Tower with cells: about the armor of the Soviet T-80U tank

29
Tower with cells: about the armor of the Soviet T-80U tank

Back in 1984, the Soviet Union adopted Army was accepted танк The T-80U, which became the last serial representative of the gas turbine "eighties" family in the USSR. This machine, being the flagship of domestic tank building of those years, absorbed many advanced solutions, including new combined armor of the turret, which included metal-polymer cellular blocks for protection against cumulative ammunition. What they are and how they resist attacking weapons, we will talk about in this material.

About introductory notes


Perhaps we should start with a banality: steel armor, as the only element of a tank's ballistic protection, has long since lost its relevance. It began to become morally obsolete in this regard back in the middle of the last century due to the growth of armor penetration of shells (primarily cumulative), which was becoming increasingly difficult to resist by increasing the thickness of steel arrays, since this led to an exorbitant increase in the mass of the combat vehicle.



These circumstances, as is known, became the reason for the appearance of combined armor, which provided for the use - in addition to metal elements - of various fillers of lower density, which made it possible to ensure the required resistance of the tank to destructive weapons while maintaining the above indicator within reasonable limits.

Of course, in a single combined armor, all its components in one way or another affect both sub-caliber and cumulative ammunition. But this effect is by no means the same due to the fact that kinetic projectiles react rather weakly to low-density obstacles, while cumulative ones are much better. Therefore, certain requirements are imposed on light fillers, since designers are often forced to literally maneuver between them and heavy (the same steel) elements, maintaining some balance in the durability, weight and dimensions of the armor.

Among them: a durability indicator close to that of steel armor of the same thickness, as well as a lower weight than steel. Roughly speaking, if a conditional 100 mm layer of filler is equivalent in durability to a sheet of armor steel 80-90 mm thick and at the same time weighs half as much as this sheet itself, then this is a quite good filler. Very simplified and exaggerated, of course.

The resistance indicator of a material itself is approximately calculated by its overall coefficient. For example, to find out what the steel equivalent of a 100mm layer of N filler having a factor of 1,5 would be, you would divide the 100mm by 1,5. The result is 66 mm steel equivalent.

Passive armor


In Soviet tank building, which professes the rule “against sub-caliber shells - mainly steel, and against cumulative shells - steel and filler,” materials were used for a long time as light fillers that can be classified as passive armor, providing protection from the attacking body solely due to its physical and mechanical properties.

And, perhaps, the most famous of them is fiberglass, consisting of glass fiber bonded with polymer substances. Its density is only about two grams per cubic centimeter, and the overall coefficient against cumulative ammunition in armor barriers of the “steel+textolite+steel” type is approximately 1,6. That is, a conventional 100 millimeters of this material produces about 62 mm in steel equivalent against cumulative jets. If the armor part has a configuration in which several layers of textolite are combined with steel sheets, then the coefficient is about 1,3.

Armor fiberglass - one of the most famous fillers for the armor of Soviet tanks
Armor fiberglass is one of the most famous fillers for the armor of Soviet tanks

For its time, it was a pretty good filler, which was used in the frontal parts of the hulls of almost all Soviet T-64, T-72 (with the exception of T-72B) and T-80 tanks. Only its thickness changed and steel sheets were added. He remained on the T-80U.

In the turrets, as the parts of the tank that are most exposed to fire and where there is not much space to go around in terms of dimensions, other components were used. So, for T-64 tanks (from A to BV) it is corundum, which replaced the aluminum used on the early 0,8s. It was a highly hard aluminum-based ceramic with a density of just under four grams per cubic centimeter and provided resistance against cumulative weapons almost identical to steel armor. In other words, its overall coefficient was approximately equal to one (MSTU named after Bauman gives a coefficient of XNUMX).

Model of a tower with corundum filler. All T-64A/B/BV tanks and the first T-80 were equipped. 112 mm steel + 138 mm corundum + 138 mm steel with a total dimensions (with inclination angle) of 450 mm. Resistance against cumulative ammunition - 450 mm, against sub-caliber ammunition - 400-410 mm.
Model of a tower with corundum filler. All T-64A/B/BV tanks and the first T-80 were equipped with it. 112 mm steel + 138 mm corundum + 138 mm steel with a total dimensions (with inclination angle) of 450 mm. Resistance against cumulative ammunition - 450 mm, against sub-caliber ammunition - 400-410 mm.

