T-80 and T-90 MBTs

[contedicavour]

How have the T-80 MBTs, the kings of the Cold War on the Soviet Side, evolved since the early '90s ? Is the T-90 operational ?
Which versions are available for export ?

Even if the MBTs are less fashionable today, there are thousands of T-72s or older T-62s and T-54/55s awaiting replacements in the world, even if surely not on a 1 : 1 basis.

cheers

[extern]

T-80: Some about 1500 T-80 tanks of all modifications is operational in Ru Army now and some 1500 more - are in the storage. The bulk part - is the lastest T-80U mod. Further modernisation and upgrade is planed.

T-90: Less than 300 T-90S are operational just now in RuArmy and about 50 new tanks enter service each year.

[Moroz.ru]

History of Soviet tanks – T-72 difference from T-64/ T-80

Maybe this will explain that T-72 was not the only and not the best Soviet tank....

Contrary to the basic believe of the western and even Russian public T-72 is not a development of T-64A (the Soviet Main Battle Tank). T-72 vas development of Ural design bureau experimental tank that lost the competition to T-64 predecessor o. 430. That is why T-72 use the 22 rounds autoloader previously planned for modernized T-62. A completely different drivetrain and different turret.
The T-72 series itself was a “mobilization” tank of the soviet army. It was designed for mass production in war time in huge numbers.

(IMG:http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2483/1406jx.gif)

(IMG:http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7997/1673dp.gif)

T-72 predecessor o. 140 and 167

(IMG:http://img498.imageshack.us/img498/7480/all46562sw.gif)

The most important threads of Soviet tank development before 1966

Basically the first automatic fire control and gun-lunched missile appeared on T-64B in 1976. Then it was installed on T-80. The automatic fire control was never installed on T-72 or it’s versions.
The same story with armor – while the T-64-s and T-80 was equipment with high cost composite armor the T-72 had the simplest possible sand rods and then reflecting plates which were much less valuable than advanced compositions of T-80U …
So the key idea is that T-72 was not the primary Soviet tank, it was exported worldwide to any nation possible. While no T-64 or T-80 was ever exported (After Soviet Union T-80U was exported to ROK, Cyprus and T-80UD to Pakistan)…

(IMG:http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5958/all8le.gif)

The most important threads of Soviet tank development after 1966

FIRE CONTROL

1-st T-72 and T-80/64 were equipped with different guns.
T-80/64 received newest guns much before T-72-variants.

T-64 fire control consists of (basic information)

Targeting complex 1A34
-laser sight 1G42 with block of shot permission 1G43 and tank ballistic computer 1V517.
The AUTOMATIC sensors of entering information are
Heel sensor 1B14
Wind sensor 1B11
relative bearing sensor
tank speed sensor

The following information is entered before combat manually is temperature of the air, type of ammunition batch, atmosphere pressure, charge temperature, air temperature, barrel wear.

In the automatic fire control the correction factor for target range, tank speed, target speed, wind are entered automatically. The gunner just puts the mark on the target and the gun is adjusted automatically to required position, the mark does not change it’s position.


What is T-72B fire control –

The automatic fire control was not installed on T-72.
Instead of ballistic computer the tank is equipped with ballistic corrector.
The correction factor for target range tank speed, target speed, wind are not entered automatically. The wind correction factor is measured “by eye” (until the last serial versions and T-72C).
The gunner puts the mark on the target measures the range with LRF, the mark moves lover depending on range … It requires more time then with automatic FCS.
Another diference of T-72B from T-64/80B is that T-72 can not fire guided missiles while moving…

(IMG:http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/7373/722nc.gif)

placements of fire control elements inside the T-72B combat compartament

1 – executive cylinder of vertical drive VN
2 – Block for entering corrections
3 – guidance block for 9K120
4 – control block
5 – converter for 9K120
6 – electric module of 1A40-1
7 – round
8 – guided missile
9 – block for entering range
10 – horizontal drive GN
12 – electric machine booster
13 – 1K13 sight
14 - 1A40-1 targeting complex

Here is genealogic tree of T-xx tanks:
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/594/all7zr.gif
PS I going to translate this link to English a bit later

[SABRE]

Here is interesting history of Russian/Soviet tanks:
63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200
link is passive, to activate paste it to brouser adress
line

Here is genealogic tree of T-xx tanks:
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/594/all7zr.gif

Moroz.ru;

I am no mod or an admin, but the rules of forum dnt allow external forum links. Can you extract and modify the information or get it from some where else & repost it here.

