Cannot kill tank (T-72) with GAU-8 Gun

[Kazius]

I've talked to ex-US army people who have had to do cleanup after Desert Storm. The A-10's 30mm cannon's shredded T-62 and T-72's. And you can pen from all but the front. Side armor of a tank is designed to deflect shots, not completely stop a direct shot from an A-10 or AH-64's guns.

 

Yes, you could detrack a tank with an AP round. The rounds should go through parts of the tracks.

 

The USAF have tested the GAU-8 even on M1 Abrams that were no longer in service and it can even punch holes into its side armor.

[Kazius]

LOL, nope... :megalol:

 

Its depleted uranium so not radioactive. DU is pyrophoric which several folks have already pointed out. And the residual heavy metal contamination and DU nano particles do pose health risks.

 

Technically its still radioactive as trace amounts of U-235 and more so U-238 is still present and U-238 has a half life of like 3.4 billion years. So it will never be fully depleted. However, it isn't deemed to be very harmful as long as you don't carry the rounds daily in your pocket else you might not have offspring.

[Katj]

LOL, nope... :megalol:

 

 

 

Its depleted uranium so not radioactive. DU is pyrophoric which several folks have already pointed out. And the residual heavy metal contamination and DU nano particles do pose health risks.

Depleted uranium is still uranium, albeit with an isotope composition that makes it less radioactive than naturally occuring uranium. Still, all uranium is radioactive to varying degrees so you don't want that stuff inside your body. U-238 (depleted uranium) actually decays through alpha radiation, which is often said to be the worst kind to have inside your body, though not so bad on the outside. Don't eat, drink or inhale.

 

Uranium is also toxic. I don't know what's worst in the case of du rounds. I'm sure there has been research on the subject.

 

Tungsten is also toxic, by the way. That's why it isn't used in lead-free (which is a thing we want because lead is toxic) hunting ammunition anymore. Now we mostly use copper, which is also toxic, but only in doses higher than the ones you are likely to encounter in meat harvested with copper bullets. We even need small amounts of copper to stay alive.

 

What a wonderful world, eh?

[Rick50]

I've talked to ex-US army people who have had to do cleanup after Desert Storm. The A-10's 30mm cannon's shredded T-62 and T-72's. And you can pen from all but the front. Side armor of a tank is designed to deflect shots, not completely stop a direct shot from an A-10 or AH-64's guns.

 

Yes, you could detrack a tank with an AP round. The rounds should go through parts of the tracks.

 

The USAF have tested the GAU-8 even on M1 Abrams that were no longer in service and it can even punch holes into its side armor.

 

 

From what I've been told by Canadian Armored guys, they say there is a HUGE difference in armor between various versions of T-72's. The cheapest export versions have little protection for crews compared to the top of the line Soviet Army T-72, owing to higher quality armor.

 

They relayed that in the early 90's they got ahold of a few T-72's to field test here in Canada (in CFB Gagetown maybe? not sure), and one involved using Leo1's with what the CF was fielding at the time, against these '72's armor... and they were SHOCKED to see our rounds were ineffective :cry: I could be wrong but I believe there was then a quiet emergency purchase of new tank rounds that could actually accomplish the job! :thumbup:

 

That's old news now, what with us using the upgraded Leo2 A6M, and bigger tank gun, but I'm just pointing out that not all T-72's are created equal, and the Avenger cannon might rip some of them apart, others may simply keep driving :joystick:

[Holbeach]

1st A-10C use after 8 years in the hangar.

 

Using the vv to aim, it took me, 691 30mm shot, 218 hits, which included, 20 damage hits to kill a T-72B.

 

 

Or. 125 hits, 30 damage hits, from a 25mm AP, on the side.

 

 

 

..

Edited August 17, 2019 by Holbeach

[A10Yoda]

...