However, despite the effectiveness of this filler, the production of cast turrets with it was a great technological challenge, so they were not produced on any tanks other than the T-64 family and the first production T-80. Instead, in the cast turrets of the T-80B/BV and T-72A/AV series tanks, filler was used in the form of rods of non-metallic molding materials, held together before pouring with metal reinforcement, also known as sand rods.

There is no reliable data on the latter, but, most likely, its density differs from corundum to a lesser extent, while its anti-cumulative resistance is much lower. Very approximately, in the overall coefficient - about 1.4.

T-72A turret with sand filling. The overall dimensions of the armor are 530 mm, of which about 120 mm is sand. Durability is approximately equal to 500 mm from cumulative shells, from sub-caliber shells - 400-420 mm. The T-80B and T-80BV turrets were also equipped with similar material with the same durability.
T-72A turret with sand filling. The total dimensions of the armor are about 530 mm, of which about 120 mm is sand. Durability is approximately equal to 500 mm from cumulative shells, from sub-caliber shells - 400-420 mm. The T-80B and T-80BV turrets were also equipped with similar material with the same durability.

But it’s no secret that progress in “shell manufacturing” also did not stand still - and those requirements for the durability of armor protection for tanks, which were relevant in the 60-70s, could not be relevant in the 80-90s. Therefore, when developing new modifications of vehicles, taking into account the need for increased protection against sub-caliber projectiles (increasing the thickness of steel masses), it was necessary to resort to turret anti-cumulative fillers of a completely different order, more effective and lightweight. We are talking about semi-active armor, using the energy of a cumulative jet to destroy it.

In the T-72B tanks, which were put into service in the same year as the hero of our material, this armor was made of reflective sheets, which were “sandwiches” of steel sheets with a rubber layer between them. And in the T-80U there are polyurethane cellular blocks.

Polyurethane cells


This method of anti-cumulative tank protection was actively proposed by the Institute of Hydrodynamics of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences back in the 1970s and was based on the fact that a cumulative jet, moving at enormous speed, has practically no strength of its own and can be destroyed (torn) by armor filler enclosed in a small volume.

In other words, if you take a container (cell) that is small in volume and completely closed on all sides with a compressible material placed there, then when a cumulative jet penetrates, a compression shock wave should appear in this very material. Reflecting from the walls of the cell, it causes the filler to move towards the axis of the jet, braking and breaking it due to the collapse of the hole.


Of course, with some conventions.

For example, a cell, in accordance with its shape, must have a certain diameter. If the diameter of the cell is too large, the processes of formation and movement of the shock wave inside it are delayed, causing the destruction of the jet to begin too late. A diameter that is too small reduces the effective mass of the filler. Therefore, the optimal diameter is 10-13% of the penetration capacity of the cumulative jet. As for the thickness of the cell walls, they should be approximately 5-6% of the penetration capacity of the cumulative jet in order to withstand the pressure.

The cell material itself must have not only high wave velocities and low tensile strength, but also good performance characteristics. Because of this, fillers such as concrete or paraffin, which show quite good results in counteracting cumulative jets in cellular armor, have not been used. But I found the most balanced polyester urethane in this regard. It is not prone to brittle fractures in frost; it retains its integrity even after several impacts from projectiles, and it has good adhesion to metals.

The state of the cumulative jet after overcoming an obstacle 13 mm steel + 20 mm cellular layer + 20 mm steel
The state of the cumulative jet after overcoming an obstacle 13 mm steel + 20 mm cellular layer + 20 mm steel

Moreover, taking into account that the density of polyurethane is literally about 1 gram per cubic centimeter, an armor barrier filled with cells with it will weigh significantly less than a steel plate of the same thickness. Well, you can learn about the durability of such cells from the table below.