The 2nd link is in Russian, can u also edit it with the help of adobe photoshop or MS-Paint. It seems interesting, would like to see it in English.

[Supe]

Moroz.ru;

I am no mod or an admin, but the rules of forum dnt allow external forum links. Can you extract and modify the information or get it from some where else & repost it here.


Referencing sources via external forum links are allowed as long as it is pertinent to the discussion. I too was a bit confused about that policy.

See this thread:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4606

[Darrel_topgun]

Today, the T-80 and T-90 MBTs are very common in communist contries especially in Russia and PRC (People's Republic of China). PRC is the country with the most tanks in the world, it has a total of 8500 MBTs, 4000 of these or about half of PRC's tank population comprises of both the Russian-designed T-80 and T-90 MBTs. The Chinese did not adopt its original 115mm smoothbore gun but opted for a 105mm rifled-gun from Israeli Defense Industries, known to Americans as the M68. :cool:

[ngyikai]

Does the T-80 have explosive reactive armour?

[LancerMc]

Yes both the T-90 and T-80 use ERA. This is common of all the latest Russian designs.

[isthvan]

Today, the T-80 and T-90 MBTs are very common in communist contries especially in Russia and PRC (People's Republic of China). PRC is the country with the most tanks in the world, it has a total of 8500 MBTs, 4000 of these or about half of PRC's tank population comprises of both the Russian-designed T-80 and T-90 MBTs. The Chinese did not adopt its original 115mm smoothbore gun but opted for a 105mm rifled-gun from Israeli Defense Industries, known to Americans as the M68. :cool:

Sorry but China does not have T-90. They bought small quantity of T-80 in 1990 but that’s all.
Chinese operate indigenous type 96 and type 99 tanks in elite units(around 2000 ) and older type 59, 69 and 88 as mainstream force…
New type 96 and 99 use 125 mm gun while most of older tanks now use 100mm Russian gun or Chinese copy of 105mm L7 gun…

[extern]

IMHO, the chineese Type-xx seem to be in basic aspects the development of the T-55/T-62 ideas rather that T-64/72/80/90 line. The havn't got the T-80's level of compaction. On the picture: modernised T-62 (Russia) looks in its dimention pretty close to chinese Type-88/89.

[Big-E]

Yes both the T-90 and T-80 use ERA. This is common of all the latest Russian designs.

Does ERA make Russian made tanks more survivable than the uranium armor of the Abrahms? At least against ATGMs? Does ERA in conjunction with infantry make for a deadly mix?

[Waylander]

Against ATGMs ERA seems to be very capable and new ERA versions also should work good against older KE rounds. But they have problems with the speed and power of the newest western KE rounds.
The spaced armor of the Abrams is very good against CE warheads and "just" good against modern KEs.

The problem is that new ATGMs like Kornet E come close to the estimated strength of the Abrams frontal armor and are for sure able to penetrate the side, rear or top.

For example the estimated frontal armor of the M1A2 against CE warheads is 1320mm-1620mm RHA. The Kornet E is said to be able to penetrate up to 1200mm RHA maybe a little bit more. I would not want to bet my life on this small difference.

For modern ERA systems it is unimportant how much mm RHA the ATGMs is theoretically able to penetrate because they (Hopefully :D ) destroy or damage the ATGM before it hits the main armor.

[Boolag]

Heres a bit of maybe useful history i gleaned from a book about the T80 +T90 a while ago(sorry cant remember name of publication..)
:the companies responsible the producing the above mbts were in direct competition with eachother to secure an outstanding order for the russian army, then along came the 1st chechen war, If i recall the armoured units sent into grozny were equipped with the t80 and suffered heavily from attacks from multi-storey buildings.

The russian military saw this as a design fault rather than poor tactical planning and accordingly chose to back the t90 instead, meanwhile the designers of the t80 improved the surviability of their vehicle as well as a few other adjustments and then marketed it to the ukranian military.

the book also claimed the improved t80 to be a superior mbt the t90...i believe the black eagle tech demonstrator is a development of this design.

