NATO-Pact Realism Mod

[olds 15]

Let's not underestimate the damage caused by these "standard" penetrations. Here is a picture of the interior of a T-72M (Finland's Parola Tank Museum):

The 3BM15 APFSDS round penetrated from behind the cameraman's left shoulder and ricocheted up through the hatch you see ripped open in front of you to the right. The spall damage is also visible all over the inside of the turret's liner.

Between the bits of penetrator, spall making it past the liner (and some pressure shockwave), the people inside would have been in some difficulty. Even if nothing blows up, it's not that hard to end up with a crew that is out of the fight and a vehicle mission kill.

Modern tanks in Iraq & Afghanistan getting barely penetrated by antique weapons may not cause too much damage...maybe (most attacks you hear about don't actually involve full penetration of the crew compartment). But heavy penetrations are easily capable of wiping out an AFV and most of the occupants (e.g. Marine APC's hit by RPG-7s, Nasiriyah "Ambush Alley" 2003: see

and

).*

This being said, I fully agree with the rest of the comments: there is no magic grenade effect on the crew due to penetration alone, and having ammo laying around (especially unprotected in the turret!) increases the odds of catastrophe immensely.

*The Iraq situation, of course, was a case of absurd imbalance of forces--a preschool cake walk compared to what would have happened in "WW3" in Europe in all respects: weapon capabilities, fire density, etc.

---Mod Notes---

We actually have quite a bit of control over how much damage occurs after a penetration, I've been tweaking quite a bit with it in RAM. It's not perfect, but it's pretty serviceable and adjustable.

[Damian90 697]

Well, the problem is rather high randomness of performation effects.

By the way guys, soon there might be some problems contacting me as I am joining the army, and more time I will spend in barracks and on proving grounds than in front of my computer. :P

[olds 15]

A few random Cold War era military myths, with an emphasis on the 1980's:

1. Soviet tank autoloaders were (are) unreliable and ate gunner's arms!

Myth: this oft-repeated myth appears to originate from early production problems back in the 60's. Take look at interior video of Soviet tanks firing--the gunner would have to work quite hard to get his arm over the metal shield separating him from the breech/autoloader. The Finns, for example, appear to have used T-72M1's quite successfully without any indication of autoloader problems. Anecdotal evidence from Syria suggests the autoloader (on old, export T-72's) is quite reliable under harsh conditions and with limited repair capacity.

2. T-72's are weakly armored--they brew up (explode) whenever they get hit.

Mostly myth: brewing-up when hit is not at all unique to the T-72 and has nothing to do with its armor--which was quite impressive for its era. Basically every MBT--except the M1--stores ammunition inside the main compartment^. Penetrating hits that set off tank ammo are what causes the catastrophic explosion. It is fair to say Soviet tanks are more vulnerable to this effect due primarily to their small size; a penetration is more likely to hit one of those spare rounds tucked into various locations around the tank. But every MBT other than the Abrams suffers from the general problem^^. Improved ammo storage does a better job of saving the crew than the tank--if a tank's armor is significantly penetrated, it is often a "kill" regardless of whether (some of) the crew survives. (Incidentally, Soviet autoloaders are pretty well positioned, and ammo there is less likely to be hit than in NATO tanks--which store most rounds in the turret for easy access by the human loader. If it weren't for spare rounds stored in their turrets, Soviet tanks would probably be less likely to brew than their counterparts).

3. The M1 Abrams would have mopped-up the battlefield. It was (is) virtually invulnerable.

Myth: the M1 is an excellent tank, but--like many other Western "super-weapons"--it has the distinction of only having faced generations-old export equipment in the hands of poorly trained troops. This would make any decent vehicle look pretty invulnerable. Despite superior fire-control and survivability, 1st generation M1's were under-armored and under-gunned* compared to their Soviet counterparts (T-64/72/80). This led to the M1A1, which was competitive but by no means invulnerable--particularly to kinetic attack. In fact, throughout the 1980's, Soviet tanks were a pretty good match for their NATO counterparts--particularly at the relatively short engagement ranges of a European battlefield. And they were cheaper/more numerous. So the determining factors in tank encounters would likely have involved other distinctions: crew training/quality, the strategic flow of the battle, attrition by other weapons, etc. All MBTs--Abrams included--are strong from the front, and quite vulnerable from almost every other angle. The caveat is that Soviet tanks were (and are) at a disadvantage in desert combat, where their emphasis on sub-2000m engagements proves detrimental vs. most NATO designs.**

^ As Damian90 quite rightly pointed out earlier in this thread

* This is a reflection of the ammunition available at the time as much as the guns themselves. NATO 120mm (sabot) rounds available in the 80's were substantially inferior to more recent ammo for the same gun.

** Less accuracy in fire-control and ammunition beyond 2000m, and lack of thermal imaging (until very recently).

^^ The Leopard 2 does isolate turret ammo with blowoff panels similar to the M1, but there is substantial extra ammo stored in the hull. It is not as vulnerable as Soviet tanks however, which store spare rounds in nooks and crannies throughout the turret.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Olds

[warlord554 2065]

If your interested I'd be more than happy to setup a weapons pack for you :)

[serjames 357]

Interesting stuff olds. Thanks for the insights.

