sometimes the ammunition). You just need a big enough incendiary bomb.

Of course, some tanks may have more recently upgraded gunnery systems, better frontal armour or better ammunition which will give them a guaranteed kill in open country at long ranges. I certainly don't dispute that possibility of overwhelmingly superior systems. I just think that armoured vehicles scare that **** out of me. Regarding this new model - what I find most interesting is the sensor suit. There is real potential for redundancy and greater (wide-angle) situational awareness, as well as more automated and rapid target acquisition - all of which may give a look-first, shoot-first capability.

Btw. I'd be very interested if someone has an intelligent analysis of the Jane's report. I wouldn't be surprised if armoured capabilities were under-estimated at some point.

P.S. The Soviet Union was behind the "West" in many areas (thanks to the wars and the recent industrialisation), but it is important not to overgeneralised - in areas like automatice guns and titanium production there was a clear technological superiority in the "east". I wouldn't be surprised if Soviet tanks were superior in some areas (even if armour and targeting systems lagged). I'm very impressed overall at how quickly Soviet engineering advanced.

 

[Avimimus]

The same tanks that did so well in Chechnya?

Never send tanks into a city without infantry support (unless the city is Baghdad and you have a big causeway/high-way to give you some separation from cover).

 

[bobbymike]

In terms of US 120mm APFSDS rounds penetration ability was there not stories of a single round penetrating a sand berm and passing through two T-72's (albeit from the side)?

 

[lastdingo]

In terms of US 120mm APFSDS rounds penetration ability was there not stories of a single round penetrating a sand berm and passing through two T-72's (albeit from the side)?

Yes, that story is from Clancy and Clancy is no serious source.
He has jump-started the whole irrational M1 Abrams fanboi movement iirc.
Everything American is simply uber in that book.

 

[hs1216]

During battle of Sultan Yaakub Syrians managed to get down couple of Magach tanks . Russians took possetion of them , and tested the "Lituf" shells , IMI 105mm new production shells . They found them to penetrate those T-72 , and Russians made an attempt to enhance to forward armor of T-72 .

Got this from the military photos forum

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-32811.html

 

[Avimimus]

In terms of US 120mm APFSDS rounds penetration ability was there not stories of a single round penetrating a sand berm and passing through two T-72's (albeit from the side)?

I originally heard this as three T-72's taken out: Two were exposed and the third was hit while retreating by a round that passed through the sandbank.

 

[Firefly 2]

Found this online. Seems relevant.

http://airlandseaweapons.devhub.com/blog/482328-t-72-in-the-gulf-war/

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I've read on some other forums that that cited Jane's article is a fake. I'll try to dig up those discussions.

Remember there are various different estimates for the T-72B's armor level as well as how much RHA the M829 and M829A1 can penetrate. Supposedly T-80UD crews of one country (Ukraine?) were told that the front armor with K-5 ERA could stop the M829, but not the M829A1.

 

[Rickshaw]

One would expect that the Russians have built on the development of previous tanks. In 1990, after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO and the US Army was forced to admit that ex-NVA (East German Army) T72M1s were impervious to all then fielded AT weapons used by either NATO or the US Army. Big embarrassment.

It wasn't the only such embarrassment (see the AA-11 shock and the unbelievably quick alarm reaction times of WP troops in East Germany). I seem to remember that the imperviousness wasn't that complete, though.

It was of course only about the frontal 90° and it was about 105mm L7-type APFSDS and most single stage HEAT warheads.

The lessons were basically
* get tandem HEAT ASAP! The brand-new Panzerfaust 3 was already obsolete at introduction, Panzerfaust3T had to be developed (just an example).
* the switch from 105mm to 120mm tank guns was actually belated, the Israelis and the U.S. Army were wrong in their belief that 105mm rifled sufficed for their early Chobham generation tanks (M1 Abrams, Merkava I).

Btw, can u point at a specific report (source)?

It was widely reported in the defence press at the time but most particularly in Jane's International Defence Review. The report stated it was "all NATO AT weapons" IIRC which included 120mm tank guns, I'd assume as that was the standard tank gun by then. Of course it was only frontally but even so, thats a pretty impressive performance.

 

[Rickshaw]

One would expect that the Russians have built on the development of previous tanks. In 1990, after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO and the US Army was forced to admit that ex-NVA (East German Army) T72M1s were impervious to all then fielded AT weapons used by either NATO or the US Army. Big embarrassment. In the same year, the fUSSR (just before its collapse) made an unsolicited bid to the UK Government as part of the Challenger I replacement competition. Their proposal, based on the T90 had a completely ceramic hull, which came as a huge shock to the British Army and NATO (and I suppose by extension the US Army). Ceramics are potentially much harder than most metals and the Soviet claim that they could fabricate large assemblies made of them showed how advanced they were in their use. I would expect the T90 to be much better in its armour than a T72M1 and something developed from it, like the mythical T95, better yet again. Western chauvinism usually prevents such considerations.

never read such BS before ;D

People who don't like their pet assumptions challenged shouldn't go on the internet.

 

[Rickshaw]

Have we not been reading about Soviet/Russian supertanks completely impervious to everything just waiting for the order to roll right across Europe to the English Channel for about 60 years?

With the state of Russian industry are we really to believe they can produce and manufacture armor technologies beyond any of their western counterparts that have invested probably ten times the amount of money for materials technology?

Unless the post was being hyperbolic then I apologize for not "getting it".