Sory the info's a bit sketchy..feel free to correct me if i got anything really incorrect..cheers

[KGB]

Something in the Chechen war seems to have led the Russians to decide that they didn't want turbine engined tanks anymore. Thus the T-80 lost favor. The T-90's more of un updated T-72, isn't it? Renamed partly for marketing reasons.

[extern]

Something in the Chechen war seems to have led the Russians to decide that they didn't want turbine engined tanks anymore. Thus the T-80 lost favor. The T-90's more of un updated T-72, isn't it? Renamed partly for marketing reasons.
Turbine engine is just superior for specifically Russian climat condition bcz diesel has a bid problem to start in the temperature below -20 ...-25 celcium. Sometime you need a half hour to heat it before.

However the diesel - is much cheaper, and the last progress in diesel development allow for RuA to save on engine and to spend more on armor and weapon.

Nobody in Russia offers to retire T-80's. Vice versa, this year the program of modernisation for T-80 is started in Omsk.

T-90 - is a mixt design. The chassis, diesel and transmission - is the further development of T-72 line. The weapon and WCS - is of T-80U with some significant improvement (night sight etc). The armor: its welded turret is completely new and different from T-72 or T-80. ERA in first batches is Contact-5 like on the T-80U (not like on T-72), in 2006 batchs seems to be new era blocks of Contact-5, Kaktus or Relikt(?). the design of hull armor is more close to T-80U than to T-72. To note T-72 was the tank for mass production and export and intentionally was downgraded. In contemporally Russia there is no cause for tank mass production, thus the choise had been done with this consideration. Also the russians want to standartise the MBT production around one platform instead of resources wasting 3-platform Soviet structure (T-72, T-64, T-80) with different chassis, engine and armor.

[Viktor]

Today, the T-80 and T-90 MBTs are very common in communist contries especially in Russia and PRC (People's Republic of China). PRC is the country with the most tanks in the world, it has a total of 8500 MBTs, 4000 of these or about half of PRC's tank population comprises of both the Russian-designed T-80 and T-90 MBTs. The Chinese did not adopt its original 115mm smoothbore gun but opted for a 105mm rifled-gun from Israeli Defense Industries, known to Americans as the M68. :cool:
Russian curently operate 12500MBT.
I not sure how mutch US has them but I think Russia is the worlds first power concerning MBT.

[contedicavour]

Russian curently operate 12500MBT.
I not sure how mutch US has them but I think Russia is the worlds first power concerning MBT.

Those numbers appear to me huge, unless they include mothballed MBTs that haven't been operational for ages, and unless they include heavy AIFVs.
The only relevant MBTs in the Russian army arsenal are 1800 approx T80s and T90s plus another 1500 reserve T80s.

cheers

[Viktor]

Those numbers appear to me huge, unless they include mothballed MBTs that haven't been operational for ages, and unless they include heavy AIFVs.
The only relevant MBTs in the Russian army arsenal are 1800 approx T80s and T90s plus another 1500 reserve T80s.

cheers
As a matter of fact those are operational numbers - togeather with nonoperational it would be around 22000 tanks.
You are correct about T-80 and T-90 but Russian tank army is reciving upgrade specialy T-72 as it represents major MBT numbers.
During cold war entire Soviet Empire accounted for unbeliveble 60 000 tanks.
Here is a link.
Enjoj while counting . LOL
http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2239&catid=239&comd=tk

[contedicavour]

As a matter of fact those are operational numbers - togeather with nonoperational it would be around 22000 tanks.
You are correct about T-80 and T-90 but Russian tank army is reciving upgrade specialy T-72 as it represents major MBT numbers.
During cold war entire Soviet Empire accounted for unbeliveble 60 000 tanks.
Here is a link.
Enjoj while counting . LOL
http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2239&catid=239&comd=tk

That warfare.ru site is really impressive. Gathering updated data on every single regiment in such a big army is quite an enterprise ! CIA should help pay for it :D .
Thanks for the data. I wonder how many of the operational tanks are really efficient, especially the T72s, but since I don't have anything better to challenge your source, I accept it :)

cheers

[Viktor]

That warfare.ru site is really impressive. Gathering updated data on every single regiment in such a big army is quite an enterprise ! CIA should help pay for it :D .
Thanks for the data. I wonder how many of the operational tanks are really efficient, especially the T72s, but since I don't have anything better to challenge your source, I accept it :)

cheers
Yes author is quite a legend of a man for putting such immense efort and made such database.
By my opinion most extensive database on Russian weapons sistem.