[Damian90 697]

1st generation M1's were under-armored and under-gunned* compared to their Soviet counterparts (T-64/72/80).

Well not exactly. 1st generation M1 had comparable armor protection to other modern MBT's used by then, also T-64, T-72 and T-80. Currently we know more about Soviet tanks back then, and it seems that Soviets had some problems with their special armor concepts, also quality problems.

However indeed 1st generation M1 were somewhat undergunned, yet still very dangerous. 105mm M68A1 gun had it's advantages like quicker ROF.

And they were cheaper/more numerous.

Rather discussive tesis about being cheaper. ;)

[flv*venom* 83]

Just stopped by to say that I'm very keen to see this mod in action.

keep up your work! :)

[olds 15]

Well not exactly. 1st generation M1 had comparable armor protection to other modern MBT's used by then, also T-64, T-72 and T-80. Currently we know more about Soviet tanks back then, and it seems that Soviets had some problems with their special armor concepts, also quality problems.

Well the subject of speculative armor values is notorious flamebait ;). But I'll bite with some speculative numbers of my own:

• M1 (original model) ca. 1984:
  
  • Front hull LOS RHAe: 340 kinetic / 640 HEAT
    
  • Front turret LOS RHAe: 350 kinetic / 700 HEAT
    
  • Sabot penetration (M833 round): 400's@0m
    

• T-72A ca. 1984 (includes "Reflection" glacis upgrade):
  
  • Front hull LOS RHAe: 500 kinetic / 580 HEAT
    
  • Front turret LOS RHAe: 480 kinetic / 530 HEAT
    
  • Sabot penetration (3BM29 round): ~500mm @0m
    

These are values based on research of publicly available sources, but I think they're close to real life--within 20%, possibly closer. (I haven't finished researching penetration values, so I just cribbed from Steel Beasts here). Some sources quote the M1 armor values as higher, a few as lower. I think the high values are wrong for a number of reasons (stated M1 design goals, the fact that the Germans found the kinetic resistance of its 1st generation "Chobham" too low to use in the Leopard 2, among others). The T-72A values are based on various sources, including German tests of comparable T-72M1's after unification. I'd also say the US agreed that the original M1 specs were too low in both armor & armament, hence the almost immediate work on the M1(IP)/M1A1 improvements.

Of course, armor penetration IRL is a bit more complex than simply comparing two (speculative) numbers. Nonetheless, I'd say the M1 started out with a real problem against Soviet tanks. It would likely have had a hard time penetrating them while the Soviet tanks did not have the equivalent problem. This holds true even if you are much more generous with your M1 armor estimates.

However indeed 1st generation M1 were somewhat undergunned, yet still very dangerous. 105mm M68A1 gun had it's advantages like quicker ROF.

I'm speaking here purely in terms of armor penetration vs armor protection. But even so, multiple rounds won't help you much if they fail to penetrate your target. I don't doubt that the average NATO tank could put more rounds on a target than the average Soviet--better fire control, TI, better training, defensive advantage, etc. Maybe the Soviets knew this too and counted on thicker armor to compensate. Maybe it came from generally testing their armor against their own (at the time better) sabot rounds.

Rather discussive tesis about being cheaper. ;)

I take your point--there is no real apples-to-apples comparison of costs.:) But I doubt the Soviets could have fielded quite so many tanks if they weren't cheaper than their competitors--after all their economy was rather small compared to the US + Western Europe, even though their proportion of military spending was quite a bit higher.

[olds 15]

Sorry, I just watched a terrible National Geographic "documentary" about HEAT and ERA and it reminded me of another constantly-repeated misconception...

4. HEAT warheads work by creating a "molten" stream of metal that "melts" its way through target armor.

Myth: I don't know why people (let alone TV programs) repeat this utter hogwash when 2 seconds of web-searching will set you straight!

HEAT warheads are a type of shaped-charge which has a metal liner included. Due to some very complex physics, the explosive converts the liner into a very fast, very thin stream^ of metal. (The temperatures involved are well under the melting point of the liner--copper is preferred for its ductility, it has nothing to do with melting point). The stream punctures armor by pushing its way through at high speed, eroding away as it moves along--not unlike the good old "kinetic" sabot round.*

OK, so why does ERA exist? And why are armors rated differently against "kinetic" (sabot) vs. "chemical" (HEAT) rounds? Well, while the HEAT stream is still kinetic in its penetration, it has unique properties and vulnerabilities that make it different from a sabot round.

The stream has certain ideal distances in which it forms, reaches it's peak penetrating power, and dissipates into a diffused set of weak droplets. This all happens within just a few meters of the warhead going off. Anti-HEAT armor disrupts, disperses, or otherwise erodes the stream.

This can be done using a variety of methods that are much more effective vs. HEAT warheads than they are vs. sabot: ERA typically pushes a plate of metal across the stream to erode it, spaced or slatted armor can offset the trigger distance, ceramics** erode the stream as it penetrates, and so on.

