During my recent stay in Moscow, I brought a book written by a group of Russian authors entitled Osnovnye Boyyevye Tanki (Main Battle Tanks) published in Moscow by Arsenal Press Company. This book is probably the most detailed work on tanks published in Russia and includes information on modern Soviet/Russian tanks (as well as other post-war MBTs) that, as far as sheer amount of technical detail is concerned, rivals any open source material found in the West. Using this information and other sources, both English and Russian language, I'd like to make a few comments and additions regarding Dave Nilsen's excellent article regarding modern MBTs in CPQ 7.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE T-80 FAMILY
Despite persistent reports to the contrary, the T-80U ("U" for Uluchshennyy, Improved) is in fact powered by a gas turbine, the GTD-1250 capable of 1250 horsepower, as opposed to the 1100 hp GTD-1000TF of the T-80B. The confusion regarding the powerplant of the T-80U was undoubtedly caused by the existence of the T-80UD, which is diesel powered but identical in all other respects to the version of the T-80U. The T-80UD's powerplant is a 1000hp diesel engine. It appears that the T-80UD has been designed by the Kharkov Tank Building Plant and that the T-84 currently marketed by Ukraine is a close derivative thereof. Furthermore, the Russian source mentioned above gives the entry into service dates for the T-80U and T-80UD as 1985 and 1988, respectively.
In light of this information, I would recommend that the T-80UD be given a CC speed of 40, as it has a better power-to-weight ratio and suspension than most, if not all, T-72s. By the same token, a 46-ton T80U powered by a 1250hp gas turbine should be as fast as a 62-ton Challenger with a 1200hp diesel, since it is unlikely that Challenger's suspension is that much better. Certainly anybody who has seen a T80U put through its paces will vouch that it is one fast and agile beast, and a CC speed of 45 or even 50 will better reflect its mobility.
SECOND-GENERATION REACTIVE ARMOR
Whereas the first-generation RA (which the Russians refer to as "applique") consisted of small, thin-walled metal boxes filled with explosive, the new RA (referred to by Russian sources as "built in") consists of a layer of new type high explosive under a relatively thick layer of armor. This new type of reactive armor that is fitted to T-80U/UD and T-72BM/T-90E seems to have certain distinctive characteristics that warrant special treatment in CDII.
First of all, both the Russian writings and the practice of mounting headlights, smoke grenades launchers and other equipment directly onto the 2nd generation RA (something never done with the 1st generation RA) indicate that a hit from an armor-piercing projectile would not detonate the entire tile (not to mention adjacent tiles), only that part of it directly affected. Therefore, tanks equipped with such armor should not be subject to Rule 7.6 regarding the complete detonation of RA.
The second apparent characteristic of 2nd RA, namely its supposed effect on KE rounds, is less easy to quantify. Here the Russian sources indicate that, in addition to decreasing penetration of HEAT rounds, this armor also significantly affects penetration of KE rounds (like APFSDS) by either slowing down or breaking up the penetrator as it passes through and detonates the explosive layer of RA. This claim is supported by Steven J. Zaloga's article in the November 1994 issue of Armed Forces International in which he writes that a T-55 tank fitted with this armor (code-named Kontakt-5) would have its armor value vs. HEAT boosted from 200mm to 900mm, and vs. APFSDS from 200mm to 480mm. This being the case, when attacking an armored vehicle fitted with second-generation RA, HEAT rounds should have their penetration roll divided by four (in addition to any further reductions caused by "C" type armor) and KE type rounds their penetration value divided by 2.
The effectiveness of ATGMs with tandem HEAT warheads, like HOT-2, Milan-2, TOW-2A and various advanced versions of AT-4,5, and other modern Russian ATGMs, probably would not be reduced as drastically, but data is lacking.
The Russian source goes on to say that 2nd-generation RA is also fitted to M 1 A2, Leopard 21 and Challenger 2. It is not clear whether this claim is simply a case of Russian mirror imaging. Nevertheless, several years ago various defense journals mentioned that the French were conducting research into such reactive armor jointly with the US, and the Poles have recently announced that their PT-91 follow on, code named "Gorilla," will also be equipped with such armor. In any case, if 2nd-generation RA preforms as advertised, it will mean a great leap forward in the area of armor protection. Perhaps it is such armor that provides the motivation for the continued development of the M829A2 and its successors, given the spectacular effectiveness of the M829A 1 against current armored vehicles.
NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT UPDATE
Starting in 1992, all production T-80 U (and UD?) tanks began to receive thermal imaging sights as part of the lessons learned from Operation Desert Storm. It is not known whether such sights are being retrofitted to tanks built earlier. TI sights have also been seen on production T-90 tanks. Russians claim that their tank TI sight has a night vision range of 2600 meters, as opposed to only 2000 meters of the M1 TI.
Also, according to Jane's Armor andArtillery, the Yugoslav M-84 and M-84A have always been equipped with image intensification sights (L-type), not active infrared. The prominent infrared searchlights are conspicuous by their absence from photographs of these tanks.
That's all the information I have for now. I hope you will find it useful in maintaining CDII's position as the most comprehensive, up to date and historically accurate set of miniature rules in existence. I have been a reader/user of CPQ since its humble beginnings as simply CP, and I must congratulate you on work you have done. Currently serving on active duty in the US Army, I also applaud your excellent articles on the army (and USMC) in the '90s. As always, I am eagerly awaiting your next issue. Keep up the good work.
Hey Mike: I don't suppose you'd let us borrow your book, would you? We probably have some stuff that we could trade you...
I'm willing to go along with your speed changes for the T-80UD and T80U One more damn thing to correct in some future document. Oh well. Merkava 3 and Leclerc are also candidates for 2nd Gen RA, but as you point out, this stuff is tough to get a handle on. More errata for me someday. Hooray! --Digital Dave
Back to Table of Contents -- Command Post Quarterly # 8
To Command Post Quarterly List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 by Greg Novak.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com