T-72 in Chechnya, Tajikistan, Sril Lanka and the Iran/Iraq war.

[STURM]

Does anyone know what model of the T-72 was used by the Russians in the 1st Chechian war?

Are there any online references that provide figures as to the number of T-72s destroyed during the civil war in Tajikistan and in the Iran/Iraq war?

In 1987, an Indian army T-72 drove over a large IED which resulted in the turret being blown up to 15 feet due to the exploding of the ammo. Was this the first known case of a turret of a Russian MBT being blown up into the air due to an internal explosion? Are there any known photos of Arab MBTs that had suffered the same fate in 1967, 1973 or 1982?

Thank you.

 

[Methos]

Regarding the turret being blow up several meters in the air:
This happened also with older Soviet tanks (and also sometimes with Western tanks like the Pattons), but it seems like it happened on a less frequent rate. On some images from the Gulf War 50% or more of the shown tanks have lost it's turret due to internal explosions, while images from the Near East only seldom show a tank without it's turret.
Here is an image from a destroyed Egyptian tank (T-55 or T-62) which lost it's turret.

 

[Feanor]

T-72A and T-72B were used in Chechnya.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A tank will lose its top for two reasons: an internal explosion of the ammunition or an exterior explosion of such force it throws the entire tank upwards. The special thing about tanks derived from the Morozov T-64 design (including the T-72, T-80 and T-90) is their ammunition is located in a carousel under the turret and it is of a type that is highly susceptible to sympathetic destruction. That last point is the most significant.

When the new generation of smoothbore tank guns were developed they featured combustible cartridges with high energy propellants so as to remove the problem with used shell casings inside the tank and increase muzzle velocity. The problem with such ammunition is without a shell casing your propellant needs to be residue free. When a shell casing comes from a breech it is usually filled with some still burning particles. If you used the same propellant with combustible ammunition they would contaminate the breech and detonate the new round as soon as you loaded it. So combustible ammunition is faster burning so as to insure no residue is left in the breech. This also means that combined with the lack of a protective casing when exposed to damage outside the breech they are far more prone to detonate and detonate quickly.

So to counter this problem on western tanks this type of ammunition is either stored in armoured compartments with blow out panels (M1, Leopard 2) or in armoured boxes inside a layer of water in the least vulnerable location of the tank (Chieftain, Merkava). The Soviets didn’t care about such ‘niceties’ so their combustible ammunition is right under the crew seats without any protection except the outer armour of the tank. So penetrating hits on the Ts-64, 72, 80, 90 tend to cause very quick explosions that destroy the tank, kill the crew and throw off the turret.

Such explosions can be seen on older tanks that used cased ammunition and stored their ammunition under or around the turret. Older Soviet tanks didn’t even have a basket connected to the turret and just boxes of ammunition laid on the floor of the hull with the turret crew crab walking on these boxes to match turret rotation. But anyway the key difference between these turret flipping explosions in cased ammunition tanks is it took some time before enough ammunition exploded to generate the force to remove the turret. Usually a penetrating hit into the ammunition storage might start one or two shells burning which would be pretty nasty but any surviving crew could evacuate the vehicle. It would then take some time (minutes) before these fires inside the tank reached the point to cause a sympathetic chain explosion.

Of course if you are just assessing results from some photos and don’t know anything about ammunition and guns you may draw the conclusion that it is the same problem as with the later generation of Soviet tanks.

 

[STURM]

So to counter this problem on western tanks this type of ammunition is either stored in armoured compartments with blow out panels (M1, Leopard 2)

Does the Challenger 2 have compartments with blow out panels?

Such explosions can be seen on older tanks that used cased ammunition and stored their ammunition under or around the turret.

Was this the case with M60s, Chieftains and Centurions?

Would it be accurate to say that the T-90M, which will have a rear-mounted ammunition stowage bustle, will be the most 'survivable' Russian designed MBT, as the placement of the ammo in the stowage bustle - rather than on the floor of the turret - will significantly reduce the chance of an internal explosion in the event of a penetration? For some reason, the T-84-120 which had a bustle mounted auto-loader and was first shown at IDEX 1999, didn't attract any buyers, despite the safety advantages of the bustle auto-loader compared to the traditional carousel auto-loader.

Does anyone here know which was the first Soviet/Russian MBT to be fitted with spall liners?

Is it true that the Hezbollah tactic in 2006, of simultaneously hitting Merkavas with multiple missiles on various parts of the tank [similar to tactics used by Chechen anti-tank teams with RPG-7s], though succeeding in badly damaging a number of tanks, did not actually destroy any tank? And that the only known instance of a Merkava actually being destroyed was due to a massive IED which was detonated directly below the tank?

 

[Methos]

The Challenger 1 and 2 do not store their ammunition in the turret bustle, but parts (and not all) of the ammunition in special containers in a "wet storage" (i.e. the ammunition is in a tube surrounded by water). Iirc. only the propellant charges are stored like this, but I might be mistaken.

The first Soviet tanks with "spall-liners" was the T-64. But this is not a specialized spall-liner, but was also designed to increase protection against radiation (esp. neutron radiation) - this was probably the main purpose. Therefore the composition of these liners is totally different from modern kevlar/polyaramid lining systems.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Does the Challenger 2 have compartments with blow out panels?

The CR2 inherits its ammunition and storage design from the Chieftain so keeps the below turret ring armoured boxes.

Was this the case with M60s, Chieftains and Centurions?

The Chieftain as mentioned in my original post and above stores its bagged propellant charges in armoured boxes below the turret ring. The M60, Centurion and other 105mm gun tanks don’t appear to generate internal explosions with enough force to remove the turret. But like other tanks with cased ammunition it burns at a lower speed than combustible ammunition.

Would it be accurate to say that the T-90M, which will have a rear-mounted ammunition stowage bustle, will be the most 'survivable' Russian designed MBT

Of course it’s what it has been designed for.

For some reason, the T-84-120 which had a bustle mounted auto-loader and was first shown at IDEX 1999, didn't attract any buyers, despite the safety advantages of the bustle auto-loader compared to the traditional carousel auto-loader.

Probably because it was much more expensive than legacy T-84s or rebuilt T-72s (etc) and also probably because it was a dog breakfast of a tank and used ammunition none of its potential customers did. The T-64 family have very tight design margins and sticking a large, weighty turret bustle on it is likely to result in a sub par mechanical solution.

Is it true that the Hezbollah tactic in 2006, of simultaneously hitting Merkavas with multiple missiles on various parts of the tank [similar to tactics used by Chechen anti-tank teams with RPG-7s], though succeeding in badly damaging a number of tanks, did not actually destroy any tank? And that the only known instance of a Merkava actually being destroyed was due to a massive IED which was detonated directly below the tank?

The Israelis have made it clear they recovered and repaired all Merkavas knocked out in 2006 except for those destroyed by the massive under belly IED attacks. The Hezbollah ATGM tactics were very different to those practised by the Chechens. Neither specifically aimed at different parts of the tank as that is impossible. But the Chechens engaged in short range, high and low angle multi angle massed barrages of RPGs as one would expect from an urban barrage. The Hezbollah tactic evolved from their ATGM snipering of Israeli fixed positions in South Lebanon during the 1990s. They would try and sequentially barrage several missiles at once into the tank or bunker so as to cause causalities amongst the rescue teams or evacuating crew.

 

[Feanor]

Would it be accurate to say that the T-90M, which will have a rear-mounted ammunition stowage bustle, will be the most 'survivable' Russian designed MBT, as the placement of the ammo in the stowage bustle - rather than on the floor of the turret - will significantly reduce the chance of an internal explosion in the event of a penetration?

Of course. Keep in mind it's also by far the most modern one. And it was proposed as a direct response to the complaints of the MoD and General Staff about the experience of T-72s in Chechnya, Dagestan, and Georgia.

For some reason, the T-84-120 which had a bustle mounted auto-loader and was first shown at IDEX 1999, didn't attract any buyers, despite the safety advantages of the bustle auto-loader compared to the traditional carousel auto-loader.

The defense market is as political as it is military-technical. Ukraine occupies a segment of that market that has very low demand for high-end products. Their chief tank of export is a mildly upgraded T-72. That, combined with the problems they have with serially producing tanks, means that serious export orders are very unlikely. Note what kind of problems they have completing a simple BTR-4 contract for Iraq (a contract they got due to their participation in OIF). The plant producing the BTR-4 is the same one that "produces" the T-84.

Realistically any customer who buys the T-84M will run a fairly high risk in the sense that they could well end up being the only customer for the tank (limiting upgrade potential), quality issues, problems with spares, etc.

 

[STURM]

Thanks for taking the time and the patience to answer my queries . Much appreciated.

This is an excerpt from a Lester Grau article - Foreign Military Studies Office Publications - A Weapon For All Seasons: The Old But Effective RPG-7 Promises to Haunt the Battlefields of Tomorrow - on a tactic used by Tajik rebels.

''Since they lacked the anti-reactive armor PG-7VR tandem warhead, the first gunner would hit the tank to blow a hole in the reactive armor and the second and third gunner would fire the kill shots at the exposed area.''

Wouldn't this tactic be extremely hard to perform and can only be done at close range? Plus, it would also be very dependent on enemy tanks not having any infantry support.

The Hezbollah tactic evolved from their ATGM snipering of Israeli fixed positions in South Lebanon during the 1990s.

Have the Israelis ever officially released figures on AFVs that were destroyed by ATGWs or IEDs over the years by Hezbollah [prior to 2006] and the Palestnians? I was going through an Osprey book and there is mention of a Israeli MBT being 'knocked out' after being hit on the turret roof by multiple Hezbollah Saggers and mention of a Magach 7 and a Nagmachon being destroyed by large IEDs in the 1990's.

Also, from what information has been released by the Israelis, do we know for certain if the Iranian Toophan [said to be a TOW 1 copy] was used in the 2006 war by Hezbollah?

And it was proposed as a direct response to the complaints of the MoD and General Staff about the experience of T-72s in Chechnya, Dagestan, and Georgia.

And also I think, from feedback by the Indian army, which from what I've read elsewhere, was unhappy over the lack of a independent commander’s panoramic sight, a reserve ammo stowage bustle, etc, on its existing T-90s, compared to the newer Arjun, which is beginning to slowly enter service after a long delay.

More details are contained here -

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/09/t-90am-latest-avatar-of-t-90-mbt.html

http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/01/indias-born-again-t-90m-mbt.html

That, combined with the problems they have with serially producing tanks, means that serious export orders are very unlikely.

Have they actually received a firm order from the Royal Thai Army [RTA] to supply the Oplot?

I have few other MBt related questions. I'm not very knowledgeable in this field, so I hope you guys will excuse the nature of my questions.

1. Given that MBTs such as the Abrams, Challenger and Merkava, have been able to avoid being destroyed, even when hit by multiple ATGWs and shoulder launched weapons, due to higher baseline armoured protection levels [compared to Russian MBTs], applique armour and fire supression gear, would it be accurate to say that for insurgents, the most effective means of actually destroying these MBTs and killing their crews, remain large IEDs?

2. Due to the inability of the turret roof armour of any existing MBT, even when fitted with applique armour, to defeat top-attack warheads, plus the fact that APS have not yet entered widespread service due to tehnical issues and costs, wouldn't the most logical thing for most armies and insurgents to do would be to acquire large stocks of top-attack missiles like BILL, Javelin and Spike?

3. Is it accurate to say that the most heavily armoured APCs and ones that are able to withstand the most damage from missiles, are vehicles like Azcherit and Namer? And that the reasons other armies haven't followed suit in converting the hulls of MBTs into troop carriers is because of their respective doctrines, the costs involved and the high weight of these vehicles?

4. Which was the first Soviet/Russian MBT to feature a 360 degree panoramic sight for the gunner and to have the ability to fire the turret mounted MG from inside the armour? Also, what kind of controls are used to enable the MG to be fired and aimed from inside the turret?