(HEAT warheads revolutionized anti-tank warfare for a number of reasons. They could be attached to all sorts of useful low-velocity projectiles that didn't require a large canon or tank to fire: man-portable launchers, guided-missiles, etc. They have high penetration power. And unlike canon rounds, their penetration power does not degrade with projectile speed.

The spread of these weapons in turn spurred the use of special armors which has reduced--but by no means eliminated--their combat value***).

^ While the metal starts out as a roughly solid "needle" of metal in the beginning, it becomes more of a stream as it moves along, with the tip moving much faster than the rest of the needle

* In these kinds of "hypervelocity" penetrations, the metals act like one fluid being squirted into another, but it's because of their high speeds, not because they melt. (Incidentally, HEAT jets have a peak velocity many times higher than that of the traditional kinetic round: 8 km/s vs. 1.5 km/s)

** Ceramics (and glass) have an irregular ("amorphous") microstructure rather than the uniform crystalline structure of metals; while ceramics are brittle and subject to shattering, they are good at eroding a HEAT jet as it penetrates.

*** e.g. US armored troops are currently trained to engage anything tank-like with sabot, and to use HEAT only for light-armored vehicles like APCs. However, HEAT remains the only practical warhead for anti-tank missiles of all types.

Sources:

• Wikipedia: Shaped Charge
  
• Overview of the Shaped Charge Concept
  

Edited December 22, 2014 by Olds

[Damian90 697]

Well the subject of speculative armor values is notorious flamebait . But I'll bite with some speculative numbers of my own:

M1 (original model) ca. 1984:

Front hull LOS RHAe: 340 kinetic / 640 HEAT

Front turret LOS RHAe: 350 kinetic / 700 HEAT

Sabot penetration (M833 round): 400's@0m

T-72A ca. 1984 (includes "Reflection" glacis upgrade):

Front hull LOS RHAe: 500 kinetic / 580 HEAT

Front turret LOS RHAe: 480 kinetic / 530 HEAT

Sabot penetration (3BM29 round): ~500mm @0m

Olds, did you actually searched from what type of steel both tanks are made? ;)

I give you a hint, Soviets had problems with steel for their tanks, and steel was basic type of protection at that period against KE strikes. On the other hand I actually checked out steel type from which M1 is made. It is very hard HHS steel type, it's hardness ranges from 400+ HB to 500 HB. IMHO it's TE efficency will be something between standard 1.2 value for HHS and 1.3 for newer THS. We can know alsop calculate some things.

For example M1 glacis plate, we know it is 51mm thick at 82 degrees inclination. It's relative armor thickness then is 357mm. Now let's us calculate this via TE value, 357 x 1.2 = 428mm, nice for armor plate that is only 51mm thick. Of course this value can differ a bit when we do calculation a bit different. For example let's first take this 51mm glacis plate and calculate it's TE value. 51 x 1.2 = 61, now let's take this plate and calculate it's relative thickness, 61 @ 82 degrees should be 427mm, a comparable value to the previous one.

I know from some Russians, that in USSR there were attempts to use similiar HHS steel for turrets, however all attempts were unsuccessfull. So they used some sort of SHS steel. Also remember that Americans used in M1 rolled armor plates, which are by 5 to 15 % stronger than cast armor mostly used by Soviets.

http://www.arcelormittalna.com/plateinformation/documents/en/Inlandflats/ProductBrochure/ARCELORMITTAL%20ARMOR.pdf

This is company making steel for M1. Steel type is MIL-DTL-46100.

Also take a note that M1 uses NERA type armor. NERA uses also steel plates, of very similiar thickness. Let's say we have 10 such 50mm steel plates made from such HHS armor. 50 x 1.2 = 60mm, 60 x 10 = 600mm vs KE. And this is only a steel armor. ;) And this is without inclination! I also did not added air gaps here and other materials, mostly because I loose my TE values tables and don't remember their TE values.

The Soviets used mostly BTK-1 steel for hulls, dunno about turret.

These are values based on research of publicly available sources, but I think they're close to real life--within 20%, possibly closer. (I haven't finished researching penetration values, so I just cribbed from Steel Beasts here). Some sources quote the M1 armor values as higher, a few as lower. I think the high values are wrong for a number of reasons (stated M1 design goals, the fact that the Germans found the kinetic resistance of its 1st generation "Chobham" too low to use in the Leopard 2, among others). The T-72A values are based on various sources, including German tests of comparable T-72M1's after unification. I'd also say the US agreed that the original M1 specs were too low in both armor & armament, hence the almost immediate work on the M1(IP)/M1A1 improvements.

Steel Beasts values are a bit off, I talked with guys, and it seems they have wrong armor thickness values based on some wrong drawings. ;)

As for Germans and their tests of "Burlington", you know, it is funny that they claim such things, when they actually use "Burlington". :) However don't ask me from where I know it, but I seen Leopard 2 armor, it is incredibly similiar to known photos of "Burlington".

