Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Has anybody info on Leclerc azur side armor stats? Does it hve anti-tandem protection?

Nobody knows, actually it is very little known about AZUR kit, I think it is also not manufactured on large scale.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I had to move some 100 posts, If you guys want to talk absolutely on Pakistani tanks..

Here is thread : http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/23364-al-khalid-mbt-2000-main-battle-tank-72.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Composite floor armor for military tanks

A novel composite armor for armored vehicles which attenuates mine blast loading better than monolithic steel armor plate of equal areal density without structural fracture. The disclosed composite armor, particularly used as vehicle floor armor, is designed so as to greatly enhance not only crew survivability, by markedly reduced compressive shock effect, but also vehicular integrity. The novel composite armor in most preferred embodiments comprises layers of high density steel honeycomb, balsa wood, and ballistic-resistant nylon such as KEVLAR, sandwiched in various arrangements between outer layers of steel armor plate.

Publication date Sep 20, 1983

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@Damian, It looks like Ammo container did not work for this M1A2..

Blow up panels seems intact..

 

[Damian]

@Damian, It looks like Ammo container did not work for this M1A2..

Blow up panels seems intact..

Because it is not ammunition cook off, it is probably IED victim, most likely fuel tanks were punctured and after some time burning fuel consumed the tank, even RPG can sometimes do something like this if fuel starts to leak outside fuel tanks compartment.

M1 series also have fuel pipes connecting front fuel tanks, there is small probability that sometimes, mine or IED can puncture these fuel pipes and ingite fuel leaking from them.

You won't believe what things sometimes can do such IED with vehicle belly.

Oh and BTW these are two different tanks, upper photo shows M1A1, lower M1A2. Oh and in both cases as far as I remember, all crew members survived, some injured, but survived and get out before firing fuel consumed vehicle.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Sound like design flaw and need to be rectified..

Afaik, T-90/72 fuel lines pass through far sides..

M1 series also have fuel pipes connecting front fuel tanks, there is small probability that sometimes, mine or IED can puncture these fuel pipes and ingite fuel leaking from them.

You won't believe what things sometimes can do such IED with vehicle belly.

 

[Damian]

Sound like design flaw and need to be rectified..

It is not a design flaw, it would be if such things would happen all the time, this is just how fuel pipes are placed, this is the most logical place and:

Afaik, T-90/72 fuel lines pass through far sides..

No, internal fuel tanks have their connection pipes also going through crew compertment, because this is the most logical way to place them.

Only difference is, that in M1 series, front fuel tanks, are placed in their isolated compertments, thanks to this, these fuel tanks are also acting as additional protection, while in T-72/90, fuel tanks are not placed in their own compartments, and any rupture of fuel tank, can end very bad.

Of course in case of M1 tank, it is very easy to completely eliminate fuel pipes inside crew compartment, as well as front hull fuel tanks, by relocating fuel tanks to new side hull overtrack sponsons.

But it means a lot of cutting and welding.

Besides this, fuel is not really a problem in case of any tank, worse problem is ammunition, if this starts to burn, then crew have a really bad day, because ammunition burns more violently, not giving crew time to escape, contrary fuel, it does not burn so violently and gives time to escape, besides this, tank crews should wear nomex uniforms to prevent burn wounds.

 

[The Last Stand]

@Damian, It looks like Ammo container did not work for this M1A2..

It seems like a fuel fire, judging by the flames. A propellant explosion's fire would be of slightly different colour, not to mention the fact that the turret would have been ripped off and flown like a bird.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Nope, Turret are not always blown up like T-tanks..

Fuel lines and fuel fire mostly seen at back of the tank not from inside the turret area, exception can be Abrams..

It seems like a fuel fire, judging by the flames. A propellant explosion's fire would be of slightly different colour, not to mention the fact that the turret would have been ripped off and flown like a bird.

 

[The Last Stand]

Nope, Turret are not always blown up like T-tanks..

Fuel lines and fuel fire mostly seen at back of the tank not from inside the turret area, exception can be Abrams..

I thought that you thought blow-off panels might not have been working, so my reply was of such context.

And Abrams carries more ammunition and more propellant as well, if the blow-off panels were faulty, may the crew RIP.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

No in-case of Abrams, They don't use diesel..

T-72/90 and other have no issue with fuel ignition unless they use kerosine..

