Voennoe delo: Tanks - Struggle for Surviving. Part 2. (English sub)

[redreaper2020]

Just noted the video is incorrect, the first tank with a gas turbine was in fact an American tank...the T95 had one variant equipped with a Solar Saturn turbine as a proof of concept! :D

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 "The first gas turbine engines used for armoured fighting vehicle GT 101 was installed in the Panther tank."

Kay, Antony, German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945, Airlife Publishing, 2002

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr oh wow. I didn't know that.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 And actually the first MBT with gas-turbine engine, which got into mass production was a Swedish S-tank Strv103 from 1966. About 340 of them were built. But neither American Media, neither Russians disclose this fact :)

[Tsagia]

Mpravo gia to upload!

[MrTomte09]

Russian (and Soviet) weaponry is hugely underrated, whilst the Russian Ground Forces itself is overrated

[BitnikGr]

@MrTomte09 Very true!

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr massive props to you for that one. nobody wants to admit to it, because of nationalism (like even though I like the abrams, and it is a great tank, it's not cost-effective at all.)

I wish the russians wouldn't rely so heavily on ERA. A good enough HE explosion shockwave, sufficient heavy machinegun fire, etc., can wipe it out. And you cant uparmor it by adding era or spaced armor over it. ERA is an excellent solution, but not a replacement for composite and plate. :(

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 They must depend on ERA, because their tanks have very strict weight and dimensions limitations for transportation on their rail-road network. To get the same level of protection without ERA, tanks would weight at least 15tons more. Strategic rapid transportation of tanks like Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, Merkava is impossible on Russia's rail-roads.

Btw, thanks for your comments on this and other videos too.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr ah, that makes sense!

And thank you for uploading these translated. I've been looking for voennoe delo in english for a LONG time, thank you very much!!!

[darkon112]

@redreaper2020 Russians don't rely on ERA at all. Soviets/Russians were first to design and field MBT with composite armor, (the T-64 with Combination-K armor) and don't be fooled despite their weight all Russian tanks have excellent weight to armor ratio far higher then M1 or leo ..currently AMX-56 Leclerc is the king in terms of weight to armor ratio though. As far as dynamic protection the west also uses it be it ERA, NERA or NxRA in different forms like wedge armor on Leopard 2

[BitnikGr]

@darkon112 That was true until 90s. Russians were indeed first ones in many fields in tank building. Composite armor, ERA, hard-kill, etc... their armor was immune, till the newest sabot rounds came in 90s. Today it is not enough without era. And Western armor have being upgraded. I don't think T-80 have 900mm RHA on frontal arc without ERA.

However, I still believe that lighter + ERA is better than massive with no ERA (providing same level of protection).

[darkon112]

@BitnikGr T-90A/S with welded turret's have the same frontal protection at 0 degrees from turret center line as Leopard 2 series according to tanknet guys and they would know. As for sides, yes western tanks have much thicker side armour this days, though in Russian/Ukrainian designs the sides are angled and covered by frontal armor against hits at angles from 0 to 30 degrees from the turret center line so that helps a bit. The new T-80/T-84's should be on par or even superior.

[BitnikGr]

@darkon112 "As for sides, yes western tanks have much thicker side armour this days" - These are not correct. I don't know about Leclerc and Merkava, but Leopard, Abrams and Challenger have much thinner side armor (without ERA, just armor itself). It is about 30-40mm thick. Meanwhile Russian tanks since T-55 all have 80mm thickness at sides (again, only armor itself, no additional screens and ERA).

[darkon112]

@BitnikGr You sure about that ? i'm pretty sure side armour on western tanks without ERA this days is thicker then on Rus/Ukrain tanks without ERA. That was certainly not the case up untill late 80's I'm glad though that some one recognizes Russian ingenuity when it came to tanks and by how much they advanced the tank industry. From first ones to use remote controlled machine guns on a tank ( Object 260) to unmanned turret's (Object 477 “Molot”) and many other things.

[BitnikGr]

@darkon112 Well, of course I can't say with 100% guarantee about all tanks. But for example, pictures of destroyed Abrams in 1991 and 2003, together with pictures and video footage from Abrams factory in US show that nothing was changed at side armor itself. It is 30-40mm, as it was 30-40mm.

Russian tanks don't differ between them in side armor either. Probably because they used some standard for rolling out side armor plates. It is 80mm for many Soviet/Russian tanks.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr "lets give ourselves 2x the armor we need up front and let some asswipe with an RPG pop one in our sides" That never made much sense to me either.

I love the Challenger 2, but there's a big strip down the front of the hull where the driver sits with thin armor. Wtf were the brits thinking? Course, the entire rear of our abrams is a giant 500-degree bullseye.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 The point is that neither 80, neither 150mm will protect even from the oldest RPGs (260mm in 1961!). Sides must be protected by ERA and Hard-Kill systems. Neither Russian tanks can withstand RPG without ERA.