As for US, oh, their work on M1IP and M1A1 are completely normal, they knew that at some point original BRL-1 armor package won't be enough, actually original M1 could receive stronger BRL-2 armor package, but for some reasons it didn't.

I'm speaking here purely in terms of armor penetration vs armor protection. But even so, multiple rounds won't help you much if they fail to penetrate your target. I don't doubt that the average NATO tank could put more rounds on a target than the average Soviet--better fire control, TI, better training, defensive advantage, etc. Maybe the Soviets knew this too and counted on thicker armor to compensate. Maybe it came from generally testing their armor against their own (at the time better) sabot rounds.

Well, the problem is that we just recently aquired knowledge that T-72's and T-80's would loose their armor from turrets after each single hit, why you ask? T-72 up to T-72A and T-80 up to T-80B used "sand rods" as their turret special armor, it seems that it was loose sand and there are reports that it was observed that after each hit, sand was going outside through hit holes in armor. Interesting isn't it?

On the other hand T-64's had better armor in terms of protection quality, but there were problems during production, and overall armor quality was a problem. Sometimes these ceramic spheres in turret, did not alligned properly and tanks had various armor quality at some places.

I take your point--there is no real apples-to-apples comparison of costs. But I doubt the Soviets could have fielded quite so many tanks if they weren't cheaper than their competitors--after all their economy was rather small compared to the US + Western Europe, even though their proportion of military spending was quite a bit higher.

Ha, you probably never lived in socialist country with socialist economy where... economy does not matters. ;)

The fact is that for Soviets, their tanks production was much more expensive than for NATO. It is because you need to calculate not only production costs, but also costs of vehicle service life. So now think, from 1960's to 1980's Soviet Union manufactures 3 similiar MBT's, each MBT have similiar combat properties, but each of these 3 MBT's use different logistical chains, as they have different engines, different suspensions, different autoloaders, different FCS and even different hatches and periscopes. All in all what they done was purely insane from economic point of view!

Now look at NATO, NATO countries allways manufactured single tank type at specific period. Which means that all these points above were much simpler and cheaper in the end, also there is issue of training procedures and so on. Think about that.

Funny thing is that Soviet problems were acknowledged by some Soviet engineers like these in Kharkiv KMDB design bureu, and believe me, they were bitching at other design bureaus that they waste tons of money, to only develop and induct their own designs, instead of cooperating and manufacturing single tank type.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Damian90

[serjames 357]

Very interesting... I didn't know about the sand... So the created cavities and filled it with sand or ceramic beads ?? To dissipate heat ?

SJ

[Damian90 697]

Depends on type of Soviet tank.

Original T-64 had front hull made from combined steel plates with glass textolite, while front turret was made from cast steel with it's frontal parts having cavities for alluminium filler.

T-64A and T-64B had different turret composition, it was cast steel that had ceramic (korundum) spheres placed inside during casting process.

There was also third turret design that had also cast turret, but with cavities containing steel plates, however it is not clear if it was experimental only or not.

T-72, T-72A, T-80 and T-80B had similiar front hull design as T-64 series, however turret was different, it was also cast, but it used as a filler so called "sand rods" or "sand bars". Sand is tightly compressed inside front turret cavities, but when turret is struck, sand can get through holes created by projectile, or even bulge the turret structure due to pressure.

Some early T-72's didn't even had such protection, and turret had just simple, cast homogeneus steel armor.

A bit different protection have T-72B, it uses so called "reflective plates" which is just fancy name for NERA or Non Energetic Reactive Armor. There are some photos of how this armor looks inside turret front cavities. Front hull have similiar protection.

What is interesting, is that T-90 and T-90A most likely use such type of armor also, but with different plate thickness and perhaps different materials.

T-80U and T-80UD uses so called "cellular castings" which are filled with some sort of polymer, however it's front hull have similiar configuration to late production T-80B and T-80BV.

There was also experimental armor studied for T-80U/UD, so called "cermet" package, which was combination of steel and ceramic plates. We can assume that most likely, "cermet" was adopted for further evolution of T-80UD which are T-84 series and it's apex, BM "Oplot" tank.

Of course there were many more experimental armor packages for tanks created in Soviet Union, as well as in NATO. For example not many people know, that originally, American M60 tanks, was scheduled to have such special armor package, and would be the first NATO tank to have such protection. Armor was called SCA or Siliceous Core Armor which used fused Silica between steel armor plates. However there were some problems with armor production, and also requirements were not fully meet by this design, and in the end, M60 ended with conventional steel homogeneus armor.

[olds 15]

Olds, did you actually searched from what type of steel both tanks are made? ;)

Good point, but yes, I adjust thickness equivalency for cast strength (I used 85%--on the low end for cast steel). The Soviet glacis applique is usually quoted as HHS, which I set at 130% (vs. 120% for semi-hardened).

