Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Perhaps, we will see, I asked on TankNet forums if someone do not have turret photos without main sight installed and interior photos with all internal equipment removed. Maybe someone will share.

PS I marked vision blocks (persicopes) also because turret behind them is raised, so there is a probability that hitting in to persicopes, projectile might find his way in to the turret bustle.

It have a really problematic turret design You know.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

What is more interesting is that Leclerc of Serie I and Serie II had such armor block under main sight:

In Leclerc Serie III vel Serie XXI it was replaced by a different armor block:

Looks thicker and more massive.

 

[Damian]

Due to the last informations about not closing M1 tanks production line, I got a hunch that I need to count them once more. This year US Army renamed it's HBCT - Heavy Brigade Combat Team to ABCT - Armored Brigade Combat Team. So I counted once again number of tanks in active ABCT's and there is small surprise.

Each ABCT have two combined arms battalion, each battalion have 58 tanks, this means that there are 116 tanks in ABCT. And there are 15 ABCT's in active service (I didn't count 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment because I don't know if they are operating M1A2SEP's or older variants of M1A1, also I din't count to this 170th and 172nd independent Brigades, each are reported to have one tank battalion, but it is unknown to me if they are operating M1A1's or M1A2SEP's). 116 x 15 = 1,740, so this is the actual number of M1A2SEP v1/v2 tanks in US Army, we should actually add here additional 116 M1A2SEP v2 in 116th ABCT from Idaho ARNG, so in the end US Armed Forces have ~1,856 M1A2SEP v1/v2 tanks. More than I was suspecting earlier.

So the active tank fleet for US Armed Forces is approx ~3,256-3,266 M1A2SEP, M1A1SA and M1A1FEP tanks from ~8,725 total fleet of tanks in inventory.

To compare, German Heer (land forces) have 6 armored battalions, each with 58 tanks. 58 x 6 = 348 tanks total. In active combat units there will be only Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A6 tanks left, training unit will have Leopard 2A4 tanks.

Structure of British Army is a bit problematic because instead of tank battalions they have tank regiments, I do not know however how many tanks is in such regiment. So let's say that the only difference is in name.

So there are 4 tank regiments, let's say each with 58 tanks. 58 x 4 = 232 tanks left in active service. Should be preatty close to what British MoD plans to left. The good news is that British MoD also decided to upgrade these tanks instead of scrapping them.

French Army have 60 tanks in each regiment. There are two armored brigades, each with two regiments.

So 60 x 4 = 240 active Leclerc tanks from ~400 manufactured originally for French Armed Forces. So around ~160 is still in reserve storage.

This is everything for now, but gives a lot to think.

 

[p2prada]

IA has 40 tanks in a regiment. That's why Arjun is at 124 in 3 regiments. IA and the British Army may have a similar setup, if not the same.

 

[Damian]

40 x 4 = 160, this would mean only 160 Challenger 2 tanks left in active units, dunno however how close this is to reality. I need to ask or search in books I have what is the structure of British Army Armoured Regiments.

Edit:

Ok I found it, currently Type-58 Armoured Regiment is used.

So there are two units with 58 tanks and rest is with 44 tanks. Later I will count it.

 

[Damian]

Ok I counted how many CR2's should British had now with Type-58 Armored Regiment structure.

The Royal Dragoon Guards and The Queen's Royal Hussars have a 58 tanks, but the The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, King's Royal Hussars and 2nd Royal Tank Regiment have 44 tanks. So there is 248 Challenger 2 tanks in active service right now. There is also 1st Royal Tank Regiment operating small number of tanks for training and other purposes. It might even be strenghtened to the fully combat capable unit because there are rumors 1st RTR is training for participating in Afghanistan.



And I made mistake, there is actually 6 Regiments in British Army operating tanks.

 

[Damian]

AMX Leclerc turret:

Great thanks to DarkLabor and Cyaegha users of TankNet forums!

 

[militarysta]

AMX Leclerc turret:


Great thanks to DarkLabor and Cyaegha users of TankNet forums!

Great photos!

 

[Damian]

I only want to say that this turret belongs to Leclerc Series 1 Tranche 3 or Tranche 4.

IMHO French designers were inspired by Germans (and maybe even closely worked with them) because as we can see, the main sight mounting area shared a similiar weak zone design with Leopard 2.