Edited August 17, 2019 by A10Yoda

[Harlikwin]

Depleted uranium is still uranium, albeit with an isotope composition that makes it less radioactive than naturally occuring uranium. Still, all uranium is radioactive to varying degrees so you don't want that stuff inside your body. U-238 (depleted uranium) actually decays through alpha radiation, which is often said to be the worst kind to have inside your body, though not so bad on the outside. Don't eat, drink or inhale.

 

Uranium is also toxic. I don't know what's worst in the case of du rounds. I'm sure there has been research on the subject.

 

Tungsten is also toxic, by the way. That's why it isn't used in lead-free (which is a thing we want because lead is toxic) hunting ammunition anymore. Now we mostly use copper, which is also toxic, but only in doses higher than the ones you are likely to encounter in meat harvested with copper bullets. We even need small amounts of copper to stay alive.

 

What a wonderful world, eh?

 

Man, you shoulda prefaced that post with an AKTSHUALLy...

 

Most metals are toxic if they are consumed, as are alpa emitters. They no longer use aluminum in deoderant beacuse its linked to various prion diseases.

[Harlikwin]

From what I've been told by Canadian Armored guys, they say there is a HUGE difference in armor between various versions of T-72's. The cheapest export versions have little protection for crews compared to the top of the line Soviet Army T-72, owing to higher quality armor.

 

They relayed that in the early 90's they got ahold of a few T-72's to field test here in Canada (in CFB Gagetown maybe? not sure), and one involved using Leo1's with what the CF was fielding at the time, against these '72's armor... and they were SHOCKED to see our rounds were ineffective :cry: I could be wrong but I believe there was then a quiet emergency purchase of new tank rounds that could actually accomplish the job! :thumbup:

 

That's old news now, what with us using the upgraded Leo2 A6M, and bigger tank gun, but I'm just pointing out that not all T-72's are created equal, and the Avenger cannon might rip some of them apart, others may simply keep driving :joystick:

 

The Haide tests in the early 90s showed that most 105mm ammo and the west german tungsten 120mm couldnt frontally penetrate E german t-72s.

 

And yes, there are a ton of different versions of the T72, to include re-named T90.

[Holbeach]

[quote=Harlikwin;

 

And yes, there are a ton of different versions of the T72, to include re-named T90.

 

 

But only one in the game we are playing. DCS, in case you have forgotten.

 

 

..

[Kev2go]

To answer the OP question without reeling OT.

 

 

Okay to simply things 2 reasons

 

 

1) damage model in DCS for ground vehicles is simpliefied to a healbar sort of thing. If we had more Realistic Damage model it would still be possible to Mission Kill a tank by simply destroying its treads, immobilizing it, without needing to entirely blow it up.

 

2) even IRL, the Gau8 is not insta kill laser beam. It's still be inadequate to penetrate frontal and most side areas of T55 or T62 tanks. Only the side of the hull in between turret and tracks might be soft enough to let DU based rounds through, but not the easiest or practical shot to make. Therefore Gau8 shouldnt be expected to kill better armor T72 or later tanks in such areas.

 

Ever see the A10 coloring book? They taught pilots that if you have to kill tanks with Gau8 you still have to resort to high angle top down attacks and either aim for the top of the turret or engine deck to reliably penetrate a tanks armor. Otherwise from direct frontal or side aspects the gau8 is only easily able to make swiss cheese of lighter armored vehicles like IFV class vehicles or troop carriers.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

The Haide tests in the early 90s showed that most 105mm ammo and the west german tungsten 120mm couldnt frontally penetrate E german t-72s.

 

And yes, there are a ton of different versions of the T72, to include re-named T90.

 

 

The Haide tests in the early 90s showed that most 105mm ammo and the west german tungsten 120mm couldnt frontally penetrate E german t-72s.

 

And yes, there are a ton of different versions of the T72, to include re-named T90.

 

 

Respectfully, not entirely true. For late US based 105mm ammo at least from German 120mm Dm23 onwards would no issue with T72A. At least not its Glacis.