For the Abrams, I'm not speaking of the glacis--which we're in agreement on--but the Chobham block below it. Nobody knows what Chobham is really made out of--we can guess based on photos and publicly released information of course. Does it use NERA? It would be a good idea as it's simple, cheap and seems to work quite well against HEAT (e.g. Iraqi "Enigma" armor vs. Milan). Then again, some photos show what looks to be shock-absorbing spacers--which AFAIK is only used to prolong the life of of ceramic inserts. That would make sense as most sources claim ceramic was also involved in the armor. As for NERA being based on HHS instead of RHA, do you have any references on that? Generally hardness comes at the cost of ductility. I would think that would be problematic for NERA; tungsten or DU might be better. But there's nothing preventing it from using all 3 elements in some form or another.

Anyway, I don't get too deep into the speculation on composition as it tends to lead "down the rabbit hole." In the end I simplify it all into a single thickness equivalence for kinetic & HEAT. I doubt the M1 vastly exceeded its design parameters (115mm sabot @800m / ITOW). The values could be ~400/700. Better? I doubt it. The Germans turned it down in favor of some pretty simple armor and they were not dummies.

My general approach to all military estimates is "don't believe the hype". Combat results are the best evidence and they repeatedly show new systems--particularly complex ones--fail to meet their hype. Tank design has always been built to fairly specific threats--without much over-building. The M1 was designed against the 115mm gun and the M1A1 against the 125mm. Soviets designed against their own best gun thinking that NATO performance would be similar.*

Steel Beasts values are a bit off, I talked with guys, and it seems they have wrong armor thickness values based on some wrong drawings.

Sounds reasonable, many of their values seem off when you dig into them.

Ha, you probably never lived in socialist country with socialist economy where... economy does not matters. ;)

Well, I have lived in a Scandinavian country--does that count?:) Their economy was great and the standard of living beat the pants off my native USA. But I know what you mean ;). No, I've never lived in a Soviet-style command economy.

Now I don't disagree that the 3 MBT's were inefficient, but in the absence of hard evidence I'm skeptical they were more expensive than the larger and more lavishly-equipped NATO tanks. Anyway, cost inefficiencies in arms spending were not unique to the Soviet system--let me tell you about the US military-industrial complex!

My utterly casual speculation is that Germany won the game in terms of design and cost with the Leopard 2. If it had been up to me, I would have standardized on the (diesel) T-72, and incorporated FCS upgrades for "premium" versions. Oh, and I would have modularized that engine block so it didn't take all day to change... But let's not go down another rabbit hole. :rolleyes:

* There are exceptions, of course: when the Soviets got a hold of the Israeli M111 in the early 80's, tests resulted in the "Reflection" glacis upgrades.

---------- Post added at 10:15 ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 ----------

Very interesting... I didn't know about the sand... So the created cavities and filled it with sand or ceramic beads ?? To dissipate heat ? SJ

No, to dissipate HEAT. :rolleyes: Edited April 30, 2014 by Olds

[Damian90 697]

Good point, but yes, I adjust thickness equivalency for cast strength (I used 85%--on the low end for cast steel). The Soviet glacis applique is usually quoted as HHS, which I set at 130% (vs. 120% for semi-hardened).

Seems reasonable.

For the Abrams, I'm not speaking of the glacis--which we're in agreement on--but the Chobham block below it. Nobody knows what Chobham is really made out of--we can guess based on photos and publicly released information of course. Does it use NERA? It would be a good idea as it's simple, cheap and seems to work quite well against HEAT (e.g. Iraqi "Enigma" armor vs. Milan). Then again, some photos show what looks to be shock-absorbing spacers--which AFAIK is only used to prolong the life of of ceramic inserts. That would make sense as most sources claim ceramic was also involved in the armor. As for NERA being based on HHS instead of RHA, do you have any references on that? Generally hardness comes at the cost of ductility. I would think that would be problematic for NERA; tungsten or DU might be better. But there's nothing preventing it from using all 3 elements in some form or another.

"Burlington" (or "Chobham" if you wish), is NERA type armor, all declassified documents from British national archives, have descriptions that point this. Funny thing is, that British documents not even single time, mentions ceramics, interesting isn't it?

As for these spacers you seen on photos of damaged M1's, well these are not spacers, and there are not ceramics. The things you call "spacers" are actually form of attachement insert bolts for outer armor layer for inner armor layer, something like this in drawing I made:

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/1024/f7379855bf92.jpg

As for use of materials in NERA arrays, well actually you can use different types of steel, you can even combine different materials just as You said. So HHS, SHS, THS, WHA, DU can be used and combined.

Anyway, I don't get too deep into the speculation on composition as it tends to lead "down the rabbit hole." In the end I simplify it all into a single thickness equivalence for kinetic & HEAT. I doubt the M1 vastly exceeded its design parameters (115mm sabot @800m / ITOW). The values could be ~400/700. Better? I doubt it. The Germans turned it down in favor of some pretty simple armor and they were not dummies.

Don't believe in official statements, I have a sniff that Americans were much better informed than they tend to say. Protection against 115mm APFSDS is official story, but might not be true. IMHO 1st generation M1 had ~500mm RHAe vs KE and ~800mm RHAe vs CE for front armor.