Besides this, fuel is not really a problem in case of any tank, worse problem is ammunition,

 

[Damian]

Fuel lines and fuel fire mostly seen at back of the tank not from inside the turret area, exception can be Abrams..

Wrong, look at fuel tanks schematic I posted above, fuel tanks and fuel lines are inside crew compartment.

And Abrams carries more ammunition and more propellant as well, if the blow-off panels were faulty, may the crew RIP.

Wrong, turret bustle is designed such way, that in case of blow off panels malfunction, whole turret bustle will torn apart, but crew compartment will stay intact.

No in-case of Abrams, They don't use diesel..

Again wrong, AGT-1500C is multi fuel engine, in fact through the first decade of M1 service, engine was working on diesel fuel, later to reduce fuel costs, all vehicles in US Armed Forces, that were using diesel engines and turbines switched to use JP-8 fuel, it gives them commonality in fuel supplies with helicopters and such.

However Australian Army for example, still use diesel fuel for their M1's.

T-72/90 and other have no issue with fuel ignition unless they use kerosine..

Engines of these tanks are also in theory mutli-fuel units, there should not be a problem with using kerosene.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Why would anyone want to use Aviation fuel instead of Diesel ? this is above me..

Abrams are known for there Engine issue which is a Gasoline feed, Perhaps a Diesel derivative ?? Not regular diesel .. ?

Again wrong, AGT-1500C is multi fuel engine, in fact through the first decade of M1 service, engine was working on diesel fuel, later to reduce fuel costs, all vehicles in US Armed Forces, that were using diesel engines and turbines switched to use JP-8 fuel, it gives them commonality in fuel supplies with helicopters and such.

However Australian Army for example, still use diesel fuel for their M1's.

 

[Damian]

Why would anyone want to use Aviation fuel instead of Diesel ? this is above me..

Because JP-8 have some advantages over other fules, and also it is simpler and cheaper to use one fuel type instead or two or more. Isn't this obvious?

Abrams are known for there Engine issue which is a Gasoline feed, Perhaps a Diesel derivative ?? Not regular diesel .. ?

M1 use gas turbine engine which is by nature, multi fuel engine, which means that without any significant problems it can work on diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, even on high octane alcohol if nececary.. And most of these so called "engine issues" are myths to discredit gas turbines.

There are only two problems with gas turbines, fuel comsuption during idle which is higher than in diesels (at least for older generation turbines, more modern ones are closer to diesels at idle and similiar at higher rpm's) and higher working temperatures.

Reliability of gas turbines is similiar to diesel engines.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Different Branches in a Army, Different logistics and funding..

They are not related, If told then its false..

Because JP-8 have some advantages over other fules, and also it is simpler and cheaper to use one fuel type instead or two or more. Isn't this obvious?

 

[Damian]

Different Branches in a Army, Different logistics and funding..

They are not related, If told then its false..

US Armed Forces are not Indian Armed Forces.

To ease logistics and reduce fuel costs, US Armed Forces adapted JP-8 as their main, common fuel.

JP-8 is used as jet fuel, helicopter fuel and ground vehicles fuel.

Ground forces use JP-8 as fuel for gas turbine powered helicopters and M1 tanks, and for rest vehicles using diesel engines.

This is a fact, on DTIC webpage there were even some documents about why JP-8 was choosen.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a217860.pdf

One of such document in the link above.

It is however near certain that in future, JP-8 will be replaced.

 

[Dazzler]

can anyone enlighten me about Isralei composite armour technology like how good it is compared to Burlington and Leo 2's composite armour?

I have heard some interesting bits about it

 

[Damian]

Photos of damaged Merkava Mk4 shows something very interesting, conceptually Israeli composite armor used on these tanks is very similiar to "Burlington", however it seems also, that due to it's design as fully replaceable modules, it's construction is more delicate and have a tendency to high degree of deformation, and structural damage (even if armor itself is not defeated by projectile) than for example "Burlington" that is placed in a solid, welded cavity which is integral part of turret structure.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What is told is basic, Its same in all armies in the world how have different branches / wings ..

Go and ask the same to a US army officer, Will reply in same words..

US Armed Forces are not Indian Armed Forces..

 

[hest]

damaged Merkava Mk4

The photos in question:

Just after one HEAT round from rpg or missile.