One more thing, DarkLabor said

Hope it will be enough (green turret is a french Leclerc, the three others sand turrets are UAE Leclerc => both are S2's (Mk2) level of armor thickness):
http://imageshack.us...7/2e4e6764.jpg/

(http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=36064&pid=939696&st=0&#entry939696).

Dunno but perhaps turret armor was also thickened in different series? Maybe Serie 1 have thinner armor than Serie 2, Serie 3 also have some difference but... who knows, without detailed photos of all 3 series turret we can't be certain.

 

[militarysta]

I only want to say that this turret belongs to Leclerc Series 1 Tranche 3 or Tranche 4.

IMHO French designers were inspired by Germans (and maybe even closely worked with them) because as we can see, the main sight mounting area shared a similiar weak zone design with Leopard 2.

LOS after small improvmed:

 

[Damian]

Leclerc turret storage boxes opened, courtesy of DarkLabor:

Militarysta, actually Leclerc on Your drawing is Leclerc Tropical version for UAE, not Leclerc S3/SXXI.

 

[militarysta]

Militarysta, actually Leclerc on Your drawing is Leclerc Tropical version for UAE, not Leclerc S3/SXXI.

I know it, but it was the best draw whit I have.

 

[Damian]

Oh one more thing, A2(1) line in Leclerc S3/SXXI will be longer, because that armor module in front and below main sight is thicker, look here:

Leclerc S1, S2 and Tropical version have such armor module in front and under main sight.

Leclerc S3/SXXI have thicker armor module in front and under main sight.

Leclerc S1 or S2 with storage bins and side skirts removed.

 

[militarysta]

Yes It's longer.
Lelcerc is very very interesting tank - it's half generations foward rest tanks in 90. but it have controversial solutions in designe.

But it's turret protection is not so bad:
Turret side LOS is 250 (0.) and 500mm (30.)
turret front is 620-750mm (0.) and 650mm (30.)

Of course it's lower then in M1A2 or Leo2A4 but it's better then in ex Soviet or Russain tanks.

Hull is very good protected in Leclerc - before hull ammo is 1000m LOS (!) and about 600mm in thinest place, before driver is 600mm and ony close before driver periscopes it is about 350-400mm. So not so bad.

Leclerc is interesting concept how to made lightes tank in western style desinge.

 

[Damian]

Leclerc is interesting concept how to made lightes tank in western style desinge.

Leclerc S3/SXXI have armor upgrades, IMHO it's weight is around ~60,000kg's, so it is actually preatty heavy, while earlier Series is ~50,000-57,000kg's heavy, so in weight class of older versions of M1 and Leopard 2. IMHO it is not the lightest one, rather have preatty normal weight for NATO designs.

 

[militarysta]

Back to the Leopard's 2A4:





"Amen"

 

[methos]

Based on drawings and images the "armour box" of the mantlet is 420 mm thick, but behind the mantlet is still some pretty heavy RHA plating (as part of the gun mounting mechanism and interior walls), while in M1 and Arjun the "armour box" seems to be occupied by the gun mounting and has less than ~400 mm armour.

 

[Damian]

Well it is understandable. In M1 series gun mantle is preatty small. So minimizing probability of being hit, there was no real need to make it super armored. Especially that heavier gun mantle makes more stress for servomechanisms and stabilization system.

It might be possible that due to very heavy gun mantle Germans had initially problems with Leopard 2A6 stabilization as it was discussed few years ago.

 

[militarysta]

From oter thread:


@Methos

61 requirements fullfilled by Leopard 2AV, 48 by the XM1 prototype. This is not depending on sources, it is a fact. This are the offical results.

Any details?

I don't know which German sources you have read, but let me say some thing about it. The main sources about the "XM1 vs Leopard 2AV" trials from the American side are typically Zaloga and Hunnicutt. I have read their books, but they do make a few mistakes (esp. regarding the competition trials) and they mention the whole topic only very short. My main problem with them is that both are historians. Historians should be searching for the truth, but they can only base their opinion on what they have heard and what they have read - this is the reason for some good parts, but also for some mistakes; one nice example of that both write in their books that the Leopard 2AV would be inferior armoured than the XM1 - because someone told this too them. German sources say that the armour was not tested by the U.S. as it was not shipped to the U.S. at the time the test firings were done. The U.S. did not test the armour, but instead weight demonstrators and someone created the myth that the Leopard 2 would have weak armour. The German government then ordered all participants to not disagree with such claims as part of a missinformation campaign.