As for Germans, and who said that Germans actually turned out "Burlington/Chobham" in favor of something? This is popular story but the truth is that Germans did not had anything else at that time. Besides this, I seen Leopard 2A4 composite armor, I can't show you these photos (I don't even had them anymore), but it was very, very similiar to drawings of "Burlington/Chobham" from British documents.

My general approach to all military estimates is "don't believe the hype". Combat results are the best evidence and they repeatedly show new systems--particularly complex ones--fail to meet their hype. Tank design has always been built to fairly specific threats--without much over-building. The M1 was designed against the 115mm gun and the M1A1 against the 125mm. Soviets designed against their own best gun thinking that NATO performance would be similar.*

IMHO Americans were not designing protection against specific gun, but against projected performance of new ammunition types. And not only Americans are doing so.

But let's just look, even up to this day, Russians as basic APFSDS ammunition, use mostly 3BM22 from 1976, even more so in 1980's. 1st generation M1's frontal protection was perfectly suited to protect against such type of threat, capable to penetrate only 430mm RHA @ 2000m.

115mm 3BM28 could penetrate only 400mm RHA @ 2000m and it was round fielded in 1978. Both rounds perfectly fills the time period when M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 1 were fielded, and were basic types of ammunition for Soviet Army in early 1980's. WarPac countries had worse ammunition, like 3BM15 for 125mm guns for the whole period of 1980's... hey we still here in Poland use 3BM15 for both our T-72M1's and PT-91's, despite fact we have better ammunition for them, but it is war time reserve or some still in development and is not used.

Funny thing is that M833 APFSDS for 105mm M68/M68A1 gun, fielded in 1983 had comparable penetration capabilities of 420mm RHA @ 2000m to Soviet APFSDS fired from bigger guns.

Sounds reasonable, many of their values seem off when you dig into them.

It is because some of their estimations, are based on wrong armor thickness.

Now I don't disagree that the 3 MBT's were inefficient, but in the absence of hard evidence I'm skeptical they were more expensive than the larger and more lavishly-equipped NATO tanks. Anyway, cost inefficiencies in arms spending were not unique to the Soviet system--let me tell you about the US military-industrial complex!

If you compare tank vs tank, then perhaps T-80U was cheaper than M1A1HA, but when you start to compare the whole system, it is not that simple, and system is more important than single vehicle.

My utterly casual speculation is that Germany won the game in terms of design and cost with the Leopard 2.

Personally I dislike Leopard 2, even if my own Army use this tank, and in near future I might end driving one. ;)

If it had been up to me, I would have standardized on the (diesel) T-72, and incorporated FCS upgrades for "premium" versions. Oh, and I would have modularized that engine block so it didn't take all day to change... But let's not go down another rabbit hole.

Soviets tried to do that. T-80U and T-80UD was attempt to standarize tank fleet, however, as usual, corrupted politicians and engineers in some design bureaus, made things different.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Damian90

[olds 15]

Personally I dislike Leopard 2, even if my own Army use this tank

Awww, why don't you like it? Some achilles heel?

and in near future I might end driving one. ;)

Then you'd better cough up a full report when you're done!;)

[Damian90 697]

Awww, why don't you like it? Some achilles heel?

Unsafe ammunition storage and seriously, I seen to many photos of dead tank crew members after ammo cook off to embrace ammunition storage system that is below M1's standard. ;)

Main sight placement creating significant weak zone just in front of gunner face and commander... balls. Good enough? :)

Then you'd better cough up a full report when you're done!

Will see, it depends where I will in the end serve in Army. I might end up in Security Regiment at capital city, or perhaps in 10th or 34th Armor Cavalry Brigades which both will operate Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A5 tanks.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Damian90

[olds 15]

Unsafe ammunition storage and seriously, I seen to many photos of dead tank crew members after ammo cook off to embrace ammunition storage system that is below M1's standard. ;)

I can't argue with that, that's a good standard to have. But at least the turret rounds are isolated with a blowoff panel. (So are the hydraulics on the other side of the turret AFAIK?). Now if the front part of the hull gets penetrated...:eek:

Main sight placement creating significant weak zone just in front of gunner face and commander... balls. Good enough? :)

But isn't there a huge block of armor just behind the gunner's sight that is (almost) equivalent to the other front armor?

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Depends on type of Soviet tank.

T-72, T-72A, T-80 and T-80B had similiar front hull design as T-64 series, however turret was different, it was also cast, but it used as a filler so called "sand rods" or "sand bars". Sand is tightly compressed inside front turret cavities, but when turret is struck, sand can get through holes created by projectile, or even bulge the turret structure due to pressure.

While I agree that T-72A used sandbar filler, but I think T-80, B and BV used similar armor configuration as T-64. T-80 was meant to be a first line tank, like the T-64, not a lower quality second line tank as a T-72.

[Damian90 697]

But isn't there a huge block of armor just behind the gunner's sight that is (almost) equivalent to the other front armor?

