Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

These are only assumptions, there are still many unknown things. We only made assumption that this can look that way, but it might be very different. However overall design in reality looks like on drawing model.

@Methos

Im almoust sure that in right NERA module are two insert plates - just on photo one of them was removed. And this insert plates are made to protect against threat from not front but rather angle of 30-40. - so HEAT or APFSDS firstly hit "side wall" of NERA module and after that hit that insert plate. IMHO all was developed to always have two layers against threat.


As I know it have big sense - total resistance of the stack of steel plates (RHA) whit the same HB is always bigger then one thick layer RHA plate - like in this polish ITU EFP test on very primitive model:
One 70mm thick RHA plate perforated from 33m by EFP 100mm diameter:


5 plates whit all 70mm RHA thick non perforated by the same EFP:


Model of working made in WITU shown why the stack of steel plates have bigger resistance the one thick layer:

So 3 and 2 the same layers have sense becouse its protection level will be slighty bigger then one thick plate whit the same HB and mass.

Italian vehicles Iveco VLM Lince mk2 and VTMM already use IBD nano materials

I have photos from four different tanks where only 3 insert triangles are existing. I don't have a single photo of Leopard 2 with 4 inserts.

This is true for RHA, but not for higher hardened armour. Increased hardness often means decreased ductility. Also note that triple hardness steel will be more efficient than multiple layers of HHS.

Sure? I have two diffrent photos (black and colour) in two sources without this 4 insert, but this is the same tank. Are You sure that they are four diffrent tanks?
BTW: on left NERA modul (looking at the fornt of the tank) only one insert haven't sense -why when the lef turret sides is weaker in integrity placed only one NERA insert? o.O

Well as I known backplate in Leopard-2 is summary 80-90mm thick but in 3 plates eacht 30mm thick. And it can't be HHS but rather normal HB <440 whit bigger plasticy(more elastic?).
And this double HHS (40mm + 40mm) after "special armour" block rather is according to the other armour models and ideas.

WPB Anders in light tank variant with CT-CV turret armed with 105mm low recoil gun on Eurosatory 2012.

Altair - Eurosatory: Belgijski Anders

What are those rods protruding from the sides?

Ukrainian Active Protection System Zasłon. These are protecting elements, when projectile pass nearby they explode destroying it or changing it's trajectory, and thus protecting vehicle.



It was also tested on Rosomak (Wolverine) APC, and designated as Szerszeń (Hornet).

With "triple hardness steel" and "dual hardness steel" I don't mean multiple layers of HHS or SHS. I mean different hardness steel plates layered. It is known that when you layer RHA, SHS and HHS it will offer more protection than RHA or HHS of the same thickness. The exact thickness and the order of the layers will affect the level of protection. Paul L. claimed in his Armor Basics that triple hardness steel will offer 1.5 times as much protection as RHA of the same thickness, while HHS is somewhere at 1.3-1.4 times.
It has been claimed on different sources that the welded Leopard 1A3 turret features three steel layers of different hardness. The MBT-70 used in it's spaced layout two different types of steel.
The Leclerc from 1992 is claimed to be using another type of triple hardness steel with a thickness efficiency of up to 1.7. If the armour depicted by you is the armour of the Leopard 2A5 (from 1995) then I would expect a similar efficiency of the layered steel. If it is the armour of the Leopard 2A4 or even an earlier variant, then I still would expect triple hardness steel. Dual hardness steel is slightly less protective, but still can achieve HHS level or above.

I have not looked back through the posts in this thread, but is SP arty normally included with MBT discussion as far as armor technology is concerned? Asking because perhaps advanced armor technology is not critical to the role of SP arty. Or am I wrong?

Advanced armor technology is slowly integrated also with SP arty. Let's take for example German PzH2000, it have preatty interesting roof armor, so it can survive counter artillery attacks.

Very interesting design was also US XM2001 Crusader, AFAIK it was fitted with sort of light composite armor, and also crew was isolated from ammunition and propelant charges to increase their survivability.

So yes such technology is included, however progress is slower for SP Arty than MBT's, IFV's and APC's simply because artillery is less vurnable to enemy fire, while it is obvious that vehicles fighting on the first line need much more improved protection.

A bit of history this time. Object 432/T-64 armor scheme drawing.



It is from magazine "техника и вооружение" number 12 - 2012.

Note that due to cast turret nature of variable armor thickness, depending on place and angle, turret armor thickness will be different.

Drawing originally posted by "Harkonnen" on TankNet forums.

Curious - the mock up of the missile show there is that a LAHAT by any chance ? Has the CT-CV 105mm cockerill gun fired a LAHAT ?

This is not LAHAT but Falarick 105, designed in Ukraine by designing bureau Lucz. But of course in theory, it should be possible to fire LAHAT from this gun.

Ok got it. Thanks