Soviet/Russian Tank question - help required from the ARRSE (BORG) Collective...

Hi chaps

I'm working on a couple of models of T-64BV Soviet era tanks with Kontact-1 reactive armour. Photos of modern T-64s etc show the reactive armour along the front of the tank, mounted just below the glacis.

T-64BV_main_battle_tank_Russia_Russian_army_defense_industry_military_equipment_640_001.jpg


Photos from the mid 80's do not appear to have this row of ERA bricks. However there are some prominent bolts in the same position as the ERA bricks. These bolts appear on every soviet tank from the T55/T62 through to the T-64/72/80, but not every tank has them fitted.

driving.jpg

T-55_main_battle_tank_Russian_Russia_army_defence_industry_military_technology_640_002.jpg

t64.jpg
5c08e95215e9f967c90997ff.jpg


I thought these were something to do with the mine plough or dozer blades but apparently not, nor do they seem to be the mounting points for the reactive armour bricks. Can anyone enlighten me as to their function/purpose?

Something is nagging me about these - I spent long enough in the Int Corps in the 80s that I feel I should know what they are but I can't quite put my finger on it.
 

Attachments

Hi chaps

I'm working on a couple of models of T-64BV Soviet era tanks with Kontact-1 reactive armour. Photos of modern T-64s etc show the reactive armour along the front of the tank, mounted just below the glacis.

View attachment 436642

Photos from the mid 80's do not appear to have this row of ERA bricks. However there are some prominent bolts in the same position as the ERA bricks. These bolts appear on every soviet tank from the T55/T62 through to the T-64/72/80, but not every tank has them fitted.

View attachment 436643
View attachment 436644
View attachment 436645View attachment 436647

I thought these were something to do with the mine plough or dozer blades but apparently not, nor do they seem to be the mounting points for the reactive armour bricks. Can anyone enlighten me as to their function/purpose?

Something is nagging me about these - I spent long enough in the Int Corps in the 80s that I feel I should know what they are but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Sorry I can't help, mate. But I'm curious to find out the answer too now.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
I'm surprised they're not for the mine plough. Would've been my considered opinion.
 
I wonder if they're anything to do with wading gear?
 
Answered within 20 minutes... :)

Thanks chaps - the power of ARRSE strikes again!
Mine roller mounts I think.

Bugger beaten by AlienFTM

It had been bugging me for a while - I'd forgotten the mine rollers. Thanks for the pic.
 

WhiskeyTango

Old-Salt
The general rule for this sort of stuff Is that if you think it's for something, and someone tells you it's not for that purpose without offering an alternative, then you were probably right!
 
Interesting - the mine rollers seem to be mounted between the blocks, not to them?

Spaced armour could be another answer:

866c74b08f16.jpg


"The photo above shows a destroyed T-72 from the first Chechen war. The glacis array of an unknown destroyed T-72 is visible down at the bottom half of the left side of the photo. It is possible to identify this T-72 as a late model T-72A based on the shape of the mudguard. The T-72 used rounded all-metal mudguards since 1973 and switched to squarish rubberized mudguards only since 1984. Note that the spaced steel plates are held by spacers identical to the type used in the earlier 80-105-20 and 60-105-20 armour designs, presumably for the purpose of ensuring proper spacing between the plates. It is unclear if the spaced steel plates are allowed to flex elastically during armour penetration or if they are completely rigid. The thickness of the internal plates is not known, and in fact, it is not possible to determine if they are NERA plates or if they are simple steel plates. The only information that can be gleaned from this single photo is that the three plates are spaced equally apart by air gaps with the same size as the thickness of the plates, and the plates all appear to have identical thicknesses. Thus, with the assumption that the upper glacis of the T-72B obr. 1984 has the same physical thickness as the previous 60-105-50 armour design of earlier tanks (215mm) and the same thicknesses for the front plate and back plate (60mm and 50mm respectively), the 105mm gap can be divided into seven parts representing three plates and four air gaps of equal thicknesses. Thus, the plates should be around 15mm thick and the air gaps should be around 15mm in size."
 

Nato123

War Hero
Interesting - the mine rollers seem to be mounted between the blocks, not to them?

Spaced armour could be another answer:

View attachment 436670

"The photo above shows a destroyed T-72 from the first Chechen war. The glacis array of an unknown destroyed T-72 is visible down at the bottom half of the left side of the photo. It is possible to identify this T-72 as a late model T-72A based on the shape of the mudguard. The T-72 used rounded all-metal mudguards since 1973 and switched to squarish rubberized mudguards only since 1984. Note that the spaced steel plates are held by spacers identical to the type used in the earlier 80-105-20 and 60-105-20 armour designs, presumably for the purpose of ensuring proper spacing between the plates. It is unclear if the spaced steel plates are allowed to flex elastically during armour penetration or if they are completely rigid. The thickness of the internal plates is not known, and in fact, it is not possible to determine if they are NERA plates or if they are simple steel plates. The only information that can be gleaned from this single photo is that the three plates are spaced equally apart by air gaps with the same size as the thickness of the plates, and the plates all appear to have identical thicknesses. Thus, with the assumption that the upper glacis of the T-72B obr. 1984 has the same physical thickness as the previous 60-105-50 armour design of earlier tanks (215mm) and the same thicknesses for the front plate and back plate (60mm and 50mm respectively), the 105mm gap can be divided into seven parts representing three plates and four air gaps of equal thicknesses. Thus, the plates should be around 15mm thick and the air gaps should be around 15mm in size."
Not sure if T54/55 would have had them for spaced or ERA armour?
 
Not sure if T54/55 would have had them for spaced or ERA armour?
Thought that too but it's not for ERA so spaced is potentially an option especially as they seem to be block mounted on some sort of compound. Could just be shit Soviet welding though.

I tend to think that they are spacers for the KMT-5 or whatever it is to ensure that it is mounted properly angle wise etc.
 

Latest Threads

Top