 

 

East German T72's were basically T72M's and T72M1's

 

T72M is basically like a T72A but with older Steel cast turret of early model T72 Ural tanks, but with the Hull armor and "fire control" ( or rather would really can only be called sighting complex) of an early T72A

 

T72M1 is closest comparable to a model 1982/83 T72A

 

 

Meaning the ones that had smoke dischargers and upgraded with the welded 16mm addon plate that was welded to reduce M111 Hetz effectiveness ( and closest comparable nato 105mm rounds) down to initially advertised 500m distance.

 

 

Considering both estimates of late american DU ammunition for 105's like M833, ( introduced 1983) and thier performance from the gulf war ( Marines had M60A1 RIse passives which did score some T72 kills), then we know that T72M1 or the T72A frontal hull would not be capable of withstanding that round. Ive seen estiamtes from various enthusiast's and blogspot researchesthat suggest the glacis would be vulnerable to M833 to at least 2km range, if not a bit longer.

 

 

 

Tanks with comparable armor and in service at a comparable time frame would have included T64B and the T80B, ( some of those models further reinforced with 30mm HSS plate). only the cold war T-72B model 1985 ( or tippy end of the cold war T72B mod 89) would have been immune from 105mm ammo, and very early German 120mm rounds. While its turret might of been still protected, T72B Hull certainly would no longer with stand US M829 nor German DM33. M829A1 was said to in turn negate turet protection of the B Only T80U could withstand any cold war ammunition, and that was largely due to kontact 5. Most T80U's were produced with the Hull Array of the T80BV, so once that ERA was depleted, follow up shots from aforementioned 120mm ammo would certainly penetrate T80U's in the Frontal hull aka Glacis.

 

T72B model 1989 on the other hand was really late in the cold war, its basically vanilla T90 in terms of armor protection, minus the T80U's Fire control system., which is what the early T90 basically was.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Kev2go

[Frag]

Thats BS at least for the 105's.

 

 

East German T72's were basically T72M's and T72M1's

 

T72M is basically like a T72A but with older Steel cast turret of early model T72 T72 Ural tanks.

 

T72M1 is closest comparable to a model 1982/83 T72A

 

 

Meaning the ones that had smoke disrchargers and upgraded with the 16mm addon plate that was made to reduce M111 Hetz effectiveness ( and closest comparable nato 105mm rounds) down to initally advertised 500m distance.

 

 

Considering both estimates of late american DU ammunition for 105's like M833, ( introduced 1983) and thier performance from the gulf war ( Marines had M60A1 RIse passives), then we know that T72M1 or the T72A frontal hull would not be capable of withstanding that round. even at distances to at least 2 km.

 

Tanks with comparable armor and in service at a comparable time frame would have included T64B and the T80B. only the late cold war T-72B model 1985 and later mod 1989 and T80U TBH would have been immune from 105mm ammo, and very early german 120mm rounds. While its turret might of been still protected, Hull certainly would no longer with stand US M829 nor Gemran DM33.

 

Holy hell you know your tanks dude! Any similar stories on the T80? I love that tank!

[Svend_Dellepude]

Haven't flown A-10 in a long time, but I seem to remember pressing the trigger at 0.7NM and releasing at 0.4NM for MBT's at speeds above 300Knots, just to have a chance of killing it.

Steeper dive will increase PK as dispersion area on the ground will be smaller.

[Katj]

Man, you shoulda prefaced that post with an AKTSHUALLy...

 

 

 

Most metals are toxic if they are consumed, as are alpa emitters. They no longer use aluminum in deoderant beacuse its linked to various prion diseases.

Dude, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean but I'm going to assume you're not being very nice.

 

I don't know what possessed you to say uranium isn't radioactive but it's nothing but incorrect and if you feel butthurt over the fact that I pointed that out, that's a problem on your end.

[Kev2go]

Holy hell you know your tanks dude! Any similar stories on the T80? I love that tank!

