M833 vs T-72

Companion · #1 January 31st, 2008, 12:55 AM

Just dug up something interesting from tanknet.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1990/TJD.htm

Under "General Threat Overview", it saids in fire tests conducted in 1988, 105mm DU rounds could not penetrate T-72 export model but exact details are not given.

Does this mean frontal arc of Iraqi T-72s are immune to M60 Pattons' 105mm guns?

Does anybody know the details of this test?

pdoktar · #2 January 31st, 2008, 07:24 AM

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...&hl=m833&st=20

Quote:

"Interestingly enough, according to the Russians, the T-64A was immune to 105mm APDS from the very beginning (1969 IIRC) and the addition of BDD add-on armor made the T-55AM2B, T-62M, etc...immune to 105mm APDS in 1983. Finally, the reported live-fire testing at Kubinka in 1982/83 of M111 rounds fired from a Syrian captured and provided IDF Magach 4 (captured during the battle of Sultan Yacoub), reportedly convinced the Soviets to add the glacis face plate to the T-72M1 in 1983. The T-72A never got the face plate, so it's likely that the internal glacis armor layers were adjusted to include what was learned from the testing of the M111."

Seems to me that the M833 DU could penetrate the plain T-72 at ranges.. perhaps 2km..

No hard facts however.

pdoktar · #3 January 31st, 2008, 07:56 AM

Having a hangover day, so digging up info:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...hl=m833&st=120

Post#140

"Well, as described by Col.Mourakhovsky back then, both the captured M111 rounds and M735s obtained from unknown source were tested. At a distance of 1500m M111 could penetrate the glacis but not the turret of T-72A (which was enough to cause the uproar); however M735 couldn't penetrate anything."

The M833 is much newer round than the M111 and is quoted to have some 100mm more pen than the Israeli M111.

Gooseman2448 · #4 February 1st, 2008, 11:41 AM

Can someone explain somthing to me about the various version of the T-72 in WINSPMBT.

I was look in at the armor ratings while reading this thread. I understand that most WP Countries had local manufactures and thus differences occur.

My question is in the Poland OOB.

The PT-91 Twardy was Polish built (Post WP). I assume the T-72M1 was manufactured in Poland. I don't know, maybe built in Russia and sent to Poland, I thought by end of WP most were being manufactured in country.

I real point is this, the PT-91's overall armor ratings are lower than the T-72M1, but has ERA. Was the armor rating dropped because of the ERA or did they build inferior tanks on purpose and add ERA?? My understanding is it is a base T-72M1 with modern elec, engine, etc...

DRG · #5 February 1st, 2008, 04:59 PM

Perhaps, if Blazej Ciepluch reads this he will explain it to you. I'm not going to assume I know why

However, you might note there are 2 "PT-91 Twardy " in the Polish OOB the first one, unit 18, and the second unit 409 and they both have different armour ratings and if I WERE going assume anything I MIGHT "assume" the first one was built up from T-72M's and the second perhaps built from T-72M1's or that this was an ongoing project and 18 was just the first stage as you also might note that unit 18 only exists for 2 years before unit 409 replaces it .

But I don't know for sure becasue I don't keep the history of every detail of every change for all of the 34,610 units in OOB's in the game ( yes, that's the real number, not something I made up ) As I said, maybe Blazej will show up and explain it himself.

Don

Gooseman2448 · #6 February 1st, 2008, 06:40 PM

Sorry DRG,

I know this may open biggest can of worms.

I read all the threads and everything is about what T-72 is in or not in an OOB not the actual specs on them.

I didn't expect an answer but, I figured if someone by chase had a SIMPLE suggestion It would shine some light.

It really doesn't matter, they all pop their tops the same. ; )

Thanks though.

PlasmaKrab · #7 February 9th, 2008, 01:19 PM

Got through the paper a couple of times, I know I'm late...
Does this sound like shameless blatant lobbying to anyone else?
The way the author steers a whole score of doubtful facts and assumptions on his side, he must be from the same school of information management as old Sparky.

As far as I'm concerned I read the sentence "not one 105mm depleted uranium round fired from the M1 (...) was able to penetrate the armor of an export model of the T72" with grains of salt reading "at angles over 60�", "at distances over 3000m", under the best ERA sets available" and so on...