T-72M / M1 tanks were handed over to Ukraine: what the armor of these old men consists of and what it is capable of

58
Transportation of the T-72M1 tank. Source: https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4519570.html

Transportation tank T-72M1. Source: bmpd.livejournal.com

With the start of a special military operation, the Western allies began a full-scale supply of Ukraine with various types of old and new weapons. The range of deliveries is quite wide and literally includes a lot: from a cartridge to a rocket.

Tanks appear as a separate line in the list of European military support. For example, they did not dare to transfer modern Leopards-2, but they nevertheless organized a present in the form of hundreds of rather outdated T-72M / M1. In this article, we will look at what the armor of these combat vehicles consists of and how it works.



Export tanks


Now the T-72 is often compared to the Kalashnikov assault rifle. Some praise it for its reliability, while others note the wide geography of its use, comparable to the products of the legendary Soviet gunsmith. Indeed, the “seventy-two” has been noted in most of the military conflicts of recent decades in different parts of the globe.

It is often possible to come across the opinion that the former Soviet republics contributed to such a wide distribution of the tank, which took advantage of the tank fleet left in the inheritance for financial interests. This is partly true, but the Soviet Union itself was the most important exporter of the car. Indeed, the Ural Carriage Works and the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, which produced the T-72, worked not only for the domestic consumer, but also supplied equipment to friendly states. At the same time, the demand for this product of the defense industry turned out to be so high that at the end of the 70s the USSR began preparations for the transfer of technologies and documentation for production abroad - to Poland and Czechoslovakia.

In Czechoslovakia, the production of tanks was launched in 1981, but in Poland a little later - in 1982. However, the choice that the enterprises of these countries could offer consisted mainly of T-72M and T-72M1, which already in the first half of 80- years gradually began to become obsolete and lose relevance.

Tanks T-72M of the Polish Army. Source: https://arsenal-info.ru/b/book/2002113586/8

Tanks T-72M of the Polish Army. Source: arsenal-info.ru

In less than a decade, the Czechs and Poles were able to produce and transfer 549 T-72 units to the National People's Army (NPA) of the GDR. Another 138 and 334 pieces went to Hungary and Bulgaria, respectively. In addition, about 1 tanks were also transferred to the countries of the Near and Middle East. What can we say about the manufacturers themselves, by 700 Czechoslovakia had 1991 T-897s, as well as modifications of the T-72M / M72, and Poland had 1 units. Countries managed to partially preserve this arsenal. And today he found a combat use.

Armor protection


One of the definitions of the concept of "main battle tank" says that this vehicle must perform a wide range of combat missions in the conditions of the most dense fire impact from various anti-tank weapons from the enemy. Therefore, armor, along with firepower and mobility, is a fundamental factor in the combat effectiveness of a tank.

Considering that the reservation of tanks received by Ukraine dates back to the end of the 70s of the last century, it will be very interesting to consider its relevance and principles of operation. However, it makes no sense to analyze the entire structure of the hull and turret, since the main array of combined armor is located only in the frontal parts.

Tower


As you know, already in the 50s, the pace of development of anti-tank weapons - cumulative and sub-caliber shells - began to alarm tank builders around the world. A rather unpleasant trend was emerging, which ultimately led to the fact that solid steel armor became simply irrelevant, since in order to protect the tank from shells with a penetration capacity of 300–500 mm, it was necessary to increase the arrays of steel armor to the appropriate values, and this inevitably led would lead to an exorbitant and unacceptable increase in the mass of the machine.

In the Soviet Union, this problem was carefully considered and the world's first production tank with combined armor, the T-64, was released. At the heart of its frontal hull armor was armored fiberglass with rear and outer steel sheets. In the tower, after experiments with inserts made of high-hard steel and aluminum, starting from the later series of T-64A, they began to install corundum (ceramic) balls. Both textolite and corundum had a very low density, which made it possible to keep the mass of the tank within reasonable limits and give it a satisfactory level of protection. Similar, but not quite, was also used in the T-72 tanks.