 

 

dunno what you mean by stories, but if you want more information , have a look at this:

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html

 

you see that many comparison due to being related between the T64/ T72 family of tanks. In very short ( and granted oversimplification) to not clog up this thead with pages upon pages OT. just more mobile tank due utlizing Gas turbine engine outputting loads of more Horespower than classic less powered diesel engines, although less reliable, and more fuel consumption.

[Frag]

dunno what you mean by stories, but if you want more information , have a look at this:

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html

 

you see that many comparison due to being related between the T64/ T72 family of tanks. In very short ( and granted oversimplification) to not clog up this thead with pages upon pages OT. just more mobile tank due utlizing Gas turbine engine outputting loads of more Horespower than classic less powered diesel engines, although less reliable, and more fuel consumption.

 

By stories I mean more data (english is not my first language). Thanks for the link Kev ... good stuff in there.

[Emmy]

Here’s the thing though, spinning the date forward from 2011 (stock DCS year(?)) doesn’t suddenly give you all the upgrades that have been applied to tanks over the last 8-9 years.

 

Even if you set your mission time period to 2019, you’re still shooting at 2011 model tanks (WWII Pack notwithstanding)

 

So if a 2011 GAU-8 could damage / destroy a 2011 T-72 then it should still do so in the sim regardless of year.

[Kev2go]

Here’s the thing though, spinning the date forward from 2011 (stock DCS year(?)) doesn’t suddenly give you all the upgrades that have been applied to tanks over the last 8-9 years.

 

Even if you set your mission time period to 2019, you’re still shooting at 2011 model tanks (WWII Pack notwithstanding)

 

So if a 2011 GAU-8 could damage / destroy a 2011 T-72 then it should still do so in the sim regardless of year.

 

T-72B as represented in DCS is equivalent of the Model 1985 type.

 

Its fitted with Kontact 1. There really is no difference with that production series from 1985, and post cold war into present day. Although West Tanks never faced that specific T72 in combat. but all in all is obselete compared to current service western tanks and would have already been largely redundant in protection compared with APFSDS ammo fielded by USA for the M1A1's during by the time of the 91 gulf war, the M829A1, which was produced as early as 1988.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

But only one in the game we are playing. DCS, in case you have forgotten.

 

 

..

 

Yea the magical DCS T72 with laser accurate gunners. I dont think the DCS t72 has much to do with reality.

[Harlikwin]

Dude, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean but I'm going to assume you're not being very nice.

 

I don't know what possessed you to say uranium isn't radioactive but it's nothing but incorrect and if you feel butthurt over the fact that I pointed that out, that's a problem on your end.

 

Its more a comment on overnitpicking. DU is less radiocative than most raw uranium ore, which is pretty benign to begin with. And my original comment was directed at Mr. Sprays radiation man, but you decided to nitpick it.

 

Plus as you or the other guy mentioned its an alpha emmiter which means unless you grind it up and snort it or eat it its not hazardous.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Harlikwin

[Emmy]

T-72B as represented in DCS is equivalent of the Model 1985 type.

 

Its fitted with Kontact 1. There really is no difference with that production series from 1985, and post cold war into present day. Although West Tanks never faced that specific T72 in combat. but all in all is obselete compared to current service western tanks and would have already been largely redundant in protection compared with APFSDS ammo fielded by USA for the M1A1's during by the time of the 91 gulf war, the M829A1, which was produced as early as 1988.

 

Good Intel, Thanks!

[Harlikwin]

Respectfully, not entirely true. For late US based 105mm ammo at least from German 120mm Dm23 onwards would no issue with T72A. At least not its Glacis.

 

 

East German T72's were basically T72M's and T72M1's

 

T72M is basically like a T72A but with older Steel cast turret of early model T72 Ural tanks, but with the Hull armor and "fire control" ( or rather would really can only be called sighting complex) of an early T72A

 

T72M1 is closest comparable to a model 1982/83 T72A

 

 

Meaning the ones that had smoke dischargers and upgraded with the welded 16mm addon plate that was welded to reduce M111 Hetz effectiveness ( and closest comparable nato 105mm rounds) down to initially advertised 500m distance.

