"Monkey models" Topic

No, not planet of the apes but the export versions of Soviet armour. It's generally accepted that most Soviet armour exports from the cold war were inferior to those they used themselves but where does this information come from?

The basic equipment is easy, you can see if a sighting system is as good as another but what about the armour? Have tests been carried out to compare actual armour values? I'd be very interested to find out how this is known.

Ascent asked:

No, not planet of the apes but the export versions of Soviet armour. It's generally accepted that most Soviet armour exports from the cold war were inferior to those they used themselves but where does this information come from?

Viktor Suvurov (pen-name of Vladimir Rezun), "Inside the Soviet Army".

All the best,

John.

Can't comment on the armor, but their jets and air-to-air missiles sold to 3rd party client states were not the latest tech.

I suspect the same applies to items being sold from other nations as well.

I know most customers of US AAMs didn't get the same tech/latest releases that the American pilots got.

Still, very good stuff by comparison, but only the closest allies get the top of the line stuff, and even then, I suspect we hold better equipment and weapons back for our own use, e.g. the British got Aim-9Ls for the Falklands, but I suspect again that we had slightly better missiles at that time.

Most export weaponry is decent, but a lot of countries can't afford the most expensive, latest gizmos either.

Even in the 1980's, modern jets, including those used by the British in the Falklands, didn't have integral flare and chaff launchers. I recall reading reports of chaff being stuffed into the airbrakes as a workaround.

Seems pretty incredible, since that tech had been out for awhile, but the same goes for the Iran-Iraq War as well.

In fact, apparently on some Russian jet exports, Radar Warning Receivers were "optional equipment", and frequently not purchased. Seems a bit penny wise, and pound foolish to me, especially in the modern missile era.

Mako

As far as I am aware the AIM 9L was the top Sidewinder at that point and relatively new [hence why UK did not have them available]

Thanks John, always good to know where this information comes from.

There were a lot of politics in play over permitted use of the AIM-9L.

Apparently the Sea Harriers had the less capable (older) AIM-9G. There were limited numbers of AIM-9L in store (which could only be used with NATO authority). The US wouldn't release more due to an agreement of non-interference (and apparently a belief that the UK could handle the issue without support, which played well politically). Don't forget, this was pre perestroika and the Cold War was still in effect. 'Negotiations' eventually saw more AIM-9Ls released.

Note that the AIM-9L was also used by the Israelis in the Bekaa Valley, who evidently had larger stockpiles.

Re armour, the T72 series provides a useful example of the monkey model phenomenon. In the '70s the export T72 featured a steel turret just as had all the tanks before it. The Soviet Army, however, soon began receiving a model with a composite armour turret front. (And, in fact, frontline Soviet divisions were receiving the more advanced T64 and then T80 anyway and never had to make do with the T72, which always suffered from rubbish fire control and optics)

It was the export T72 the Israelis faced in the Beka'a.

Eventually, as time moved on, the Soviets started exporting a T72 model with composite armour turret (T72M1).

During the Cold War, the Soviets never exported the premium T64 and T80.

Here are the armor values we calculated for various models of T-72, using Paul Lakowski's data:

T-72 Export (G & M): Front 30.14/36.25 Flank 14.96/18.23
T-72B & T-72S: Front 46.77/53.33 Flank 26.42/38.83
T-72B K-1: Front 48.48/72.24 Flank 27.61/59.13
T-72BM K-5: Front 56.19/77.76 Flank 31.72/69.83

Values are in centimeters and are the equivalent of rolled homogenous armor. The first number is protection from kinetic energy rounds; the second number after the slash is protection from high explosive armor piercing rounds.

So you can see that the export T-72 had significantly lower protection levels than the T-72B.

FWIW, we rated the Israeli 105mm M111 round as being able to penetrate about 35cm of RHA at effective (~1.6km) range. So while it could handle the export T-72, it would have had problems with the T-72B.

The US 105mm M833 round (1983-89) could penetrate 47cm of RHA at ~2km, so it would have had some problems with the T-72B. (This is why the US transitioned to 120mm tank guns).

In Desert Storm, though, the US M829A1 120mm could penetrate about 63cm of RHA at 2 km. This would have overmatched any model of T-72, so having later models of T-72 would not have helped the Iraqis much (in terms of survivability, at least). (Modern tank ammo would have helped a little, but even the latest Russian penetrators at the time would have struggled against the M1A1's front armor). So the "monkey model" excuse doesn't always matter in the real world.

Note that the armor values above are weighted averages. The T-72B (for instance) had anywhere from 25 to 76 cm of RHA protection on its front. So even a relatively weak penetrator could kill a T-72 from the front if it hit in the right spot.