Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[313230]

I don't think that the storage boxes fastening will be able to hold a composite armor module.

It seems Abrams skirts are hold by small hinges and work well

 

[Damian]

It seems that M60 series were not weakly armored at all, at least for a tank of it's generation with homogeneus steel armor.

I think the K2 is a significant improvement over the K1 series in all three major categories; firepower, mobility and protection.

Firepower: The L55 allows the K2 to theoretically fire high end KE rounds such as the M829A3 and DM53/63, putting the tank on an equal footing with tanks such as the M1A2 SEP and Leopard 2A6.

Mobility: The MTU (soon Korean) 1500 HP engine, coupled with the relative low weight of 55 tons and hydro-pneumatic/variable suspension should give the tank mobility to rival the best foreign counterparts such as the Leclerc XXI, BM-Oplot-M, etc.

Protection: Although the ammo hull storage is inferior compared to the Abrams series, the K2, Unlike the K1 series, has an autoloader equipped bustle wrack that is very similar to the Leclerc's. If i recall the Leclerc's autoloader has a 22 round capacity, which should be quite sufficient for the K2.

Well, I never said it is not improvement over K1 series, didn't I?

I don't think that the storage boxes fastening will be able to hold a composite armor module.

We don't know that.

16 rounds in the bustle autoloader, still one more than the Leopard 2

The current Type 10 tanks used in JGSDF's training school have a bustle autoloader with a 14 rounds capacity but Japanese claim that it can be extended to 18 without heavy modifications.

Still not much, I wonder why they reduced autoloader capacity that much.

It seems Abrams skirts are hold by small hinges and work well

Indeed.

 

[Sovngard]

It seems that M60 series were not weakly armored at all, at least for a tank of it's generation with homogeneus steel armor.

This is not surprising since late R. P. Hunnicutt had already mentioned in his books that the lower front hull thickness of the M60 Patton could vary between 85 and 103 mm.

 

[Blood+]

btvt.narod.ru/4/90.htm

According to the above article,Al Khalid MBT's front turret armor LOS thickness stands at circa 600mm.Is this an accurate measurement??

@Damian @militarysta,guys can you please tell your opinions??

 

[Damian]

Seems legit, and is very close to Militarysta estimates.

 

[militarysta]

btvt.narod.ru/4/90.htm

According to the above article,Al Khalid MBT's front turret armor LOS thickness stands at circa 600mm.Is this an accurate measurement??

@Damian @militarysta,guys can you please tell your opinions??

It's slighty understimated

Al CHalid have turret geometry preatty close to the ZTZ-96 and clones. More or less it's circa like this:



Frontal LOS will be close to the 700-740mm and for 30.degree it wil be around 600mm

 

[Blood+]

Thanks @Damian and @militarysta.By the way guys,what is your estimate on Arjun mbt front turret and front hull LOS??Most think front turret to be circa 850-900 mm.What's your estimation??

 

[Damian]

Thanks @Damian and @militarysta.By the way guys,what is your estimate on Arjun mbt front turret and front hull LOS??Most think front turret to be circa 850-900 mm.What's your estimation??

Same as on Dejawolf's model. For left front it will be ~800mm, similiar to Leopard 2. For right side it is also ~800mm below gunner primary sight and ~300mm behind gunner primary sight.

 

[cobra commando]

Early Chieftain prototype

 

[cobra commando]

WW2 Valentine Tank, pulled from a swamp in Poland.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxcxQ9IUg0

 

[Damian]

Interesting, definetely a Lend Lease vehicle. I hope we could seen him soon in Poznań museum of armored vehicles.

 

[Sovngard]

Is that the kvartz filler ?

 

[Damian]

Just a simple representation in 3d, does not treat it in literall way.

 

[Blood+]

Same as on Dejawolf's model. For left front it will be ~800mm, similiar to Leopard 2. For right side it is also ~800mm below gunner primary sight and ~300mm behind gunner primary sight.

Thanks,is the ~800mm with or without taking the back plate into consideration??

Besides what may be the possible LoS thickness of frontal hull armor of Arjun??

And lastly,
I have seen quite a few people here mentioning that T series tanks have some serious weak spot in frontal hull-I couldn't get it.I mean why are there weak spots??

Thanks in advance......

 

[Damian]

Thanks,is the ~800mm with or without taking the back plate into consideration??

Should be with a back plate, +/- few mm.

Besides what may be the possible LoS thickness of frontal hull armor of Arjun??

Hard to meassure or estimate right now.

And lastly,
I have seen quite a few people here mentioning that T series tanks have some serious weak spot in frontal hull-I couldn't get it.I mean why are there weak spots??

Weak spot is around driver vision block. To place there a vision block, they needed to cut out some armor.

 

[Sovngard]

FV4030/4 Challenger at the Royal Ordnance Factory in Leeds.

More pictures here

 

[Blood+]

Okay,I've got one more question wrt Arjun tank.

According to official sources,combat load of Arjun MkI is 58.5 metric tons and the MkII is reported to 68 metric tons.Now what makes it almost 10 tons heavier than the MkI??

Considering addition of ~1.5 ton for ERA,a 1.5 ton counter mine plough,the RCWS and COAPS - the weight increase shouldn't be more than ~3.6 to a maximum 4 ton.Both versions use same gun,same turret,suspension,transmission set,engine,road wheels etc same hull - literally most things are same on both MkI and MkII,so which parts in MkII makes for the additional 5.5~6 ton over the combined weight of 3.5-4 tons of ERA+COAPS+RCWS+LWS+mine plough??

Again @Damian @militarysta,would love love to know your opinions.Thanks in advance.......

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Okay,I've got one more question wrt Arjun tank.

According to official sources,combat load of Arjun MkI is 58.5 metric tons and the MkII is reported to 68 metric tons.Now what makes it almost 10 tons heavier than the MkI??

Considering addition of ~1.5 ton for ERA,a 1.5 ton counter mine plough,the RCWS and COAPS - the weight increase shouldn't be more than ~3.6 to a maximum 4 ton.Both versions use same gun,same turret,suspension,transmission set,engine,road wheels etc same hull - literally most things are same on both MkI and MkII,so which parts in MkII makes for the additional 5.5~6 ton over the combined weight of 3.5-4 tons of ERA+COAPS+RCWS+LWS+mine plough??

Again @Damian @militarysta,would love love to know your opinions.Thanks in advance.......

Yeah i wondered about that too, the weight increase seems a bit much.

 

[Damian]

Or just someone made a mistake with weight increase. However there is possibility that new equipment required additional wiring, more wires means more weight.

 

[Blood+]

Or just someone made a mistake with weight increase. However there is possibility that new equipment required additional wiring, more wires means more weight.

But don't you think that 5-6 metric tons for only wires seems to be a bit much??Of course you would know better but still......