Testing of cellular barriers with different cell diameters and wall thicknesses between them. The results of shelling barriers with cumulative ammunition are shown in red. Green – armor penetration of the ammunition against steel armor. Blue – overall coefficient of the cellular barrier. Violet is the average density of the barrier, where the density of polyurethane and metal cell walls is taken into account. In almost all cases it is lower than the density of a solid steel sheet.
Testing of cellular barriers with different cell diameters and wall thicknesses between them. The results of shelling barriers with cumulative ammunition are shown in red. Green – armor penetration of the ammunition against steel armor. Blue – overall coefficient of the cellular barrier. Violet is the average density of the barrier, where the density of polyurethane and metal cell walls is taken into account. In almost all cases it is lower than the density of a solid steel sheet

In fact, the anti-cumulative equivalent of cellular polyurethane armor is identical to steel armor of similar thickness (plus or minus the overall coefficient is 1), and the weight gain compared to solid steel can be up to 60%, as can be seen from the average density of the barrier. These circumstances determined the choice in favor of “cells” as the basis for the anti-cumulative protection of the T-80 modification, which was new at that time.

Of course, there is no more or less accurate information about the form in which the cellular blocks were made for the T-80U. Nevertheless, there are photographs of the filling of the turret of the Ukrainian “Oplot” - it has a similar protection scheme, so the “eighty” most likely has something similar, taking into account the armor schemes circulating on the Internet.

Plates with cellular filler for the Ukrainian "Oplot"
Plates with cellular filler for the Ukrainian “Oplot”

Schematic arrangement of the cellular filler in the T-80U turret
Schematic arrangement of the cellular filler in the T-80U turret

If we talk about protection, then, taking into account the compactness of the cellular filler due to its high overall efficiency, the designers managed to fit them in the niches of the frontal part of the T-80U turret in two rows (closer to the side parts in one row) and supplemented with plates of high-hardness steel at total armor thickness of ±520. Taken together, this entire assembly, taking into account the external and rear armored parts of the turret, produces an equivalent of about 600 mm against cumulative ammunition and about 500 mm against sub-caliber ammunition.

This was quite enough for protection from most sub-caliber and absolutely all cumulative artillery shells of 105 and 120 mm caliber, as well as from most monoblock anti-tank missiles. With the use of built-in dynamic protection, this figure increased to 1000-1100 millimeters for “cumulative” ammunition and 600-625 mm for sub-caliber ammunition, so it is not for nothing that the “ear” is called one of the most armored tanks of the USSR.

Information sources:
"Study of the anti-cumulative resistance of cellular-type armor." Yu.A. Zorov, I.I. Terekhin
“Particular issues of finite ballistics” V.A. Grigoryan, A.N. Beloborodko, N.S. Dorokhov and others.
“Study of the anti-cumulative resistance of cellular-type barriers with inert and active fillers.” A.V. Babkin, S.V. Ladov, S.V. Fedorov.
"Theory and design of the tank", volume 10, book 2.
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    27 August 2024 05: 16
    This car, being the flagship of the domestic tank building of those years

    This tank from the Leningrad Design Bureau under the leadership of Nikolai Popov is still the best....the speed and smoothness are outstanding.
    1. +5
      27 August 2024 07: 02
      I had a chance to ride, although at the training ground. Although they gave me a chance to patrol... "Tube 15, sight 120. Bam-bang! And... by" (c) laughing
      Vesch! good He's tearing up so hard that he's jamming him into the seat... but I was in the gunner's place.
      ZY, Eldest blood brother, he drove up to Khasavyurt like Kaz at 80U. There were hits, but they retreated under their own power. I don’t remember where, but everything was being repaired. Before that, it burned in 2 72B, but both times the entire crew was alive, the tanks were later evacuated and restored. The very first in Grozny in the Rokhlinskaya group. Bratelnik, as he liked to be called later, fought like a dragoon without a horse laughing
    2. +1
      27 August 2024 18: 01
      Quote: Konnick
      This tank from the Leningrad Design Bureau under the leadership of Nikolai Popov is still the best....the speed and smoothness are outstanding.

      Who can argue with this, except the Americans and stubborn shavers... But this is before their first acquaintance with the T-80 with a gas turbine engine.
      What I wanted to say. What was good about the USSR was that when creating new types of weapons, they tried as much as possible to use the experience of the design bureaus of the entire Union. The story about the T-80U turret would not be complete if we did not mention that a similar turret was originally developed under the leadership of N.A. Shomin for the modernization of the T-64 tank, namely object 476 "Kedr". And only then, on its basis and based on the results of tests, turrets were created for the T-80U and T-80UD
      1. 0
        28 August 2024 00: 51
        Quote: svp67
        But who can argue with this, except the Americans and stubborn shavers... But this is before their first acquaintance with the T-80 with a gas turbine engine