Because of 60 000 tanks rolling down the europe in event of war tactical nuclear warhead had to be produced, AH-64D, Tornado gorund atack plane and Harier.
Im realy impresed how even light tanks like PT-76 can give quite a punch if properly tactis is applied like in Indian-Pakistan wars. And I think PT-76 cant even held out 12.7 machine gun fire. LOL not every tank needs to have 70t.

Since you are Italian guy you might being interest about this. Long before i even started to have interest in military tehnology and weapons I was reading article in our newspaper about some operation Helebrada (dont know did I wrote it correctly - middle age weapon).
So this was Italian operation of pulling out army from Trst in a event of Russian intervention in former Yugoslavia because off unrest and "civil war".
Army suposed to pull out and police to hand over power when Russians arive.
I wonder are you familiar with such operation/plan?

[contedicavour]

Yes author is quite a legend of a man for putting such immense efort and made such database.
By my opinion most extensive database on Russian weapons sistem.

Because of 60 000 tanks rolling down the europe in event of war tactical nuclear warhead had to be produced, AH-64D, Tornado gorund atack plane and Harier.
Im realy impresed how even light tanks like PT-76 can give quite a punch if properly tactis is applied like in Indian-Pakistan wars. And I think PT-76 cant even held out 12.7 machine gun fire. LOL not every tank needs to have 70t.

Since you are Italian guy you might being interest about this. Long before i even started to have interest in military tehnology and weapons I was reading article in our newspaper about some operation Helebrada (dont know did I wrote it correctly - middle age weapon).
So this was Italian operation of pulling out army from Trst in a event of Russian intervention in former Yugoslavia because off unrest and "civil war".
Army suposed to pull out and police to hand over power when Russians arive.
I wonder are you familiar with such operation/plan?

The operation you mention is part of a wider network of NATO "Stay behind" operations also called Gladio. In case of massive offensive operations through the hard-to-defend areas of what we call Friuli Venezia Giulia (Gorizia, Trieste, etc), the army had to retreat to more defendable positions and leave behind civilian police (which would continue to represent authority) in the big cities and significant military/civilian guerrillas in the countryside with all sorts of specific missions : EW, targeting for LGBs, attacks on trains & roads & bridges, mining, all sorts of sabotage, propaganda, information gathering, etc
This was supposed to spare too heavy damage to big cities like Trieste, which would have been impossible to defend anyway.
Glad nothing happened ;)

cheers

[extern]

Citation:

At RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS 2006 exhibition held in Nizhniy Tagil on July 11-15 a new multi-purpose ERA package made by NII Stali was demonstrated on an upgraded T-72B tank (“Sling-shot”).


At RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS 2006 exhibition held in Nizhniy Tagil on July 11-15 a new multi-purpose ERA package made by NII Stali was demonstrated on an upgraded T-72B tank (“Sling-shot”).


The new ERA package is almost twice as effective as Contact-V ERA system.

It is called multi-purpose not only because it defeats both HEAT-warhead and KE ammunition, but also because it is made as a number of separate modules, which makes it possible to fit the package to any tank types using standard modules and attachment fittings'. http://www.niistali.ru/index_en.php#

The same new ERA package ('Relikt') is put on the modernised T-80:

[Waylander]

Effective against what type of KE-penetrator?
I am not biased against russian equipment but I really doubt it is able to stop the modern rounds fielded by western tanks.
I thought russian manufacturers also thought that ERA is not the best solution against KE and so tend to develop an active protection system (Like ARENA) to counter KE some days.

[kams]

Effective against what type of KE-penetrator?
I am not biased against russian equipment but I really doubt it is able to stop the modern rounds fielded by western tanks.
I thought russian manufacturers also thought that ERA is not the best solution against KE and so tend to develop an active protection system (Like ARENA) to counter KE some days.

I thought Relikt mounted T-72's are called T-72MB.
. Here is the link to a article with some details of Relkit. Unfortunately in Russian. Viktor could you translate a summary for us? I don't want to try bablefish might as well read Russian:rolleyes:
If you look at the linedrawing of the turret, Relikt looks very different from K-5.

http://btvt.narod.ru/1/situation2/situation2.htm

[Waylander]

One of the most complicated things out there is definitely the designation of russian equipment. :D

[Viktor]

Effective against what type of KE-penetrator?
I am not biased against russian equipment but I really doubt it is able to stop the modern rounds fielded by western tanks.
I thought russian manufacturers also thought that ERA is not the best solution against KE and so tend to develop an active protection system (Like ARENA) to counter KE some days.