At the end of the Cold War American assumptions were that they had the best and the brightest of everything. Those assumptions were challenged by the revelations I've outlined. As others have suggested, there were others as well. These are not scary stories told to frighten children but hard-headed intelligence and technical assessments made after the dust has settled and realists can examine the hardware without making chauvinistic assumptions.

With the collapse of the fUSSR, the technology hasn't gone away. The industrial ability to manufacture it has but they are regaining that and the finances to do so. It would foolish to assume otherwise.

 

[Rickshaw]

What about: "I completely disagree with what you wrote, because..."?

Because, let's face it, sometimes the other guys arguement is BS. Imagine the craziest conspiracy theory you've ever heard someone *seriously* expound. It's so crazy that it is beyond rational arguing against, and the only thing you can come up with that's even remotely calm is "prove *your* case." And even that doesn't usually work. As the saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position they got themselves into via unreasonable means.

[/threadjack]

That said... I'd dearly love to see some proof. An all ceramic tank? Armor that was *impervious* to all fielded anti-armor weapons? Such awesome, extraordinary and amazing, dare I say it, Wunder Waffen, would clearly sell *really* well on the export market. Where are they?

The Wunder Waffen did sell on the export market. Guess where the Warsaw Pact got its tanks from? Guess where the Chinese got a great deal of their armour technology? Ditto for the Indians and the Pakistanis. Many Americans assume that the Iraqi T72s were the same as every other T72. They weren't. They were export models, built to a price, not a capability.

Ceramic tanks are real. They are within the capability even of the West. The fUSSR was utilising ceramics in their armour matrices dating back to the late 1970s when the T72 first appeared (Ceramics are one of the main components of its turret armour, utilised in a steel matrix). The West was experimenting with ceramic armours in the same time period, utilising ceramic armour block inserts. The West however chooses not to utilise this technology, preferring to use the Chobham system - it isn't that they can't, its just that they don't want to because of the problems with its fabrication. The only surprising thing about the unsolicited Soviet bid for the Challenger I replacement was that the entire hull was ceramic. Somehow they had worked out how to fabricate large ceramic pieces of armour and to weld them into a cohesive armoured hull. Something Western countries were having difficulties with. Ceramics of course are considerably harder than steel, making them perfect for use in AFVs.

 

[Rickshaw]

That said... I'd dearly love to see some proof.

That might have been in the training film that Rickshaw knows so well from his time as an Army projectionist in the 1970s…

:

An all ceramic tank?

Well the US built quite a few composite AFVs during the 1980s. Culminating in the composite hull Bradley in 1989. The hull was made up of two halves of polyester resin bonded S-2 glass fibre joined together by an aluminium alloy frame and turret cage. Tests indicated better protection than the legacy aluminium alloy/steel hull and 27% less weight.

So I fail to see how such a Soviet bid would be such a shock? Unless it was shock at them for making such a ridiculous no-chance bid.

The July 1997 issue of Jane's International Defence Review confirmed that after the collapse of USSR, US and German analysts had a chance to examine Soviet made T-72 tanks equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA, and they proved impenetrable to most modern US and German tank projectiles; this sparked the development of more modern Western tank ammunition, such as the M829A2 and M829A3. Russian tank designers responded with newer types of Heavy Reactive Armour, including Relikt and Kaktus.

[Source]

The July 1997 article was IIRC by Rupert Pengelly (?sp) who was one of Jane's better correspondents.

Interesting webpage here which partially confirms the results.

Very interesting diagram:

Admittedly, supplied by a game designer but Steel Beasts is a cut above most games and considered a simulator (and sold as such to military users) and very well researched.

As can be seen, frontally the tank is extremely well protected.

 

[Rickshaw]

I've read on some other forums that that cited Jane's article is a fake.

Fake, how? It exists, I've read it.

 

[Rickshaw]

according to what's publicly known today it's possible that by 1991 Western tank cannons were pretty much defeated by the newest Soviet turret front armour.

The same tanks that did so well in Chechnya?

No tank performs well in MOUT and those which are mishandled perform worst of all.

 

[bobbymike]

If I made assertions at a site like SP that required me to respond with more consecutive posts I think I have seen on the site I might question MY assumptions and not the assumptions of everyone else, just saying.

So if I sum up; the gist, you have one Jane's article and a drawing from a video game? I try and keep an open mind, you might be 100% correct but I think a detailed annotated summary of sources would be helpful for me to assess the facts as you present them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The reports about the effectiveness of Kontakt 5 ERA are certainly not fake and any internet denizen claiming such is clearly just a forum fool, ego driven debater and not an informed opinion. However claims that it made tanks “immune” to APDFS fires are exaggerated. Kontakt 5 was found to reduce the penetrative ability of long rod KE penetrators by around 25% with a lot or variable based on striking angle. 25% was enough of a degradation to stop penetration of a turret face at the outer edge of effective range (2.5-4km). So the capability of Western long rod KE penetrators was upgraded to ensure they could still penetrate Kontakt 5 equipped T-72s, T-80s and T-90s out to 4km in range. The physics of this effectiveness is being used by the latest crop of hard kill active protection systems to defeat long rod KE penetrators. They precisely position their application of force to the long rod so as to impact significant yaw to its flight attitude. Off axis yaw of +30-45 degrees affecting striking angle to what is known in the English speaking world as a “belly flop” will reduce penetration effectiveness by 80-90%.