 

 

Considering both estimates of late american DU ammunition for 105's like M833, ( introduced 1983) and thier performance from the gulf war ( Marines had M60A1 RIse passives which did score some T72 kills), then we know that T72M1 or the T72A frontal hull would not be capable of withstanding that round. Ive seen estiamtes from various enthusiast's and blogspot researchesthat suggest the glacis would be vulnerable to M833 to at least 2km range, if not a bit longer.

 

 

 

Tanks with comparable armor and in service at a comparable time frame would have included T64B and the T80B, ( some of those models further reinforced with 30mm HSS plate). only the cold war T-72B model 1985 ( or tippy end of the cold war T72B mod 89) would have been immune from 105mm ammo, and very early German 120mm rounds. While its turret might of been still protected, T72B Hull certainly would no longer with stand US M829 nor German DM33. M829A1 was said to in turn negate turet protection of the B Only T80U could withstand any cold war ammunition, and that was largely due to kontact 5. Most T80U's were produced with the Hull Array of the T80BV, so once that ERA was depleted, follow up shots from aforementioned 120mm ammo would certainly penetrate T80U's in the Frontal hull aka Glacis.

 

T72B model 1989 on the other hand was really late in the cold war, its basically vanilla T90 in terms of armor protection, minus the T80U's Fire control system., which is what the early T90 basically was.

 

Kev, I enjoy our back and forth but... Aww man... Now I'm the one to have to say AkTShually! :)

 

And by and large you are correct.

 

However,

 

NATO, by and large didn't use DU anything turns out that Ze German people weren't really fond of the idea of turning germany into a glowing radioactive wasteland, so they were quite opposed to any anything with the word radioactive in it (regardless if it was or not). Only the Evil 'Muricans and Limey's used DU. And sadly for Ze Gemranz, the majority of forces in Germany, were in fact German at least during the cold war.

 

But moreover, no DU ammo was actually tested at Haide (or at least thats publicly known) so, at the end of the day we don't know how well it would have performed.

 

DM53 120mm APFSDS (in service in 1999 well after the cold war) could penetrate a rusty 70's era T72 at over 1.5km

 

DM33 120mm APFSDS (in service in 1987)could "kinda" penetrate at shorter ranges

 

DM12 120mm HEAT could penetrate at any range, but given that it was HEAT it wasn't too accurate at long range. Maybe 500-1000m given what gunnery is for tanks in Germany.

 

All non DU 105mm rounds failed to penetrate... End of story.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that 80's era rounds like M829, and 833 could penetrate (Both DU) an early cast turret 1970's T72. At what specific range... I'll leave that guesswork to "experts" (at a guess the US military got to do some early testing on some models "acquired" by the Israelis) which then prompted the accelerated deployment of 833...

 

So yes, NATO had a shiny window at the very ass end of the Cold war (from 1987 to 89 lets say) to fight that magic conventional war that they all so desperately wanted, that wouldn't have happened in the first place, because quite literally all the WARPAC plans involved nuking them till they glowed from 0 Hour, with highly detailed plans of which airbase/ground base/pershing site etc got how many Kt in the first few minutes, and how many more Kt in the next few... So the question is rather academic.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

Good Intel, Thanks!

 

Well, not really. The DCS version has hit points, so as they say in the movies, any resemblance to real tanks is purely coincidence. :)

[A10Yoda]

Well, not really. The DCS version has hit points, so as they say in the movies, any resemblance to real tanks is purely coincidence. :)

This made me lol..

 

It was always much easier to check in on radio and be told which ordinance to use..

 

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Harlikwin]

This made me lol..

 

It was always much easier to check in on radio and be told which ordinance to use..

 

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

Well provided that the guy on the ground knew what he was actually looking at :music_whistling: