A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I thought that issue had already been decided. I saw recently that Canada has already ordered 66 LAV-105's. Are these designed to supplement or replace the C1's? I was under the impression they were meant to replace the C1?
Choices of MBT for Malaysia
- Thread starter Mike Powell
- Start date
I have made mention of that fact - the best tank-killer is another tank but we don't have anything that can match the Twardy.....yetgf0012-aust said:
. But after doing some reading up on AFV operations in jungle environments, I might be giving a hint or two for a Centurion based model. The South Africans have developed it into the Olifant - for reference click here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/olifant.htm. Actually the final nightmare and worst nightmare for any black beret is a combined arms team - infantry armed with AT weapons in buildings or dead ground supported by ATGM platforms teamed with light tanks and IFVs, AT mortar guided rounds and 155mm SPHs with AT helicopters and CAS. Ouch...
BTW, my reference to ERA was to ask the Russian code for it - it seems that the Russians have developed different types of ERA and I wonder what the performance specs is like.
Note that besides having a territorial dispute with Singapore over Pedra Branca and the land reclamation works on Singapore's Pulau Tekong channel, Malaysia is facing some disputes over the Spratly Islands with China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam. They also have disputes with Indonesia about their boundary and recently won possession of 2 islands from Indonesia. There are also disputes with the Philippines over the Sulu Sultanate issue as well as the recent Muslim insurgency in Thailand.All in all, not quite a happy state of affairs for Malaysia.Pathfinder-X said:
As AFVs are offensive weapons in nature, I believe its more likely the other way around - that their armour will be used as a military response to those places where they are having disputes.
BTW Malaysia is not as covered with thick jungles like Indonesia or Thailand. Their coastal areas are semi-urbanised and the trees are more like forest. Its only inland deeper inside that they have jungle but its not like triple canopy jungle like Vietnam. And not to forget they have quite a good highway and road system there.
Russian call its ERA Kontakt (eng. contact)driftder said:
Polish ERA were developed in Poland. Its mane is ERAWA and has 2 versions:
- with single layer of explosivs - ERAWA 1
- with double layer of explosivs - ERAWA 2
I didn't find specific informations about its protection. But in 2001 in Poland was published a book about polish deweloped armour systems and there may be some more information about it. If I find this I'll buy it and I'll impart the informatons.
I have found some informations on Czech site: http://www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/t72mz.htm
"Korba - Čelo typ/max. tlouÅ¡ťka (mm) vrstvené + dynamické ERAWA-1/?
- Boky typ/max. tlouÅ¡ťka (mm) ocel + ochranné kryty pásů + dynamické ERAWA-2/?
- Záď typ/max. tlouÅ¡ťka (mm) ocel/?
- Dno typ/max. tlouÅ¡ťka (mm) ocel/?
Věž - Čelo typ/max. tlouÅ¡ťka (mm) vrstvené + dynamické ERAWA-1/?
- Boky typ/max. tlouÅ¡ťka (mm) vrstvené + dynamické ERAWA-1/?
- Záď typ/max. tlouÅ¡ťka (mm) ocel/?
- Strop typ/max. tlouÅ¡ťka (mm) ocel + dynamické ERAWA-1/?"
I don't speek czech, but there are some similarities, both are slavonic languages, so I'll try to translate it to english:
Hull: - front - laminar + ERAWA 1
- side - steel + rubber side screen + ERAWA 2
- rear and buttom - steel
Turret: - front - laminar + ERAWA 1
- side - laminar + ERAWA 1
- rear - steel
- top steel + ERAWA1
BTW Poland sold PT-91M to Malaysiafor 2,2M $ each
Last edited:
I found this: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.htmldriftder said:
They were originally meant to replace the C1A2s, but it pissed alot of guys off in the army and the plan to replace the Leopards was postoned. There were rumours that DoD have their eyes on some second hand Abrams. From the looks of it, I doubt the LAV-105 will replace the Leopards.Aussie Digger said:
My post is off topic but why would they want to exchange a tank for a wheeled APC? Armour, armaments and force structure don't match. The Canadians should have gone like the Swedes, Israelis or South Africans - upgrade a reliable vehicle and make it better ie make it into a super Leopard.Pathfinder-X said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It was a political decision. Politicians in Canada thought that tanks were obsolete and that a wheeled armoured fighting wheel, fitted with a 105mm gun (low recoil though) could adequately replace it. It seems that actual military forces don't agree with that though...
mmm...lucky its Canadian politicians. If its Oz, they get lynched!! excuse me while I laugh my head offAussie Digger said:
. I served with diggers and jarheads plus kiwis before so I know the nonsense tolerance they have - zero . Any armaments change from a powerful one to a weaker substitute is always a political decision - guess the politicians will learn when they send their army in harm's way. By then hopfully it won't be too late and the body count not that high.