:onfloorl: I it effective
-----------------------
The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans confirmed that in tests, the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, 'shattered' their 120mm DM-53 penetrators, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "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 were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time." This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it.
Newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2 and now M829A3, have been improved to defeat the armor design of Kontakt-5. The M829A2 was the immediate response, developed in part to take on the new armor bricks. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well and designed to fight future armor protection methods.

Kontakt-5 has been succeeded by the newer Kaktus type, which is currently only seen on prototype tanks such as the Black Eagle tank
----------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

enjoj :)


I will translate it later! :)

[Waylander]

I never heard of any tests like this of Kontakt 5 against DM53/63.
And Wiki is your best source?

[extern]

I never heard of any tests like this of Kontakt 5 against DM53/63.
And Wiki is your best source?here is an excellent article about ERAs by Robb McLeod http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html

That happen to APFSDS projectile when it's countered by Kontakt-V

[Waylander]

That's a nice article that explains much about how ERA works but I do not see that Kontakt has been tested against DM-53/63.
Another question is where do these guys have the exact specifications (material?) of the KE-Penetrators from to raise their formulas?
I doubt that Rheinmetall is sending them to everyone who asks.
Another question is why does the T-80 failed in the trials in greece if it can nearly not be penetrated by a L/55?

[extern]

...
Another question is why does the T-80 failed in the trials in greece if it can nearly not be penetrated by a L/55?
There were not armor tests there. Also the political neutrality of any arm tender is very doubfull.

[Waylander]

There defenitely were armor tests there. I'm searching for the source because I don't know if you believe me if I tell you that these tests were part of a training lesson during my service time.

BTW, you did not answer to my question from which source these guys should know the specifications of a DM53/63.

[extern]

There defenitely were armor tests there. ..BTW, you did not answer to my question from which source these guys should know the specifications of a DM53/63.
About the former question I answered your in privat messige. The DM53\63 specification - it is classified hovewer, like all things about armor and APFSDS characteristics. However the intelligence exists and works... The information leaks to competitors and from them - to internet. I can bring for you such info from my best russian sources collection:

[Waylander]

I did not mean the pure weight of the penetrator or speed. This for sure is public information, I think Rheinmetall even have it on their page.
What I was talking of is the specification of the wolfram composition, how hard it is, how flexible, etc. Without this data you are not able to say when it is going to brake or loose its nose, etc.

BTW, you've got mail. :)

[extern]

I did not mean the pure weight of the penetrator or speed. This for sure is public information, I think Rheinmetall even have it on their page.
What I was talking of is the specification of the wolfram composition, how hard it is, how flexible, etc. Without this data you are not able to say when it is going to brake or loose its nose, etc.

BTW, you've got mail. :) Yeah... thanks, I've answered already. Relatively to Rheimetall APFSDSs, I should say, if they were tried on Greek tender only swains might be dont know their capability. :D Be sure, all those who need it, know it. :p: And also be sure, if it is known the answer is coming soon...

Second, Those who knew they didnt have a chance to win tender for NATO EU state like Greece, have brought the fake monkey APFSDS there(like Russia and Ukrain). WHy to disclose your best if you dont have a chance? ;)

Look on the tables: there is a long hystory of strugle between sword and shield.

[Waylander]

Were do you have these armor facts from?
The Leo 2 for example looks much to thin.

Why should they even participate in the greek trials if they have no chance? ;)
Greece is already fielding russian equipment (Zubr hovercrafts, Kornet ATGMs, etc...).

[extern]

Were do you have these armor facts from?
The Leo 2 for example looks much to thin.

Why should they even participate in the greek trials if they have no chance? ;)
Greece is already fielding russian equipment (Zubr hovercrafts, Kornet ATGMs, etc...).
THe source is well know (russian only): http://btvt.narod.ru/1/situation2/situation2.htm
The russian tank factory have participated in the tender because it has economical interest in it. But the goverment has more broad national security concerns. If USA didnt demostrated their best armor and APFSDS why Russia will disclose the same upon the most dangerouse potential enemy? I'm sure the tankmen didnt get permit to show the best russian APFSDSs there. It is very logical IMO.