In the turret of the T-72M tank, combined armor protection was not used, so it consists entirely of cast steel armor up to 410 mm thick. Accordingly, it gives this level of protection against cumulative projectiles. As for the feathered armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles, the situation is not so clear-cut. Due to the knocking out of the "plug" in the final section of penetration, as well as the differing processes of armor penetration in cores made of different alloys, in general, resistance can be determined in the region of 380 mm and higher, which is also indicated in the calculations of the Research Institute of Steel in open sources.

In order to increase protection against cumulative projectiles, inserts made of sand bonded with silicate material, popularly called "sand rods", were used in the turrets of the T-72M1 tanks. In fact, this was a cheap, but also less effective alternative to corundum sixty-four balls.

Sliced ​​frontal armor of the tower with sand filler. Source: https://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=936

Sliced ​​frontal armor of the tower with sand filler. Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru

The work of the "sandy" armor was as follows. At that moment, when the cumulative jet is just beginning to penetrate the sand, a powerful shock wave is formed in it, forcing it to compress. As soon as the jet moves deeper, the shock wave behind it weakens and the sand, releasing the accumulated compression energy, falls on it, forming a kind of "blockage". This leads to a break in the jet and a decrease in its penetration ability. Of course, this principle does not apply in any way to sandbags that are used to hang equipment. In the armor of the tank, this material is located in a closed space and has a significant hardness due to the bonding composition, which allows it to exhibit the above properties.

The modernization made it possible to increase the resistance of the forehead of the T-72M1 turret to HEAT rounds to 490–500 mm. However, this had practically no effect on the resistance from "sub-calibers", and it remained within the same limits as on the T-72M.

Chassis


In the upper frontal part of the T-72M tank hull, a combined armor in the form of a “layer cake” was used, consisting of a 60-mm steel outer sheet, two sheets of armored fiberglass with a total thickness of 105 mm and a 50-mm rear steel sheet. And if everything is clear with steel, then how does textolite work? By itself, it cannot provide any protection, but in combination with metal armor, it does.

Schematic representation of the combined forehead armor of the T-72M hull. Source: https://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1458&p=5

Schematic representation of the combined forehead armor of the T-72M hull. Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru

The cumulative jet is far from a body that is far from uniform in velocity: if its head part (leader) moves at a speed of up to 9 km/s or more, then the tail elements usually do not even reach 3 km/s. As a result, the jet is prone to rupture due to the difference in speeds, and this vulnerability is widely exploited when installing protective screens on military equipment, undermining shells at a considerable distance from the armor. Inside the fiberglass layer, approximately the same thing happens. Having broken through the outer steel sheet, the cumulative jet enters a less dense textolite array and, without encountering strong resistance, moves forward, breaking into fragments.

It should also be noted that the cumulative jet moves in space not in a single even line, but in waves. When penetrating armor, it hits the edges of the hole and literally "smeared" on them, which negatively affects its integrity and penetration. It works both in steel armor and in textolite, but textolite is lighter. And if there is no difference, then, as they say, why pay more?

Another useful property of textolite can be called its fragility. In the case of anti-cumulative protection, it to some extent repeats ceramics and sand, filling up the channel of the hole along with the jet with its small and large fragments, cutting it into pieces.

A broken cumulative jet after overcoming an obstacle with textolite. Source: "Partial questions of final ballistics"

A broken cumulative jet after overcoming an obstacle with textolite. Source: "Partial questions of final ballistics"

In practice, all these circumstances give the following. From HEAT shells, the resistance of the forehead of the T-72M hull, again, according to the Research Institute of Steel, is approximately 450 mm. And what about sub-caliber shells?

It just so happened that at the time of the introduction of the T-72 textolite “pie” into production, the vast majority of used sub-caliber shells contained a small hard alloy core, for example, based on tungsten carbide. The armor worked quite well against them.