Photos are worth more than a thousand words:

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/thord_wedman/strv_122/images/strv_122_137_of_237.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/thord_wedman/strv_122/images/strv_122_136_of_237.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/thord_wedman/strv_122/images/strv_122_144_of_237.jpg

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8845/przdj.jpg

Welcome in real world. ;)

While I agree that T-72A used sandbar filler, but I think T-80, B and BV used similar armor configuration as T-64. T-80 was meant to be a first line tank, like the T-64, not a lower quality second line tank as a T-72.

Sorry, reliable source from Russia (one of BTRZ's or Armor Repair Plants workers) says otherwise. T-80B and T-80BV have the same "sand rods" as T-72A. AFAIK original T-80 had simple homogeneus cast steel armor just as first T-72's for it's turret armor.

The only first line tank at that time were T-64 series, untill T-80U and T-80UD were designed.

[olds 15]

Photos are worth more than a thousand words:

Oh my! Geez, I had to make a rough 3D model just to visualize the armor gap:

(Side view of front part of turret: a very crude approximation for explanatory purposes only)

It's a complicated shape as they tried to compensate by adding armor behind the sight gap. It makes up for some of the weakness but not all. The transparent gray box is where the armor "should" be if it weren't for the sight. The red pieces are the (unarmored) sight. The green pieces are where the armor actually exists. So if my model is vaguely correct, you can see it leaves a weak zone running horizontally right through the middle of the turret (between the dashed blue lines).

Thanks Damian, this will help make the Leopard armor more accurate if I ever get around to adding one (and I hope I do!).

* The Leo A0-4 would look something like this, except there'd be a cutout extending from the sight in the middle of the upper front part of the turret.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Olds

[Damian90 697]

Don't forget that there is armor just beneath sight assembly, it have the same composition and thickness as armor module on the turret left front.

They tried to somewhat fix this during KWS-2 modernization program, but as you see on photos, turret after KWS-2 solves that problem only partially. Turrets on photos belong to Leopard 2S/Strv122 and Leopard 2HEL, so ones of the most advanced Leopard 2 variants.

The problem is that they raised main sight and added approx 200-300mm of armor in front of them in place where old sight window was, but these 200-300mm of armor won't stop projectile, and it's fragments inside sight cavity, might find a way through sights optical channel hole directly in to gunners face.

Funny thing is that nowhere in literature, there is clearly explained why they choose such design solution. My friend have a theory, but IMHO such theory is unsitasfactionary.

[olds 15]

OK, this time I used a photo (a Leo2A4 in this case):

Actually I think this is too optimistic. I don't think that lower "full armor" zone exists at all. The gun sight extends all the way down into that welded metal box.

I think it actually looks like this:

That whole lower area is protected only by the relatively thin block of armor at the front of the turret. (The other side of the turret looks like this except the orange gunner sight box is just armor and the upper green block--labelled "regular armor" here--is absent). Now that's a pretty significant weak zone that could have been avoided*. Of course, the sight mechanism and its welded box provides you with some protection--akin to some cheap spaced armor. Just not as good as the other side of the turret.

* The M1 Abrams avoids this problem by repositioning the crew a bit and moving the sight further up and back, so that the sight and the gunner are sitting behind a full block of armor.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Olds

[Damian90 697]

As far as I know, the first of your photos is correct, the second is just too much unoptimistic scenario. ;)

By the way, do You know that Leclerc have similiar weak zone? ;)

http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/17/04/88/86/8310.jpg

http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/17/04/88/86/8110.jpg

On these photos you can see how thin is armor block behind main sight, plus it have a hole for optical channel.

Another tank with similiar weakness is Indian Arjun Mk1 and Mk2. Also Israeli Merkava Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 have similiar weak zone around main sight area.

[olds 15]

I've been doing research into the troop compositions (TO&E) circa 1985 for the primary combatants. Here is the first pass at that for the US & Soviet armies. Comments & corrections welcome as always!

A couple of overall notes:

• These are Arma compositions for the Editor and ALiVE compatibility, not full TO&E.
  
• This first iteration will use only what's available in the (excellent) AiA-SA mod, to keep things simple. A few substitutions have been made but it's still pretty accurate.
  
• I plan to implement these as variant Factions for AiA. Future versions of ALiVE may allow for a higher-level OOB's (company, battalion) which I plan to support as well.
  

US Army

• Infantry
  
  • MG Team
    
    • (1) autorifleman [M60]
      
    • (1) asst.AR
      

    [*]ATGM Team

    • ​(1) miss.spec. [M47]
      
    • (1) asst.MS
      

    [*]Rifle Squad

    • ​(1) squad leader
      
    • (1) ammo bearer
      
    • (2) autorifleman [M60]
      
    • (2) grenadier
      
    • (1) rifleman AT [LAW]
      
    • (1) miss.spec. [M47]
      
    • (1) medic
      

  [*]Motorized

  • Scout Section
    
    • ​(1) Humvee-MG
      
    • (1) Humvee-GL
      

    [*]Motor Squad¹

    • ^​(1) MVTR
      
    • (1) [Rifle Squad]
      