According to Hunnicut Abrams side armor around engine is only 25mm... this is vulnerable even to Bradley's 25mm M242 Bushmaster. I didn't know that!

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr you're also forgetting the effect of sloping armor on an RPG; M1A2's frontal armor is sloped at 83 degrees over the frontal arc. I've been up close with an Abrams before; the armor around the engine is definitely more than 25mm (~100mm sounds right).

Common sense shows it's false: it'd make no sense for us to do that when the armor of the M60 was thicker some 30 years ago (~70mm through the sides, thicker and thinner depending on the slope, as LOS thickness was fairly uniform.)

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 Usually armor is given in physical measures and angle of armor or in RHA equivalent which usually already considers the slope angle. Let's say it is presented like that... Either 100mm / 60dgr, either 200mm RHA.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr I usually hear just a straight number per KE and HEAT since slope doesn't affect composite much. Before the 70s, we got the 100@60, 80@75, etc., though.

[BitnikGr]

@BitnikGr I've got more accurate numbers. According to Hunnicut, side armor of all Abrams versions are 57mm from front until engine compartment and engine compartment sides are only 25mm thick. 40mm I mentioned before is an average number ((57+25)/2=41).

Bradley's M242 25mm + M919 APFSDS round = 75mm penetration at 1000meters!

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr I'm 100% positive those numbers are false. Even a basic visual observation shows it to be wrong. Russians did teach us the valuable lesson of deliberately underrating equipment as disinformation.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 Dear friend. Mr. R. P. Hunnicutt wrote books, which are considered as a "Bible of Armored Forces!" His work is accepted by all experts world-wide. His books are very heavy, big... and expensive. (I heard price around of $400!)

Unfortunately, he died very recently (if I am not mistaken)

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr sounds like his book would make good applique armor :V

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 LOL! Very true! :)))

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr I must say, I've always enjoyed conversing with you about these things. Everyone has an opinion; few people back it up, and even fewer stay objective. Even if we disagree, you get my respect for that.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 Thank you for your good words. You have my respect too.

[redreaper2020]

@darkon112 weight to armor ratio isn't relevant in actual combat. You can go "I only have a 40 ton T72" but that Chal2 doesn't give a fuck. You armor must meet your threat.

Russian armor values still are dependant on ERA. T90 turret is ~950mm with ERA, while the Abrams is ~1500 without. I can put ERA, spaced armor, or even just scrap metal on Chobham or Dorchester. I can't put those over ERA or Leo's wedge armor. So when demand is 2000mm, I can uparmor an Abrams, not a T-90.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 There is no such thing as weight to armor ratio... I think you didn't get what he meant. There is a armor mass/internal volume ratio. That means how much armor is spent to protect every 1m^3 of internal space. With other words, I can place thinner armor on bigger box and it will be heavier but less protected than a lighter box with thicker armor on smaller box. And that does show approximate level of protection.

- 950 and 1500 against what? APFSDS or HEAT?

...

[darkon112]

@BitnikGr Yes, armor mass/internal volume ratio would be a better way of putting it. Thank you.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr I'm aware of what he means. He mentioned the armor per its weight, what I was pointing out was that armor/weight is irrelevant, because your armor is only determined good or not by what shoots it. An efficient T34 still won't win one-on-one against a Tiger because the Tiger simply outclasses it..

~950-1500 depending on position hit and upgraded variant; the "stated" amount against KE is for instance on an M1A1 around 800mm on the turret & hull fronts, but on A2SEP it's around ~1100

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 I hope those numbers are not from illustrations of Steal Beasts...

M1A1:

Body frontal armor - 450 (KE), 650 (HEAT)

Turret frontal armor - 500, 800

R. P. Hunnicutt. Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Vol.2. — Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1990. — P. 306. — 320 p. — ISBN 0-89141-388-X

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr Those numbers correspond properly with the original XM1 Abrams.

It's all kind of silly, though. If the side armor was really so thin, scores of abrams's would fall victim to a few dug-in shilkas. It's been proven that an M1A2 with M829A1s can't defeat Abrams side armor at close range; proven in the gulf several times. While any tank is only as strong as its weakest spot, either these figures are false (as I can attest to personally) or every US tank action was a fluke.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 Frontal sides of turret... exactly to the left and to the right from gunmask. Yes... probable.

Turret's back sides or anywhere else is simply impossible.

M829A1 has penetration power of 650 to 700mm RHA according to different estimations (even Russian ones).

Except frontal arc, the rest of Abrams has 300-350mm in the best case (turret back side).