Since the upper frontal part of the tank has a slope of 68 degrees, the brittle hard core, penetrating into the outer steel sheet, received initial damage and underwent denormalization - the reaction of the steel mass, which consists in changing the trajectory of the projectile towards parallel with the armor plate. Roughly speaking, inside the armor, the nose of the core "pulls up" up. Having flown into a less dense textolite after steel, the core continues its curved path and collapses under the influence of enormous pressure.

Newer sub-caliber projectiles with large cores made of ductile heavy alloys based on uranium and tungsten react little to the bending actions of the armor and do not collapse in the textolite, although they may undergo some deformation.

Heavy-alloy drummer in a textolite barrier. The bending effect is visible. Source: "Partial questions of final ballistics"

Heavy-alloy drummer in a textolite barrier. The bending effect is visible. Source: "Partial questions of final ballistics"

An interesting trick can also happen. Having broken through the first textolite sheet (and there are two of them), the core of the sub-caliber projectile can ricochet off the second one and stop flat inside the armor or even turn around. The phenomenon is infrequent, but it happens.

Since such armor does not work very effectively, resistance against sub-caliber shells near the forehead of the T-72M hull is approximately 335–340 mm.

For the T-72M1, the situation is slightly better. The fact is that in order to increase security against new sub-caliber and cumulative shells, the 105-mm NATO guns of most of these tanks were modernized by installing a 16-mm steel sheet on the upper frontal part of the hull. Thus, its protection indicators were set at the level of 400-405 mm from sub-caliber projectiles and 490 mm from cumulative ones.

Schematic representation of the composition of the upper frontal part of the T-72M1 hull. Source: https://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1458&p=5

Schematic representation of the composition of the upper frontal part of the T-72M1 hull. Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru

Conclusions


So, in fact, we can state the following figures for the protective ability of the armor. In the T-72M, the turret provides about 380 mm from sub-caliber and up to 410 mm from HEAT shells. At the same time, the forehead of the hull has protection of 450 mm from "cumulative" and 335-340 mm from sub-caliber shells.

With the T-72M1, the situation is slightly better. 490-500 mm from cumulative and 380 mm from sub-caliber shells on the turret. On the forehead of the hull: 490 mm from HEAT and 400-405 mm from sub-caliber projectiles.

What does this mean in terms of SVO? That both variations of the "M-ki" can be pierced by sub-caliber shells and guided missiles of tanks with a significant margin.

Also, their armor does not present great difficulties both for new RPGs and for most of the existing anti-tank missile systems, including infantry and airborne combat vehicles installed in combat vehicles, not to mention such “monsters” as the Kornet.

In general, we can say that in terms of protection, the T-72M / M1 have long since approached the line of complete obsolescence, although the installation of hinged dynamic protection allows them to be reanimated in some way, but due to the presence of a wide range of tandem cumulative means, this is in many cases will not help the elderly.
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +17
    13 June 2022 03: 08
    As a self-propelled gun is still dangerous.
    1. +31
      13 June 2022 04: 10
      Even a deeply modernized T-72 will never become a full-fledged self-propelled gun. Rather, it can be considered as a fire support vehicle against visually observed targets. But in any case, even these outdated T-72s are clearly no worse than T-62s taken from storage.
      Article "+". good
      1. KCA
        +2
        13 June 2022 05: 30
        So the T-62 is going to be used as a bunker, not MBT
        1. +9
          13 June 2022 06: 10
          Quote: KCA
          So the T-62 is going to be used as a bunker, not MBT

          It is known where the road is paved with good intentions ... anything can happen in battle.
          1. 0
            13 June 2022 08: 16
            Quote: Tucan
            It is known where the road is paved with good intentions ... anything can happen in battle.