[Waylander]

I understand that they did not want to show the best BM version but practicing ammo?
Common this is not logical. Why did should they have used practicing ammo which performed very bad at more than 2km while they could use real ammo but just not the newest one.

And again. There is no bigger secret than the armor of the Leo in our weapons industry. It is not even known out of what materials it is build. Why should this russian website know the armor strength of a Leopard 2?

[extern]

...
And again. There is no bigger secret than the armor of the Leo in our weapons industry. It is not even known out of what materials it is build. Why should this russian website know the armor strength of a Leopard 2?
They know bcoz the people making that site are tank-build professionals. Kinda western sites like Jane's you should'nt ask why they know what they know, should you?

You can see on the comparison table the competitive strugle between Le2 and T-xx designers.

[Waylander]

If I understand this facts right both tanks were never to close to being able to penetrate each other at 2km.
And also just by being a little bit smaller the T-80U shall be much better protected than a Leo IIA4 while being nearly 10 tons lighter?

[extern]

If I understand this facts right both tanks were never to close to being able to penetrate each other at 2km.
And also just by being a little bit smaller the T-80U shall be much better protected than a Leo IIA4 while being nearly 10 tons lighter?
1) Naturally yes if we speak about cut-edge modifications
2) It's because the armor coefficient of T-80U is better that of Leo-IIA4

[Waylander]

Often enough round about 500mm RHA are said about the T-72M1's armor. The L/44 penetrated it during tests (And the KE left the turret at the back) at more than 1km and during the trials in Greece at nearly 4km with the L/55 (Where it also left the turret at the back).
If I consider this your facts look much to small.

[Viktor]

So according to tables Extern provided us with we can conclude that T-90 as well as Leopard2A5 has similar armour protection and similar penetration capabilities.
Strange I allways thought Leo2 to be superior to any other tank around.
What are Merkava 4 armour protection, has anyone some information?

[Waylander]

I could also use this website as a source.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

I am especially sceptical about the T-80U having the same penetration capabilities like a Leopard 2 A6.
As I said before the L/55 is able to penetrate a T-71M1 at nearly 4000 meters and the KE still leaves the turret at the back.
The penetration capability is 30% higher than a british L30 with DU rounds.
30% percent more is really huge in terms of penetration.
In the end.
Who knows?

[eckherl]

I would still place my money on the Leopard 2A5 or A6, The M1A2 is just as potent. The South Korean Army recieved a big batch of T-80U`s and BMP 3`s from Russia to pay off some debt, The Americans were given three of them for testing purposes, the armor protection is not as good as expected. I would also like to say that one of latest Russian long rod penetrators model BR11 could penetrate the frontal armor of a M1A1 at 1600 meters, with that the armor upgrade on the M1A2 was centered around, with this penetrator being made out of DU the Russians probably have reached the max capabilities of the 125mm. It will be interesting to see all the tests that the Germans are performing on the 130mm gun.

[extern]

On duty somewhere in Great Ellas:

[Andrei_bt]

IMHO, the chineese Type-xx seem to be in basic aspects the development of the T-55/T-62 ideas rather that T-64/72/80/90 line. The havn't got the T-80's level of compaction.

On the picture: modernised T-62 (Russia) looks in its dimention pretty close to chinese Type-88/89.

T-55, and Nothing close to chinese Type-88/89, no smallest thing at all!

[extern]

Т-80's on Russo-American exersises Torgau-2005: http://www-download.1tv.ru/video/2005_05/2705052104.asf

[extern]

T-90 and T-80 at Omsk-2005 military show (video): http://www.pwgs.org/exh/rus/omsk2005.wmv

[Viktor]

Yeah... thanks, I've answered already. Relatively to Rheimetall APFSDSs, I should say, if they were tried on Greek tender only swains might be dont know their capability. :D Be sure, all those who need it, know it. :p: And also be sure, if it is known the answer is coming soon...

Second, Those who knew they didnt have a chance to win tender for NATO EU state like Greece, have brought the fake monkey APFSDS there(like Russia and Ukrain). WHy to disclose your best if you dont have a chance? ;)

Look on the tables: there is a long hystory of strugle between sword and shield.


Information you provided about Russian and German APFSDS rounds is great I wounder have you same information about Russian and German HEAT rounds.


:)