Even worst penetration of M829A1 is almost double to best estimation of armor except frontal hull and turret.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr Then why couldn't they penetrate side armor of stuck abrams's they were trying to take out? If I have a stuck tank I gotta kill off, I probably won't shoot the front of it.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 I don't know. We don't have all details from documented sources of that event. Only such archives from that particular unit can give the answer.

Range? Round? Place of impact? Angle of impact? Without these it is not possible to say why it wasn't penetrated and if it should be penetrated.

Without these data it is just a story like many others. Like Challenger which survived 70 RPGs, like T-90S fighting in Dagestan or like Abrams killing 3 tanks in 9 seconds at full speed.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 ...

ERA can work under screen armor on sides, for example.

Such way for armor increase is a dead-end, because it leads to overweight and worse and worse mobility. Armor equivalent in RHA must not be upgraded by RHA itself, but with other materials, with less mass and higher RHA equivalent. Watch Leo2A7+... 72tons! Is it possible even further? Till where? 100t Mouse of WWII? :)

Who said that you can't uparmor T-90 and then place ERA over it? :) Actually exactly this happens.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr A standoff corrugated screen or mesh net is cost and weight efficient. Chobham is lighter than steel per protection, as is silica, tungsten, and even DU mesh.

Oh, on the abrams side armor--the abrams has around ~300mm over some areas, since the skirts on the side are steel and ceramic as far as I know.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 300-350mm is on turrets back sides.

Skirts are too thin to do anything to APFSDS. They only can make RPGs explode earlier. If you look at high-res pictures of Abrams hit in Iraq, where those skirts are open, then you will see that they are not thicker than your finger. And no... they are not composite.

Russians use rubber/material screens of 10-15mm. They have about same density in order to make RPG explode earlier, but they are flexible and cheaper... and also useless against KE.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr no, the add on ones they've been retrofitting. They have an addon pack for TUSK I and II, another one similar to the Chal2 with NERA, and just a straight slab-sided one you might see every so often. It's similar to the Israeli ones they added to late-model Magachs.

During desert storm, attempts to take out stuck Abrams tanks with even side armor shots failed...just food for thought I guess. I don't take it as a false report, as I've heard it firsthand; simply interesting.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 Ah, ok. TUSK packages.

-

What rounds were used?

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr No idea. I'd assume HEAT. I know that side armor is very very heavily upgraded in urban areas though. Chal2s usually have ERA, NERA, steel, composite, etc.

My personal theory, based on its longevity and scarcity of official info, as well as combat reports, is that the Abrams is deliberately underrated. The Sovs did the same thing in the past; our use of a 30-year-old tank estimated to be used until 2050 means there's something REAL good about it.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 It is second time I hear about attempt of stuck Abrams in desert, but the other guy was trying to convince me that sabot rounds were used for that. And that doesn't make sense for me. If I wanted to destroy a tank, I want to burn it, and then I would use a HEAT or ATGM for that. It is harder to set a tank on fire with APFSDS rounds, and they are more expensive!

-

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr Most of the gulf war was long range though. He might've reasoned that If KE power drops off at range, makes sense to expend those rounds some other way. Personally, if I needed to torch a tank, a block of C4 or something similar would do it (why waste ammo shooting it anyway? We advanced almost the entire war anyway and had air superiority, no danger of capture)

I have no idea what round was used, but I'd imagine either way, whatever round it was probably could penetrate 80mm.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 ...

Every tank, which can be modernized over decades to deal with new threats is 100% successful design.

Bad designs usually exhaust all possibilities of modernizations very soon and goes off service. (Leopard 1 for example)

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr I'd agree with you on that. The T55, M-46/47/48/60, T-72 and M1 have proven their adaptability. The AMX30, T-62, and Leo1 haven't.

[redreaper2020]

@darkon112 also, dual warheads don't offer an advantage against things like chobham, but they do against reactive. Russian composite is good, but it doesn't match Chobham and Dorchester--comp K was essentially the same thing as the composite the US rejected (rather stupidly) fifteen years before for its T54 medium tank project (silica/steel mix).

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 "dual warheads don't offer an advantage against things like chobham, but they do against reactive" - I didn't get your point here. Tandem-warhead consists of pre-charge (which neutralizes ERA) and main charge for main armor. So, the first small charge won't do anything neither to Chobcham or any other armor of any other tank. The main charge is for that role. That's why in their specs they write "number mm RHA beyond ERA".

[redreaper2020]

@darkon112 my mistake, T95 medium tank project.

[narikization]

Music from "Gladiator"

[andreyRUS17]

3:35 Dagestanian war

[TurbineDogSevenFour]

A good video! Probably the best thing to do is to make a flexible force, and explore all avenues of technology. The more complex a system is, the easier it is to fail. I would also say that logistics is very important! Many many good tanks are better than a handful of really excellent tanks.