            The T-62 with eyebrows is no worse in terms of durability than the described 72-eyes, and they are very unlikely to be used against LDNR tanks.
            1. KCA
              -2
              13 June 2022 18: 12
              The buried T-62 for jewels and other stuff is about nothing, it doesn’t start the engines, it doesn’t heat up at all, it’s buried up to the very tower, you can hit everything once, but not in a war, there are nuances, I saw the T-55 during an attack, 1993, this is an ass, he went like hell under the ATGM
        2. -1
          13 June 2022 17: 13
          uh uh, we'll see the vids soon...
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. +7
    13 June 2022 05: 01
    Frontal armor was considered, but today many anti-tank weapons hit the tank from above. Starting from the RPG-7, striking from the upper floors of the building to the PTKM-1R roof mines and self-aiming submunitions SPBE "Motiv-3". By the way, for some reason, nothing is reported about the use of the latter in the SVO.
  4. +16
    13 June 2022 05: 54
    Given the fact that the Russian army brought the T-62, talking about the obsolescence of the T-72 is somewhat ridiculous, right?
    Absolutely all modern tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. But we practically do not observe tank duels in Ukraine, with the exception of the first days.
    1. +1
      13 June 2022 15: 13
      And why did they bring sixty twos?
      1. +6
        13 June 2022 21: 47
        He has the ability to fire without starting the engine, thanks to manual loading. Therefore, it is easier to disguise itself at checkpoints.
        1. +2
          14 June 2022 04: 42
          As an option. Bury the tower and the bunker is ready. And the presence of a paired 12.7 should not be underestimated.
          1. 0
            12 August 2022 16: 21
            This is where the twin NSVT is installed? Paired only FCT, 7.62. The NSVT, which is above the gunner's hatch, is a powerful machine, but it does not have any sights. Purely "by eye" bang. Yes, and for this you have to get out of the tower.
  5. +5
    13 June 2022 06: 11
    That's just a question. Textolite, which the author mentions, is it the same as what is called fiberglass in radio engineering?
    Thanks for the article. Interesting.
    1. +8
      13 June 2022 10: 08
      The so-called "armor-piercing fiberglass", in more detail here https://warspot.ru/18876-steklotekstolit-v-brone-dyoshevo-i-serdito
      PS The author of the article is a big plus good
      1. +7
        13 June 2022 14: 09
        Thank you for your rating too. And for the link to my warspot article winked
        1. +4
          13 June 2022 14: 29
          Although the age, as it were, is not the same, but I follow the interesting feel
          Good luck with your research and future writing. good
          1. +4
            13 June 2022 15: 22
            Thanks for the kind words hi
      2. +1
        13 June 2022 15: 12
        Thanks for the link. Much at the level of "sofa expert" becomes clearer.
    2. +5
      13 June 2022 11: 37
      In the Soviet Union, this problem was carefully considered and the world's first serial tank with combined armor, the T-64, was released. .....
      Judging by the text, it turns out that all the merit in the development of multilayer armor lies with the designers of the T-64. The protection of all tanks (T-64, T-72, T-80, etc.) was carried out by the Research Institute of Steel.
    3. +3
      13 June 2022 14: 17
      Formally, these are materials of a similar class. Both there and there are based on fiberglass bonded threads. It's just that the mechanical properties are different due to the different bonding composition. It’s very simplified and in an exaggerated form: hit the textolite electronic board with a hammer and break it, and if it’s on a sheet of armored textolite, then break the hammer laughing
      1. +2
        13 June 2022 18: 27