But enough of this - my post is definitely off topic. Lets stick to analysing the Twardy and the uses it be put to.
OKdriftder said:
I found this:
[url="http://img32.exs.cx/img32/6527/p10103297mg.jpg"]http://img32.exs.cx/img32/6527/p10103297mg.jpg[/url]
[url="http://img32.exs.cx/img32/7593/p10103289kr.jpg"]http://img32.exs.cx/img32/7593/p10103289kr.jpg[/url]
This artical was published in "nowa Technika Wojskowa" (New Military Technique) 2-3/1994
Thanks to ImageShack for http://www.imageshack.us Free Image Hosting
(To Admin: I'm not familar with copyright law, so if placing this artical is against law, please remove it. Thanks and sorry for problem)
In artical we can read that:
- Name of ERAWA is made of ERA (every one knows it) + First laters of the name of the main constractor of this ERA - Adam Wiśniowski
- developing of ERAWA started in 1986 and first tank was fited with it in 1991
- limits penetration of HEAT: 50 - 70 %
- limits penetration of APFSDS: 30 - 40 %
- ERAWA doesn't explode under fire of 82mm or lower caliber artillery splinters.
- it is imiune to all kind of flame wepons (flamethrowers, napalm etc.)
- it is coverd with radio wayws absorbent to limit posibility of detection of tank by radar.
At this same issue is an artical about Polish FCS, pictures of prototype mounted on T-72, block diagrams of the instalations and quite specific technical data (as for cammonly available informations). So more informations soon ....
Last edited:
Mike Powell
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #93
Just compare, what's the characteristic of Russian, U.S. and other tanks in the world. Is it their mobility, protection, simplicity or firepower that makes the difference. For example, PT-91, M1A1, Leopard, Leclerc, T-72, T-90, Challenger Type 90, Merkava and e.t.c.
And for Malaysian type of land, which tanks suits best?
And for Malaysian type of land, which tanks suits best?
oskarm said:OK
I found this:
http://img32.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img32&image=p10103297mg.jpghttp://img32.exs.cx/img32/6527/p10103297mg.jpg
http://img32.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img32&image=p10103289kr.jpghttp://img32.exs.cx/img32/7593/p10103289kr.jpg
This artical was published in "nowa Technika Wojskowa" (New Military Technique) 2-3/1994
Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting
(To Admin: I'm not familar with copyright law, so if placing this artical is against law, please remove it. Thanks and sorry for problem)
In artical we can read that:
- Name of ERAWA is made of ERA (every one knows it) + First laters of name of main constractor of this ERA - Adam Wiśniowski
- developing of ERAWA started in 1986 and first tank was fited wit it in 1991
- limits penetration of HEAT: 50 - 70 %
- limits penetration of APFSDS: 30 - 40 %
- ERAWA doesn't explode under fire of 82mm or lower caliber artillery splinters.
- it is imiune to all kind of flame wepons (flamethrowers, napalm etc.)
- it is coverd with radio wayws absorbent to limit posibility of detection of tank by radar.
At this same issue is an artical about Polish FCS, pictures of prototype mounted on T-72, block diagrams of the instalations and quite specific technical data (as for cammonly available informations). So more informations soon ....
Hmm interesting. Flameproof, with radar absorbent paint. Must be quite expensive to purchase and maintain. Guess that make the Twardy harder to kill but not impossible, just need something more heavier than a RPG-7. BTW, is there any technical specs on the effects of 105mm damage against the T-72 series? What I have seen is from the Lebanon war, when the Israelis went head to head against the Syrian amour.
Yes, here is a useful link in reply to your question: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2892&page=1&pp=10. Note that there are ten(10) pages of information contributed by various members of this forum, so you will need to read it carefully and then understand why we have post our contributions.Mike Powell said:
I’ve read many posts about T-72, PT-91 and Russian tanks in general. I’d like to comment some issues mentioned in this topic. As I’m Polish I’ll focus mainly on PT-91/A MBT. I’m not going to quote any posts but only refer to some wrong in my opinion statements.
1. The T-72 family.
There’s a big misunderstanding in giving names to different T-72 models. First of all we have to say that Russians in times of USSR were using 3 different codenames to every model. There was a different name used in the Red Army, different one for other Warsaw Pact memebers and once again different for external export models.
E.g. T-72A/M-1/G is basically the same model, but in the USSR it was called T-72A, in Warsaw Pact countries T-72M1 and for export it was called T-72G. Although the most popular name for that model is T-72M1 and I will use only this name in my post.
T-72M1 (as T-72A) was produced in the Soviet Union from 1979 till 1985. At the beginning of the 80’s of the 20th century the licence for manufacturing T-72M1 was sold to some contries outside the USSR: Poland, former Czechoslovakia, former Yugoslavia and India. Polish Army got its first T-72s produced in Poland in 1981. The next generation of T-72 is T-72B which appeared circa 1987. It was called T-72S for export although I’ve never heard that even single one was exported. In 1988 its improved version went into service in the Soviet armed forces – T-72BM. It was the last stage of evolution of T-72 family. I’m not sure but also T-72BM wasn’t exported, at least officially, maybe some of them were sold to China but I’m not sure.
2. T-90/S issue.
T-90 often is incorrectly treated as T-72BM modernization. It’s not true. Generally at the beginning there was an idea only to improve T-72BM by installing some modern FCS. But eventually the decision was made to develop a new MBT.
Key differences between T-72BM and T-90:
> T-90 uses only deeply modified chasis of T-72BM (new basic composite armour, new running gear features torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers at the 1st, 2nd and 6th pair of road wheels)
> New FCS equiped with passive thermal Agawa-2 gunner sight (at the beginning T-90 got Buran active/passive night vision gunner’s sight but eventually it was replaced by Agawa-2), new panoramic, stabilized commander’s site (he can point targets for the gunner - ‘hunter-killer’ rule)
> Completely new welded turret instead of a cast one, frontal turret armour consists of few layers of armour steel interlayed with ceramic, composite and probably tungsten rods
> New engine W92S2 with 1000hp
Most mistakes comes from the fact that first prototypes of T-90 were in fact deeply rebuilt T-72BMs and also from that developer and producer of both T-72BM and T-90 is the same plant of Ural Wagon Zawod (UWZ, it means the Ural Carriages Factory) form the city of Niżnij Tagił.
T-90S is the export version of T-90. Its final configuration (FCS, ERA, other passive and active protection systems, powerpack) can be configured due to the wish of the potential buyer.
1. The T-72 family.
There’s a big misunderstanding in giving names to different T-72 models. First of all we have to say that Russians in times of USSR were using 3 different codenames to every model. There was a different name used in the Red Army, different one for other Warsaw Pact memebers and once again different for external export models.
E.g. T-72A/M-1/G is basically the same model, but in the USSR it was called T-72A, in Warsaw Pact countries T-72M1 and for export it was called T-72G. Although the most popular name for that model is T-72M1 and I will use only this name in my post.
T-72M1 (as T-72A) was produced in the Soviet Union from 1979 till 1985. At the beginning of the 80’s of the 20th century the licence for manufacturing T-72M1 was sold to some contries outside the USSR: Poland, former Czechoslovakia, former Yugoslavia and India. Polish Army got its first T-72s produced in Poland in 1981. The next generation of T-72 is T-72B which appeared circa 1987. It was called T-72S for export although I’ve never heard that even single one was exported. In 1988 its improved version went into service in the Soviet armed forces – T-72BM. It was the last stage of evolution of T-72 family. I’m not sure but also T-72BM wasn’t exported, at least officially, maybe some of them were sold to China but I’m not sure.
2. T-90/S issue.
T-90 often is incorrectly treated as T-72BM modernization. It’s not true. Generally at the beginning there was an idea only to improve T-72BM by installing some modern FCS. But eventually the decision was made to develop a new MBT.
Key differences between T-72BM and T-90:
> T-90 uses only deeply modified chasis of T-72BM (new basic composite armour, new running gear features torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers at the 1st, 2nd and 6th pair of road wheels)
> New FCS equiped with passive thermal Agawa-2 gunner sight (at the beginning T-90 got Buran active/passive night vision gunner’s sight but eventually it was replaced by Agawa-2), new panoramic, stabilized commander’s site (he can point targets for the gunner - ‘hunter-killer’ rule)
> Completely new welded turret instead of a cast one, frontal turret armour consists of few layers of armour steel interlayed with ceramic, composite and probably tungsten rods
> New engine W92S2 with 1000hp
Most mistakes comes from the fact that first prototypes of T-90 were in fact deeply rebuilt T-72BMs and also from that developer and producer of both T-72BM and T-90 is the same plant of Ural Wagon Zawod (UWZ, it means the Ural Carriages Factory) form the city of Niżnij Tagił.
T-90S is the export version of T-90. Its final configuration (FCS, ERA, other passive and active protection systems, powerpack) can be configured due to the wish of the potential buyer.
3. The history of Polish PT-91/A MBT
As I mentioned before Poland bought the license to produce T-72M1 in the early 80’s. The main Polish producer is Bumar-Łabędy factory and this is where Malaysia bought its tanks. The first idea of upgrading T-72M1 appeared in Poland already in the 80’s. It was a part of larger program for all T-72M/M1 users in Warsaw Pact. The first project from 1982 had a codename Jaguar and its main feature was the installing Polish FCS called Merida-J (improved version of FCS Merida known from Polish versions of T-55AM2). Jaguar project ended only at the stage of initial analysis. As the result, in 1986 complex program of T-72 modernization was created and got a codename Wilk (it means ‘Wolf’ in English). The main idea was to upgrade T-72s during overhaul but without a need of any interference into the basic tank construction. A driver and a commander got new passive night vision optics, gunner sight was slightly improved, tank got Obra warning system against laser beams synchronized with Tellura smoke grenade launchers, new fire extinguishing system, engine and main gun stabilization diagnostic system, Erawa/2 ERA and new Polish S-12U engine. Few prototypes of Wilk were built. Poland also tried to get the license for T-72B/S model. Russian also offered license for manufacturing T-80 (probably T-80B/BW version, but I’m not sure) but… it was already in 1989. Communist regime collapsed in Poland and soon in other ex-Warsaw Pact countries. In 1991 USSR was disbanded and soon Russian Army started to withdraw form Central European countries. In new democratic reality Polish engineers from Bumar-Łabedy (Polish producer of T-72M1) returned to the project of upgrading T-72 and in the middle of 1991 they built the 1st prototype of PT-91 Twardy (it means ‘Tough’, a nickname invented by our journalists which became an official one). It went trial tests next year. The main new feature was new gunner’s passive thermal sight using Israeli Elbow thermal device. The new FSC was called Drawa-T (about it and Erawa/2 ERA Oskarm wrote in his posts).There are also new engines developed (as power-packs): S-850 (850hp) and S-1000 (1000hp, 2 turbo-compressors, French/German hydrokinetic power transmission system Renk/SESM ESM 350). What is the most important the main idea of Wilk project survived – all changes can be introduced with no need of interference into the basic tank construction. PT-91 Twardy went into the service of Polish Army. In 1994 export model called PT-91A was developed. The main differences between PT-91 and PT-91A:
> PT-91A uses French FCS consisting of: gunner’s sight Savan-15 and commander’s site VS-580; it’s generally simpler version of Leclerc MBT FCS(the same FCSs are used by Slovakian T-72M2 Moderna and Ukrainian T-72MP); Polish Army PT-91s use Drawa-T FCS and are not equipped with panoramic stabilized commander’s site
> PT-91A uses S-1000 power-pack mentioned above, PT-91s have only S-12U engines
Those differences between Polish Army tanks and export ones have a financial nature.
Major weakness of PT-91/A is its main gun – 2A46M with obsolete 2E28M stabilization system. Guns to Polish tanks are imported form Slovakian ZTS Dubnica plant. Slovakian engineers offered some changes to the original construction of 2A46M: gun brake position was elevated, single recoil system mechanism was replaced by 2 symmetrically installed and the gun centre of mass was lowered. Those changes are quite similar to the construction features of Russian 2A46M-1 gun (T-72B/S) and eventually gave expected results.
As I mentioned before Poland bought the license to produce T-72M1 in the early 80’s. The main Polish producer is Bumar-Łabędy factory and this is where Malaysia bought its tanks. The first idea of upgrading T-72M1 appeared in Poland already in the 80’s. It was a part of larger program for all T-72M/M1 users in Warsaw Pact. The first project from 1982 had a codename Jaguar and its main feature was the installing Polish FCS called Merida-J (improved version of FCS Merida known from Polish versions of T-55AM2). Jaguar project ended only at the stage of initial analysis. As the result, in 1986 complex program of T-72 modernization was created and got a codename Wilk (it means ‘Wolf’ in English). The main idea was to upgrade T-72s during overhaul but without a need of any interference into the basic tank construction. A driver and a commander got new passive night vision optics, gunner sight was slightly improved, tank got Obra warning system against laser beams synchronized with Tellura smoke grenade launchers, new fire extinguishing system, engine and main gun stabilization diagnostic system, Erawa/2 ERA and new Polish S-12U engine. Few prototypes of Wilk were built. Poland also tried to get the license for T-72B/S model. Russian also offered license for manufacturing T-80 (probably T-80B/BW version, but I’m not sure) but… it was already in 1989. Communist regime collapsed in Poland and soon in other ex-Warsaw Pact countries. In 1991 USSR was disbanded and soon Russian Army started to withdraw form Central European countries. In new democratic reality Polish engineers from Bumar-Łabedy (Polish producer of T-72M1) returned to the project of upgrading T-72 and in the middle of 1991 they built the 1st prototype of PT-91 Twardy (it means ‘Tough’, a nickname invented by our journalists which became an official one). It went trial tests next year. The main new feature was new gunner’s passive thermal sight using Israeli Elbow thermal device. The new FSC was called Drawa-T (about it and Erawa/2 ERA Oskarm wrote in his posts).There are also new engines developed (as power-packs): S-850 (850hp) and S-1000 (1000hp, 2 turbo-compressors, French/German hydrokinetic power transmission system Renk/SESM ESM 350). What is the most important the main idea of Wilk project survived – all changes can be introduced with no need of interference into the basic tank construction. PT-91 Twardy went into the service of Polish Army. In 1994 export model called PT-91A was developed. The main differences between PT-91 and PT-91A:
> PT-91A uses French FCS consisting of: gunner’s sight Savan-15 and commander’s site VS-580; it’s generally simpler version of Leclerc MBT FCS(the same FCSs are used by Slovakian T-72M2 Moderna and Ukrainian T-72MP); Polish Army PT-91s use Drawa-T FCS and are not equipped with panoramic stabilized commander’s site
> PT-91A uses S-1000 power-pack mentioned above, PT-91s have only S-12U engines
Those differences between Polish Army tanks and export ones have a financial nature.
Major weakness of PT-91/A is its main gun – 2A46M with obsolete 2E28M stabilization system. Guns to Polish tanks are imported form Slovakian ZTS Dubnica plant. Slovakian engineers offered some changes to the original construction of 2A46M: gun brake position was elevated, single recoil system mechanism was replaced by 2 symmetrically installed and the gun centre of mass was lowered. Those changes are quite similar to the construction features of Russian 2A46M-1 gun (T-72B/S) and eventually gave expected results.
4.Firepower and armour protection of T-72 MBTs.
Some of Russian tanks can fire ATGMs from their main guns. Also some of T-72 models have this option. But only T-72B and later models. T-72M/M1 never had this ability. So PT-91/A also don’t have ATGMs among its ammunition. The reason for that is very simple, T-72M/M1 and its derivatives weren’t equipped with ATGMs laser guidance channel. Such devices have been installed since T-72B model. I’m writing about so called 9K119 Refleks system (sorry, but I don’t know its NATO codename) with 9M119 Swir (early version) and improved 9M119M Inwar (present one)ATGMs. This system is used by T-80U/UM/UD, T-72B/BM and T-90/S MBTs. Also installing any Western FCS makes impossible to use Refleks system (the only exception are BMP-3 IFVs made for UAE, they can fire 9M117M Arkan missile although they have French vectronics. I don’t know how it was achived).
The other often discussed matter is T-72 armour piercing capabilities, especially with APFSDS rounds. Most opinions are built upon the experiences of the Gulf War in 1991. It is believed that M1A1 Abrams tanks are completely immune to 125mm APFSDS projectiles. But it’s important to say that during the Gulf War Iraqis had only old BM9 (also named as 3BM9) and BM12 (also 3BM12) types of APFSDS ammunition. They are obsolete designs (which ended their service life in the Red Army in 1973 and then being exported) which cores are made from steel (BM9) and steel with tungstencartridge (BM12). Basically they are the 1st generation of APFSDS rounds so it’s no surprise that you can’t knock out M1A1 with them. But I wasn’t be so sure about Abrams armour protection in its confrontation with modern Russian BM32 (DU core), BM42 (tungsten core) and BM42M (tungsten core) ammunition. Also in Poland there was developed modern APFSDS-T projectile. It has tungsten core and is capable of piercing more than 500mm of RHA at the range of 2 kilometers. It fits to auto-loaders in T-72 MBTs. I don’t know if Malaysia bought it, but there is also Israeli APFSDS-T 125mm round, called CL 3579 Mk2, also capable of piercing more than 500mm of RHA form the distance of 2 kilometers.
Now a little bit about the armour of T-72. Fontal turret armour of T-72M1 has two chambers (at both sides of a turret) which are full field with ceramic layer. How is it achieved? A special kind of quartz is being added during the process of casting the turret. When quartz melts due to the high temperature it later congeals within those chambers and it becomes a ceramic layer inside the steel armour. That’s why frontal turret armour of T-72 has a thickness of about 650mm of RHA against HEAT charges. The volume of those chambers in T-72B/S is even bigger than in T-72A/M1 model. It is also illustrated by a nicknames which those tanks got in the West: Dolly Parton for T-72A/M1 and Super Dolly Parton for T-72B/S, thanks to their turrets typical shapes. As it was mentioned before, the protection level of T-72 was improved by installing ERA. T-72B/S got the 1st generation ERA called Kontakt-2 and T-72BM got the 2nd generation Kontakt-5 ERA (There is a link in somebody’s post about basic characteristics of Kontakt-5). Different modernizations of T-72M1 are equipped with different ERAs. Slovakian T-72M2 Moderna has Dyna-S ERA and Czechs T-72M4Cz has Dyna-72 ERA (Both ERAs are derivatives of ex-Czechoslovakian Dyna ERA). Ukrainian T-72MP and Russian T-72M1M (recent upgrading program, not a production model) have Kontakt-5 and Polish PT-91/A has Erawa/2.
Few words about Erawa-2 abilities. In May of 2000, there were presentations of Dynamit Nobel Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank grenade launchers for Polish Army as a part of marketing campaign. There were firing tests of Panzerfaust 3 armed with 3T and improved 3-T600 tandem HEAT warheads (Dynamit Nobel claims that 3T is capable of piercing 900mm RHA behind ERA and 3-T600 over 1000mm RHA behind ERA at the hitting angle of 90 degrees). On Polish testing ground 3T was fired upon armoured steel plates of 550mm RHA screened with Erawa-2 at the hitting angle of 30 degrees and 3T-600 was fired at the similar target at hitting angle of 15 degrees. In both situations German warheads pierced through Erawa-2 but then were capable of penetrating only about 400mm of RHA. Germans were surprised by the protecting level gave by Erawa-2.
At the end I’d like to refer to combat usage of Israeli Merkava Mk 1 MBT in its confrontation with Syrian T-72M1s (Bekka Valey and Liban clashes in 1982). Although Israeli held the upper hand in that fighting, meeting with T-72M1 made Israeli to develop Merkava Mk 2 model with thicker armour and with a 120 mm gun instead of 105mm one from Mk 1 model. Israelis generally won those engagements thanks to Matador 1 FCS of their Merkavas but armour protection of Merkava Mk 1 wasn’t enough sufficient against 125mm APFSDS rounds and on the other hand 105 mm canons didn’t have enough firepower against T-72M1 as they had been expected before.
I’d like to apologize for any spelling/grammar mistakes but I didn’t have any occasion to use my English, especially in a written form for many years… until now.
Some of Russian tanks can fire ATGMs from their main guns. Also some of T-72 models have this option. But only T-72B and later models. T-72M/M1 never had this ability. So PT-91/A also don’t have ATGMs among its ammunition. The reason for that is very simple, T-72M/M1 and its derivatives weren’t equipped with ATGMs laser guidance channel. Such devices have been installed since T-72B model. I’m writing about so called 9K119 Refleks system (sorry, but I don’t know its NATO codename) with 9M119 Swir (early version) and improved 9M119M Inwar (present one)ATGMs. This system is used by T-80U/UM/UD, T-72B/BM and T-90/S MBTs. Also installing any Western FCS makes impossible to use Refleks system (the only exception are BMP-3 IFVs made for UAE, they can fire 9M117M Arkan missile although they have French vectronics. I don’t know how it was achived).
The other often discussed matter is T-72 armour piercing capabilities, especially with APFSDS rounds. Most opinions are built upon the experiences of the Gulf War in 1991. It is believed that M1A1 Abrams tanks are completely immune to 125mm APFSDS projectiles. But it’s important to say that during the Gulf War Iraqis had only old BM9 (also named as 3BM9) and BM12 (also 3BM12) types of APFSDS ammunition. They are obsolete designs (which ended their service life in the Red Army in 1973 and then being exported) which cores are made from steel (BM9) and steel with tungstencartridge (BM12). Basically they are the 1st generation of APFSDS rounds so it’s no surprise that you can’t knock out M1A1 with them. But I wasn’t be so sure about Abrams armour protection in its confrontation with modern Russian BM32 (DU core), BM42 (tungsten core) and BM42M (tungsten core) ammunition. Also in Poland there was developed modern APFSDS-T projectile. It has tungsten core and is capable of piercing more than 500mm of RHA at the range of 2 kilometers. It fits to auto-loaders in T-72 MBTs. I don’t know if Malaysia bought it, but there is also Israeli APFSDS-T 125mm round, called CL 3579 Mk2, also capable of piercing more than 500mm of RHA form the distance of 2 kilometers.
Now a little bit about the armour of T-72. Fontal turret armour of T-72M1 has two chambers (at both sides of a turret) which are full field with ceramic layer. How is it achieved? A special kind of quartz is being added during the process of casting the turret. When quartz melts due to the high temperature it later congeals within those chambers and it becomes a ceramic layer inside the steel armour. That’s why frontal turret armour of T-72 has a thickness of about 650mm of RHA against HEAT charges. The volume of those chambers in T-72B/S is even bigger than in T-72A/M1 model. It is also illustrated by a nicknames which those tanks got in the West: Dolly Parton for T-72A/M1 and Super Dolly Parton for T-72B/S, thanks to their turrets typical shapes. As it was mentioned before, the protection level of T-72 was improved by installing ERA. T-72B/S got the 1st generation ERA called Kontakt-2 and T-72BM got the 2nd generation Kontakt-5 ERA (There is a link in somebody’s post about basic characteristics of Kontakt-5). Different modernizations of T-72M1 are equipped with different ERAs. Slovakian T-72M2 Moderna has Dyna-S ERA and Czechs T-72M4Cz has Dyna-72 ERA (Both ERAs are derivatives of ex-Czechoslovakian Dyna ERA). Ukrainian T-72MP and Russian T-72M1M (recent upgrading program, not a production model) have Kontakt-5 and Polish PT-91/A has Erawa/2.
Few words about Erawa-2 abilities. In May of 2000, there were presentations of Dynamit Nobel Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank grenade launchers for Polish Army as a part of marketing campaign. There were firing tests of Panzerfaust 3 armed with 3T and improved 3-T600 tandem HEAT warheads (Dynamit Nobel claims that 3T is capable of piercing 900mm RHA behind ERA and 3-T600 over 1000mm RHA behind ERA at the hitting angle of 90 degrees). On Polish testing ground 3T was fired upon armoured steel plates of 550mm RHA screened with Erawa-2 at the hitting angle of 30 degrees and 3T-600 was fired at the similar target at hitting angle of 15 degrees. In both situations German warheads pierced through Erawa-2 but then were capable of penetrating only about 400mm of RHA. Germans were surprised by the protecting level gave by Erawa-2.
At the end I’d like to refer to combat usage of Israeli Merkava Mk 1 MBT in its confrontation with Syrian T-72M1s (Bekka Valey and Liban clashes in 1982). Although Israeli held the upper hand in that fighting, meeting with T-72M1 made Israeli to develop Merkava Mk 2 model with thicker armour and with a 120 mm gun instead of 105mm one from Mk 1 model. Israelis generally won those engagements thanks to Matador 1 FCS of their Merkavas but armour protection of Merkava Mk 1 wasn’t enough sufficient against 125mm APFSDS rounds and on the other hand 105 mm canons didn’t have enough firepower against T-72M1 as they had been expected before.
I’d like to apologize for any spelling/grammar mistakes but I didn’t have any occasion to use my English, especially in a written form for many years… until now.
Elite Brain
New Member
Why doesnt Malaysia go for the T-90. They are already buying SU30MKM fighter jets from russia so this might be a possibility.As for the Al-Khalid, the Malaysians have shown an interest in pursuing this option as well. Also, does anyone have any details on the South Korean MBT ?