So, this all talk about slighty weaker Leo2 armour is bullshit. As I suspected. When both american and german armour are born from "burlinghton" (As Paweł Przeździecki claims in his study about orgins of the burlinghton) it's simple that better protected was tank whit bigger LOS - and this tank was Leopard-2AV not XM1. When german armour was not tested by the U.S it simple that this fairy tails about weaker Leo2Av armour are B-S and nothing more.

But I can understand U.S. their XM1 in most aspects was worse then Leo2AV but for politicial and national pround reson they decide to chose mucht worse XM1 -so any grounds for that stupid decision was needed. And new myths was created - like about armour.

There are also various reports of manipulations or silly ways to measure the data - firing on the move was only tested on flat ground, hypothetical values were used for accerlation and German tanks were manned by conscripts, while the XM1s were manned by more experienced soldiers.

Typical for US It was impossible to let win german Leopard-2AV...

Armour protection of the Leopard 2AV was enough to fullfill the U.S. requirements, probably even more as the German requirements seem to have been more than "vs 115 mm APFSDS at 800 m".

which one German "requirements"?

 

[militarysta]

It might be possible that due to very heavy gun mantle Germans had initially problems with Leopard 2A6 stabilization as it was discussed few years ago.

There was no problem whit Leo2A6 stabilization. Sorry but I was looking smt about that for 3 yeras and find nothing more then Your post in meny forums ;-) The same there was no problem whit turrets for Greece and Spain. Ony few turret made in Sweden for Strv.122 have problem - but it was technological error durring production notingh more.

 

[Damian]

So, this all talk about slighty weaker Leo2 armour is bullshit. As I suspected. When both american and german armour are born from "burlinghton" (As Paweł Przeździecki claims in his study about orgins of the burlinghton) it's simple that better protected was tank whit bigger LOS - and this tank was Leopard-2AV not XM1. When german armour was not tested by the U.S it simple that this fairy tails about weaker Leo2Av armour are B-S and nothing more.

But I can understand U.S. their XM1 in most aspects was worse then Leo2AV but for politicial and national pround reson they decide to chose mucht worse XM1 -so any grounds for that stupid decision was needed. And new myths was created - like about armour.

I do not agree. Leopard 2 indeed have worser armor protection. Look at weak zones size and placement. I if ever I will go to the military, and if I would have a choice to sit in Leopard 2 or something else, I will choose something else.

Besides this British tested Leopard 2 with armor, their opinion was same as Americans opinion.



You want to add something? There was and is a design flaw in front armor design. Two sources says so, and Americans never said that quality of German armor was forser, only that protection not meet their needs and demands.

But I can understand U.S. their XM1 in most aspects was worse then Leo2AV but for politicial and national pround reson they decide to chose mucht worse XM1 -so any grounds for that stupid decision was needed. And new myths was created - like about armour.

Most aspects? In most aspects it was far better than Leopard 2AV. Starting from overall turret and hull design, crew survivability, armor integrity, FCS was not worse, in fact far simpler to use. Also basic M1/Block I and this should be remember from start was designed as interim solution. What was intended as long term solution was M1A1/Block II that if not many different circumstances, would have capabilities as todays M1A2.

Typical for US It was impossible to let win german Leopard-2AV...

It was good decision, in fact Americans should do anything to ---- up Germans with their development, especially for what Germans done during MBT-70 program, with all of their frills that increased costs of vehicle and actually changed all original requirements for vehicle. This is thanks to Germans not only US congress was angry for MBT-70 delays and costs increase, but thanks to Germans it was decided that XM1 would not have all improvements from the start so costs won't increase to absurdal levels.

There was no problem whit Leo2A6 stabilization. Sorry but I was looking smt about that for 3 yeras and find nothing more then Your post in meny forums ;-) The same there was no problem whit turrets for Greece and Spain. Ony few turret made in Sweden for Strv.122 have problem - but it was technological error durring production notingh more.

There were initial problems. There are allways problems when You want to install a longer gun in to tank originally designed with a shorter gun. What the Germans didn't say You that? Band of little liers.

As for Sweden tanks, well if turret race ring can't handle it is not the best proof of their supposed high quality eh?