        Judging by your article, the export models of the T-72 were equipped with hulls, as for the Soviet Army (armor steel + textol + steel)!
        But in some books on armored vehicles they write that export models were not made with such armor. Their armor was made from a steel monolith.
        1. +3
          13 June 2022 20: 49
          They went with monolithic towers, this is the export T-72 and T-72M. The second article is written about. The body was not a monolith.
          1. 0
            13 June 2022 20: 59
            So, when sending tanks to Iraq, Syria, Soviet specialists were not worried about the leakage of data on the composition of the armor of the tank hull?
            And the technology for the production of combined armor was transferred to the Czechs and Poles?
            To put it mildly - imprudent.
            1. +2
              14 June 2022 14: 21
              There would be something to leak. Textolite and sand in the 80s were no longer some kind of secret. what
              1. 0
                14 June 2022 15: 13
                A bit like a quarrel between a wife and her husband. If I'm with someone else and he's wearing a condom, it doesn't count as cheating. And her husband told her - a shot in the head with a pistol with a silencer is not considered murder. These are the arguments in this article. Everyone immediately calmed down. The discussion has been sidetracked.
              2. 0
                14 June 2022 16: 21
                Served in the GSVG 1985-87 in a tank regiment. And although the tanks were "secretly" called "products #", and not t-64a, even the soldiers knew about the composition of the armor in general. That steel / ceramics / steel and plastic anti-fragmentation lining. By the way, repair welding on armor is only electric. The gas one did not take it, the flame only licked the armor plate.
  6. 0
    13 June 2022 06: 44
    Tanks are tanks, but what about crews, because a lot of tanks have already been crumbled, if I'm not mistaken, about 3500 pieces, and you can't train a tanker in a month.
    1. +2
      13 June 2022 07: 53
      I believe that there are less than 3500 cases of tanks being destroyed along with their crews. Although, if such an outcome is at least a quarter of the cases, then the approximate losses of tankers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine alone are 2800 people. Thanks for the thought.
      1. 0
        14 June 2022 16: 32
        I read interviews with LPR tankers, so they say that tanks have been changed more than once during this war. The tank is hit, but the crew is intact. So it's too early to write off tanks from service. And the effectiveness of anti-tank weapons was not so high.
    2. +2
      13 June 2022 08: 11
      No, well, 3500 is quite a bust. Even the Americans draw us the loss of tanks in the region of 1000 pieces (most likely somewhere around 600-1000 is). But yomae is not 3500. Or are you talking about our total losses and Ukrainian? But even in this case, it is very unlikely. Even taking into account the broken and captured.
      1. -6
        13 June 2022 09: 26
        Refer to the website of the Moscow Region to Konashenkov.
        And the striped ones are not authority for me, the thrashers are finished, they lie as they breathe.
        1. 0
          15 June 2022 19: 36
          I just didn't understand you. I thought you mean that we have lost 3500 tanks.
    3. +2
      13 June 2022 09: 29
      The data of our General Staff does not divide the destroyed armored vehicles into tanks and other armored vehicles. 3500 is in total.
    4. 0
      13 June 2022 19: 21
      Probably not 3500, but much less, if such a question arose) But a lot ...
  7. 0
    13 June 2022 08: 53
    Quote: Ros 56
    Tanks are tanks, but what about crews, because a lot of tanks have already been crumbled, if I'm not mistaken, about 3500 pieces, and you can't train a tanker in a month.