        But Abrams doesn’t have a gas turbine engine?)) And the German MTU is a very fast engine, with a large power reserve far beyond 1500 hp. The gas turbine engine brought the dynamic performance of Soviet tanks to the level of the Abrams and Leo2, since even then it was clear that it was impossible to squeeze more out of the B2.
        1. 0
          30 August 2024 08: 19
          Quote: karabas-barabas
          The GTE brought the dynamics of Soviet tanks to the level of Abrams and Leo2

          No, the T-80 had better performance than Western tanks of the same year of production.
    3. -1
      27 August 2024 19: 43
      Yes, he was not the best. The best T72, a warrior tank, and a beautiful figurine. A tank in war means unpretentiousness, the ability to be repaired with a crowbar and “your mother”, so first they send the T80, they understand that it is not for war and the T72/90, or even the T62, arrives.
      1. +2
        27 August 2024 21: 35
        He wasn't the best

        I repeat - he is still the best

        from interview:
        «
        Experience of combat use of T-80BVM" Author of the article - call sign "Sievert", Interviewee (tanker) - call sign "North":

        Question about the mobility of the vehicle: is the gas turbine engine “hell for suppliers” or a thing? Are they reliable enough? Problems on the march with fuel? Smooth ride, shaking, acceleration compared to diesel engines. What are the main disadvantages of the T-80 BVM? — It all depends on what role the tank group plays. As practice has shown, the speed of the “box” directly affects its survival. If the same examples in the form of T-72B and T-72B3 had impressive losses during battles in urban areas, then the “80s” group lost only one tank in 3 months of operation.
      2. +1
        30 August 2024 08: 20
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        and it's a beautiful statuette.

        Fighting on this "statuette" is considered an honor and a great success.
      3. 0
        30 August 2024 16: 27
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        The best T72

        The best tank, after being hit or blown up, has its diesel engine stall as a result of a sudden stop, and the crew leaves the combat vehicle, since sometimes there is no way to start the engine.
        The T-80 with a gas turbine does not have such a problem, it has a free turbine and due to this the engine continues to work even as a result of a sudden stop of the tank caused by an explosion of IPR factors on the battlefield.
        T-80 is more survivable than T-72.
  2. +1
    27 August 2024 06: 17
    Today, in Ukraine there are no planned tank versus tank battles. There is no second Prokhorovka like during the Second World War. Little is heard about the use of anti-tank guns.
    Of course, there are such attacks, but only as forced ones.
    The ideology of using tanks today is completely different.
    But he is being hit from all sides. There are mines on the bottom, anti-tank guns on the side, and drones on top.
    We have not heard at all about the use of Afghanit active tank protection.
    1. +1
      27 August 2024 15: 11
      there was a message that the new T-90s will go with Arena-M this year and this, in my opinion, is exactly what is needed.
      1. +5
        27 August 2024 15: 15
        In our media, the word Will be the most popular. What did they promise us... Do we need to list them?))
      2. +5
        27 August 2024 16: 05
        there was a message that the new T-90s will go this year with Arena-M
        It’s like with the new equipment for the soldiers of the Strelok CBS, they calculated how much treatment, rehabilitation, and payments for injuries cost and decided that it would be more profitable to equip the soldiers in the Northern Military District with a modern set of personal protection. So it is with the T-90M, they used to say that KAZ was an expensive overkill, but when they began to lose expensive tanks, they immediately saw the economic feasibility of equipping KAZ Arena-M tanks with Volnorez electronic warfare systems. If things continue like this, then maybe they’ll build a new transmission with reverse gear at 30 km/h.
        ps As they say Until the thunder strikes, the generalissimo from the mines. harrows will not cross themselves.
    2. +2
      27 August 2024 19: 47
      And there was no Prokhorovka then. Tanks don’t fight tanks, but...it happens. All modern Western tanks were made more like anti-tank self-propelled guns, and also a mobile gun, but ours are just like breakthrough tanks.
      Afghanite is only available on T14, and it is unclear whether they tested it or not. But they definitely didn’t tell you.
      1. 0
        28 August 2024 11: 38
        Is this some kind of mantra “tanks don’t fight tanks,” or an attempt to justify the shortcomings of technology?
        Tanks fight tanks steadily
  3. +3
    27 August 2024 06: 23
    I was interested to know that the T-80U is distinguished not only by its gas turbine engine, which is mentioned everywhere in articles about it. But now I (a newbie in tank business) still have a question about the armor in the T-90... Did it absorb these advantages of the T-80U or did they go their own way?
    Further and more... I would like to get comparisons with the armor of foreign tanks, at least those that are now in service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I guess that the armor of the newest Abrams and Leopards is a big secret, so they are in no hurry to give them to Ukraine... Or are there no secrets at all, but simply production technology that is not yet available to our factories?
    1. +3
      27 August 2024 09: 44
      What are the secrets of the T-80: the turret is cast, the T-90 is welded. The Western school has armor like NERA non-energetic reactive armor, if you are interested, you can check it out https://topwar.ru/241835-o-brone-toj-samoj-m1150-abv.html
      ps welded is better in my subjective opinion.
      1. 0
        29 August 2024 06: 19
        Dmitry, thanks for the link to the previous article about armor. I missed it at the time, didn't see it on the site.
        Nowadays, TV often shows drone strikes on armored vehicles, and tanks in particular. When it is a powerful drone like the Lancet, I can believe that the tank is disabled. But when it is hit by quadcopters, even with a cumulative RPG grenade, I think not every hit destroys the tank. Especially if the strike hits the active protection unit. And we are immediately given examples from our tank crews who talk about multiple hits by such strikes, but the tank remained on the move and the crew continued the fight. This does not mean that it is useless to strike tanks in this way. It is important to hit an unprotected place, and this is a matter of chance and the skill of the drone operator.
  4. +1
    27 August 2024 10: 52
    By the way, polymers protect well from neutron irradiation.
  5. +2
    27 August 2024 15: 08
    I take my hat off to the tank designers, but we are not cut out for it either. Having worked for 20 years at the Research Institute of Polymer Materials from an engineer to the head of SKTB, designing devices that included parts made of polyurethane, this is the first time I’ve heard the term “polyetherurethane filler.” The term suggests that "polyester urethane filler" has nothing in common with polyurethane.
    1. +2
      27 August 2024 15: 49
      designing devices that included polyurethane parts,