 

[Feanor]

And also I think, from feedback by the Indian army, which from what I've read elsewhere, was unhappy over the lack of a independent commander’s panoramic sight, a reserve ammo stowage bustle, etc, on its existing T-90s, compared to the newer Arjun, which is beginning to slowly enter service after a long delay.

More details are contained here -

TRISHUL: T-90AM: Latest Avatar Of The T-90 MBT

TRISHUL: India’s ‘Born Again’ T-90M MBT

The T-90MS currently displayed was a direct response to MoD criticism of the T-90A back in 2009. The original T-90M design was rather different. What exactly it was, I don't know, but significant changes were made following MoD criticisms.

Have they actually received a firm order from the Royal Thai Army [RTA] to supply the Oplot?

They did but then there was rumor that the order was cancelled, and it was reported in some major news sources. It's unclear whether they have a solid order right now. If they do, it's an order for 50 units (49 by some sources). There is also supposedly a Ukranian MoD order for 10 units, however they may just be purchasing the same T-84 tanks that were produced back in the early 2000s and never paid for.

What I do know is that they've started up production of the T-84, but they're re-manufacturing T-80U hulls, not producing them from scratch.

1. Given that MBTs such as the Abrams, Challenger and Merkava, have been able to avoid being destroyed, even when hit by multiple ATGWs and shoulder launched weapons, due to higher baseline armoured protection levels [compared to Russian MBTs], applique armour and fire supression gear, would it be accurate to say that for insurgents, the most effective means of actually destroying these MBTs and killing their crews, remain large IEDs?

For insurgents the most effective way to deal with MBTs is to avoid them. Note the effect Iraqi Army T-55s had on insurgents.

2. Due to the inability of the turret roof armour of any existing MBT, even when fitted with applique armour, to defeat top-attack warheads, plus the fact that APS have not yet entered widespread service due to tehnical issues and costs, wouldn't the most logical thing for most armies and insurgents to do would be to acquire large stocks of top-attack missiles like BILL, Javelin and Spike?

Yes. If they could get their hands on high end AT gear. That stuff isn't easy to operate, or acquire.

3. Is it accurate to say that the most heavily armoured APCs and ones that are able to withstand the most damage from missiles, are vehicles like Azcherit and Namer? And that the reasons other armies haven't followed suit in converting the hulls of MBTs into troop carriers is because of their respective doctrines, the costs involved and the high weight of these vehicles?

Well look at the German Boxer. It's quite heavy for an APC. Or the BMO-T. Or the planned IFV on the Armata chassis.

 

[Waylander]

1.
Enough explosives is a solution to everything one wants to see destroyed. The problem is getting such an amount of explosives into position without getting spotted and without the enemy sniffing it out and avoiding/destroying it. Modern mine protection kits like the M package for the Leopard II doesn't make it any easier for insurgents to plant these big IEDs. Note that the insurgents in Afghanistan managed to severly cripple a danish Leopard IIA5DK (prior to them getting the M package) but weren't able to replicate the same with the Canadian Leopard IIA6MCAN.
Hezbollah had the advantages of fighting on their hometurf with lots of time to bury these large IEDs on lots of possible Israeli attack routes. And it wasn't really an insurgency but a light infanttry division fighting a flexible defensive battle on their home turf with lots of time for preperation.

2.
It's not like getting Javelins and Spikes is easy. Getting their hands on such stuff is nearly impossible for an insurgency. If top attack ATGMs (or ATGMs in general) become more of a threat we will see a faster implemention of active protection system some of which (like AMAP) are ready while others like Trophy and Iron Fist are fielded because the IDF are in much more danger of daily ATGM attacks.
Passive protection systems are also in service since some time or get fielded with the introduction of new vehicles (like MUSS on the Puma IFV).

3.
While the Namer certainly is a very good vehicle the other MBT conversions of the Israelis are mostly born out of them having lots of older MBT hulls available for conversion. Just like everybody else they are not swimming in cash. The nature of the Merkava design makes it easier to build an APC out of it. Other MBTs are much less easy to redesign.
Also note that many western forces tend to go with wheeled platforms for APCs while only IFVs and MBTs remain tracked.
The IDF doctrine is different in this regard.