    Indicate the total number of destroyed armored vehicles. This number includes the entire fleet, not just tanks.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +2
      13 June 2022 09: 30
      I agree, but crews also die in and in armored personnel carriers and in BMD.
  8. +2
    13 June 2022 11: 12
    Quote: Tucan
    Even a deeply modernized T-72 will never become a full-fledged self-propelled gun. Rather, it can be considered as a fire support vehicle against visually observed targets. But in any case, even these outdated T-72s are clearly no worse than T-62s taken from storage.
    Article "+". good

    Well, definitely not worse than the self-propelled gun / tank Octopus.
  9. +1
    13 June 2022 11: 32
    This is partly true, but the Soviet Union itself was the most important exporter of the car. Indeed, the Ural Carriage Works and the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, which produced the T-72, worked not only for the domestic consumer, but also supplied equipment to friendly states.

    Well, they were sold to friends, what can I say. It was necessary to think to whom and what to supply, as the Americans used to think (now they are also following in our footsteps).

    Thanks for the interesting article, author!
    Nevertheless, this technique is dangerous because it can be used for ambushes and in urban battles - quite relevant shells can be fired under the T-72 cannon - and even irrelevant they can do business, even partially disabling equipment.
  10. +1
    13 June 2022 11: 33
    A good analysis of composite body armor for dummies, which I am in this area. Isn't an anti-neutron lining made of polypropylene provided there? Article +, respect to the author.
    1. +1
      14 June 2022 16: 27
      The lining there is not anti-neutron. It is anti-shatter. When armor is pierced by the core of a sub-caliber projectile, fragments break off from the inner layer of armor and hit the crew and equipment. This viscous lining prevents the formation of fragments, or rather limits their lethal force. At least that's what they told us in the army.
  11. 0
    13 June 2022 11: 52
    It would be good to analyze the ratio of combat losses of tanks from various weapons and the consequences of hitting various weapons in order to prioritize. Of course, one should take into account who will be the most likely enemy in the future. It is unlikely that gang formations or Turkish "proxies" will have a large number of modern tanks, guns and ammunition for them. But mines and modern anti-tank systems - completely.
  12. -2
    13 June 2022 12: 12
    In the south of Moravia there were fierce battles, but the entry of troops into Brno would have been a clear proof of peace for the inhabitants of Brno. Unfortunately, people of Armored today don't know much, no one explains it to them. There are still pensioners who still remember this time. Thank you. am
    1. +1
      15 June 2022 21: 18
      Help for the Nazis in the Second World War was forgiven in Brno, but in vain ... Every inhabitant of Moravia must remember that he worked for the Nazis and, therefore, also up to his elbows in blood ...
  13. +3
    13 June 2022 12: 53
    Interesting! Thank.
  14. +1
    13 June 2022 13: 11
    In general, we can say that in terms of protecting the T-72M / M1, they have long since approached the line of complete obsolescence,

    It's so simple, you can't throw hats on them. Even if they are not the most modern. It's still a tank, a very serious and formidable weapon. We, too, began to massively use the T-62m.
  15. -1
    13 June 2022 14: 12
    "What are these old men's armor capable of?"
    What's the difference! A tank is a tank! It’s easier to prevent it than to fight it later. But to prevent it, does our military seem to have problems with this?
    1. +1
      14 June 2022 15: 06
      They forget there that in addition to armor they have guns that still shoot and kill, but they do not kill to death to the grave. In Ukraine, the end is not yet, as if they were not praised. Yak pohovaly, then tse vzhe kaput. (praise - buried).
  16. 0
    13 June 2022 16: 06
    Quote: Monar
    And why did they bring sixty twos?

    Fight. The explanation is that there are no more modern tanks left in Ukraine, so the T62 will fit.
    Although it’s not clear to me either - have we really run out of more modern tanks?
  17. -1
    13 June 2022 18: 00
    Quote: Monar
    And why did they bring sixty twos?

    Did they bring it?
    There were videos about moving them along the railway where and for what purpose, of course, no one spoke.
    Maybe for remelting, maybe for spare parts, or maybe really in the form of pillboxes, etc.
  18. +1
    13 June 2022 18: 43
    Quantity has its own quality. (Stalin). They supply a lot, creatures.
    Kill the west, save the world)))
  19. +1
    13 June 2022 23: 37
    All this is curious as an excursion into the history of tank building. But the Germans presented a new "panther" with a 130 mm cannon and an integrated platform for UAVs, either in strike or reconnaissance versions
  20. 0
    14 June 2022 15: 03
    On the side of the ukrov - this is garbage, on the side of the Rus - is it still possible and ischo how? As in full force, but there is no way, only tests.
  21. -2
    14 June 2022 21: 34
    Polish tanks received an improved surveillance system and sighting systems, which the author modestly kept silent about, and this is the most important improvement for them!
    1. 0
      15 June 2022 20: 58
      Before being sent to Ukraine, the Poles removed thermal imagers and all the latest electronics from their T-72M1R, thereby turning them into T-72M1 ...
  22. 0
    14 June 2022 22: 38
    Why are all the comments only on the armor? The T-72 tank is a formidable force and was correctly noticed with new sights and means of communication, and even on the right sector of the front. No matter how approached, you will have to knock out.
  23. +1
    15 June 2022 21: 14
    Good article from a realist
  24. +1
    19 June 2022 00: 05
    I'm not a tanker. But recently, having first skimmed through the content of the news on the site, I prefer to start reading from E. Perov's articles. Articles without "water", without collusion and speculation, with specific facts. Thank you!