      Oooh... so are you making orthopedic mattresses? laughing
      1. +3
        27 August 2024 18: 29
        If you imagine rockets as a “flying carpet”, then it is the “mattresses” that fly in the sky.
        1. +1
          27 August 2024 22: 26
          Don't take it to heart, I was just joking. If this has offended you, please accept my sincere apologies.
    2. 0
      28 August 2024 07: 28
      Quote: Conrad1045
      "polyester urethane filler" has nothing to do with polyurethane.

      You need to study the question about the filler, but the search returns results.
      There is even a patent.

      Suture material in surgery,
      Automotive, metal stamping, rollers in mining...
      1. +1
        28 August 2024 11: 08
        Had experience in manufacturing polyurethane discs for shooting devices for new weapons. The properties of polyurethane greatly influenced the puncture resistance of the disks and the condition after repeated shooting. After repeated shots, hard polyurethane crumbled into crumbs, and “ours” had the appearance of being “punctured with a needle.”
  6. 0
    27 August 2024 23: 53
    It is a pity that the opportunity to observe fast-flowing processes when hit by godfather is limited. jets into the armor cell. An x-ray can only record the final result at its exit.
    Most likely, computer modeling of these processes is now being used, which makes it possible to more accurately determine the optimal cell shape. I'll be surprised if this isn't done yet.
  7. 0
    28 August 2024 08: 44
    The T-80U was considered by specialists and military personnel to be the best tank of the USSR. Based on a set of characteristics. If it weren't for one "but" - the price. The GTD-1250 costs as much as the tank itself. In addition, the T-80U is a machine that must be maintained by qualified personnel, with the appropriate infrastructure. But this is precisely the biggest problem in the USSR. No people, no specialists, no equipment. Plus - fuel consumption. We saved as much as we could. That’s why they relied on the T-72 as the most unpretentious, inexpensive, with a monstrous reverse speed of 4,5 km/h. But that's a completely different story.
  8. 0
    29 August 2024 10: 49
    In the photo where "for a stronghold".
    They are not thick.
    Why not put them on the sides?
  9. 0
    2 September 2024 20: 02
    The tank may be good, but its effectiveness depends directly on the adequacy of the tasks set and the literacy of its use. These machines have not been seen anywhere for a long time.