  [*]Mechanized

  • Mech Squad (A)²
    
    • ^​(1) M2A2
      
    • (1) squad leader
      
    • (1) rifleman-AT [LAW]
      
    • (1) autorifleman [M60]
      
    • (1) grenadier
      
    • (1) miss.spec. [M47]
      
    • (1) medic
      

    [*]Mech Squad (B)³

    • ^​(1) M2A2
      
    • (1) team leader
      
    • (2) autorifleman [M60]
      
    • (2) grenadier
      
    • (1) ammo bearer
      

    [*]Mech Squad (M113)

    • ​(1) M113
      
    • (1) [Rifle Squad]
      

  [*]Armor

  • Tank Platoon: (4) M1A1
    
  • Tank Section: (2) M1A1
    
  • AA Section: (2) M163 PIVADS
    
  • SAM Section⁴: (2) Humvee-Avenger
    

Notes:

• 1: Rear area troops could have been in Humvee's, but Arma's Humvees seat so few that a single truck made more sense. Unlike Soviet BTR's, US troops at the frontline would most likely be in tracked vehicles.
  
• 2: In theory a 4-Bradley platoon recombined its troops into (3) 9-man squads. This is not feasible in Arma so the 6-man-per-vehicle squad (24 troops per platoon) is an approximation. The vehicles would have been M2's, not the heavier armored M2A2's.
  
• 3: For greater overall fidelity to a complete platoon, an Arma Bradley platoon could consist of (3) "A" squads and (1) "B" squad. (In 1991 this started shifting to to 2 squads + 1 MG section).
  
• 4: The Stinger-based Avenger was not fielded until the early 90's, the contemporary weapon would have been the M48 Chapparal (a roughly comparable system which also lacked a radar--like all US short-range AA systems).
  

Soviet Army

• Infantry
  
  • MG Team
    
    • ​(1) autorifleman [PKM]
      
    • (1) asst.AR
      

    [*]ATGM Team

    • (1) miss.spec. [AT-7]
      
    • (1) asst.MS
      

    [*]Rifle Squad

    • (1) squad leader
      
    • (1) autorifleman [RPK-74]
      
    • (1) medic
      
    • (1) rifleman-AT [RPG]
      
    • (1) asst.RPG
      
    • (2) rifleman
      

  [*]Motorized

  • Scout Section: (2)BRDM-2
    
  • Motor Squad¹
    
    • (1) BTR-60PB
      
    • (1) [Rifle Squad minus (1) rifleman]
      

    [*]Motor Squad MG²

    • (1) BTR-60PB
      
    • (3) autorifleman [PKM]
      
    • (3) asst.AR
      

    [*]Motor Squad ATGM²

    • (1) BTR-60PB
      
    • (3) miss.spec [AT-7]
      
    • (3) asst.MS
      

  [*]Mechanized

  • Mech Squad
    
    • (1) BMP-2
      
    • (1) [Rifle Squad]
      

    [*]Motor Squad MG³

    • (1) BMP-2
      
    • (3) autorifleman [PKM]
      
    • (3) asst.AR
      

    [*]Motor Squad ATGM³

    • (1) BMP-2
      
    • (3) miss.spec [AT-7]
      
    • (3) asst.MS
      

  [*]Armor

  • Tank Platoon (T-72)⁴: (3) T-72M1
    
  • Tank Platoon (T-64/80)⁴: (3) T-90
    
  • AA Section⁵: (2) ZSU-23-4
    
  • SAM Section⁵: (2) 2S6 Tunguska
    

Notes:

• 1: Arma BTR's are missing passenger space, so this is a 6-man approximation of what would have been a 7-man squad identical to the BMP-squad. Frontline troops (who were not in BMP's) would more likely have used BTR-70's, but the '60 is very similar.
  
• 2: A BTR company carried (9) regular BTR squads, (1)BTR-MG and (1)BTR-ATGM (along with an HQ vehicle). These weapons BTR's carried (3)2-man sections, but in Arma the sections must be lumped together into a single squad.
  
• 3: For every 9 BMP's in a company, there were typically 2 BMP-MG's (one of the two might occasionally be a BMP-ATGM instead).
  
• 4: Soviet Tank Regiment tank platoons consisted of 3 tanks. Frontline units would tend to use the T-80 or T-64 (B, BM, or BV). The T-90 is used as it has similar upgraded fire control and the ability to fire missiles. Motor Rifle Regiments, second-line units, and Pact allies would be using the T-72A (T-72M1 for Pact allies), some with ERA depending on the timeframe. (Though Motor Rifle Regiment tank platoons apparently consisted of 4 tanks, I'll probably skip that variation).
  
• 5: Close range anti-air was provided by a combination of ZSU-23-4 and SA-13 SAM (SA-9 in second-line units). The 2S6 is used in place of the SA-13 simply because it has missiles--in actuality it was a replacement for the ZSU-23-4 which started appearing as early as 1984.
  

[Tovarish Smuffle 0]

Hello, i stumbled upon this thread yesterday and it caught my eye, but seeing how long ago the last reply was posted, i'd like to know if this Mod is dead.