"T72 Frontal Armor?" Topic

I read some interesting frontal armor values on another thread, here on TMP, and didn't want to hijack the topic, so thought I'd ask here.

In it, the author mentioned the T72 had 350mm of frontal armor (instead of the usual, supposed rating of 250mms, or so).

He also mentioned that the T64 had about 400mm of frontal armor.

Here's the link to the original subject, and discussions:

TMP link

So, I'd like to know if those were the armor ratings for the basic T72s, and T64s, or if those are for the more uparmored models, with composite armor, or ERA?

I want to ensure that the old WRG, and/or other rules I am considering using take that into account, since I'm not sure even the T80s are rated as having that much armor protection for them.

An updated listing of armor values, and/or references available on-line would be really helpful, if anyone knows of a site or two for those, and/or for various tank gun penetration charts too.

Wikipedia says the T64 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64 ) has roughly 370-440mm versus APFSDS and 500-575mm versus HEAT, not sure where that got pulled from. If you want specific numbers, it's 120mm of steel on the glacis, with 105mm fiberglass and 40mm of steel on top of the fiberglass; and the turret front packs 150mm steel, 150mm fiberglass, and 40mm steel.

Wiki cites the T72 ( link ) as having at least 380mm (equivalent) on the turret and 335mm on the glacis, and that's on the bone-stock first production models. A T72B with Kontakt-5 ERA is rated at 770-800mm on the turret and 690mm on the glacis. This mostly comes from Zaloga's books.

Wiki again ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80 ), for the T80B says 440-450mm on the hull and 500mm on the turret. That's from the CIA. The newer T80U with Kontakt-5 ERA is rated at 780mm versus APFSDS and 1320mm(!) versus HEAT.

There is a problem here in the description.

Is the thickness of the actual armour, or the equivalency of the armour against specific types of weapons?

Anything with fourteen inches of steel on the glacis plate might not be able to move. Even if angled it would still be eight inches or so thick.

Saying it is equivalent of 350mm against a heat warhead means nothing against a APDS or APDSFS warhead.

You might be better off knowing that the NATO 105mms were starting to be challenged to punch through T72s and T64s and leave it at that.

Three decades of soviet misinformation don't help things.

The soviets were good at making steel where it counted. I'll be the first to admit that. However, they are still bound by the same laws of physics that everyone else suffers from. But don't blandly accept that there was fourteen inches of steel in the front of the tank.

They are probably referrring to the equivalency of laminate or ERA or some other armour against a particular form of weapon.

Bog standard T72 and T64A is
Glacis @68 degrees
80mm Steel
105mm of Fiberglass
20mm Steel

Turret varies with average frontal of 350mm steel…

T72A and T64B changed glacis to
60mm Steel
105mm Fiberglass
50mm Steel
Turret
Was
Same as T72 but with an extra 60mm or so of fillers…
T72A was quartz in water glass
T64B was corundum… unsure it was suspended…
One model T72.. in had the original glacis and the corundum turret- only made for a year
T72 and 64 were later upgraded with 17mm steel glacis add and a 30mm add respectively.

Late production models built this in…
Glacis went to +30 +60 +105 Fiber glass +50…
I have seen pics though of what looks to be 40+ 50+105+50.

T80 and T72B had a more complicated glacis.
T72B Turret is steel + an accordion like structure of thin metal +rubber +metal crunch plates, then steel… probably Steel + Rubber + Aluminum. Jim Warford wrote an excellent article on this about 15 years ago complete with pictures.

T80 turret is as shown on NI Stalli's website….
Steel, then a stack of "paint cans" filled with rubber, then steel, then more cans, then steel.

Jake Collins used to host a great website with his current armor values… He no longer has them up…

Here is the next best thing…
link

Base T72 and 64 turrets are overrated…

Joe Collins

Thanks for that link. Missed it the first time through.

I think these days, pretty much everyone is talking in "armor equivalents", since the issue is now so complex, with varying types of armor.

Getting stats for both KE and Chemical weapons protection is probably even more difficult, though clearly someone has to have that.

Jane's would probably be a good resource, but my local library doesn't have a copy, so will need to figure out if any other ones a bit further away do, I suspect, unless someone can point out a decent, up to date, on-line source, or three.

Mako, try your local large univ. library. You can get access to academic ILL even if you aren't a student. Pay a yearly non-subscriber fee and all the services are open to you. Very well worth the small investment if you do research with any frequency. Getting all the Jane's etc will then be no problem

You shouldn't look into armor thickness.
It is composite armor plus there is spaced armor etc.
T-72 got a significant armor upgrade in the form of "super dolly patron(sic?)" which was a good composite armor.

Is the thickness of the actual armour, or the equivalency of the armour against specific types of weapons?

The table for the T72s on Wikipedia is RHA equivalent.

I'm pretty sure the T72B turret with K5 ERA doesn't actually have 1.3m of steel. I mean, you have slope, plus the various layers of different materials, and finally that rather good Kontakt-5 ERA which is supposed to roughly double the effective thickness against HEAT and gives about a 50% increase to effective thickness against KE penetrators.

Thank you Lion and Ikmjbc3.

The explanations of the various thicknesses is the best I have seen so far in describing it.

If it is any help, for FiveCore Brigade Commander, I am rating NATO 105mm guns as equal tech when firing at T-64/72/80 to reflect the increased difficulty penetrating the newer tanks circa 1985.

120mm guns I count as higher tech, so in 1985 Leopard 2's are great, while their US allies soldier on with 105's for another couple of years. Of course the game is fairly abstract at 1 stand = 1 company.

Will have to look at the various rules I have to see how they treat the above, since apparently, if the anecdotes are correct, 105mm cannons can't penetrate the East German T-72s (post-Cold War testing), and Russian armor is similarly limited vs. the M1 tank.

I suspect the same applies to the T-80s as well.

Supposedly, the T-72s in Iraq were cheaper variants, without the latest in high-tech armor, so were defeated a bit more easily, by even the 105mm armed opponents (of course, we had a lot more 120mm cannons then, too).

That would certainly make the Cold War battles in Europe a bit more interesting, as both sides need to maneuver for side shots to kill their opponents, unless you have a Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

I'll bet US tabletop commanders will be cursing the short-sighted politicians for their failure to install the 120mm on the M1, from the start, like they should have, in those scenarios.

unless you have a Rheinmetall 120mm cannon

Or a Royal Ordnance L11!

Yes, I imagine that would do the trick as well.

A shame the Abrahms didn't get the 120mm until very late. Very fortunate we didn't have to pay dearly for that error.