Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Blood+]

You know, it is hard to make conclusions looking at single photo showing only a single stage of ammunition cook off. Ammunition cook off might be very long process, I believe that in US Military, have manual that says crew needs to stay inside a tank in case of propelant charge cook off for minimum 30 minutes before it will be safe to leave the tank.

I see.I would like to ask you of something.
As we can see,the individual caps are not as sturdy as a blast door.So how about adding a manually sliding blast door over those ammo caps for increased protection??Now since the ammunition bins are already sealed with lids,the loader doesn't have to shut the door every time and it can be kept open.In case the ammunition compartment is breached with spalls or SC jet,the loader could slide the door shut.And since the bins are somewhat sealed already,it should give the loader enough time to react and close the door before the lids fail and the fire starts to sip into the crew compartment.Small wheels can be fitted between the door frame and the door to ease the job of sliding.
In this way the protection could be increased without any added complexity and cost of a electro-hydraulic sliding mechanism.Now ofcourse this isn't the perfect solution but it should increase the safety level.
Do you think what I said is practically deployable or not??Would like to know your opinion.
Thanks............

 

[Damian]

Quick question for Damian, do you happen to know how many Abrams tanks were deployed during the second gulf war ?

Around 1000, later during occupation reduced to around 500, and further we go from 2003, their numbers were constantly reduced up to final withdrawal of US forces.

I am trying to convince someone that the only reason the Challenger 2 suffered less losses during the war was because only 120 had been deployed in a far less combat intensive zone (Basra area). I do agree that the uparmored "Telic" Challenger 2 offeres superior side hull protection compared to a typical Abrams without a TUSK kit, but that the front hull armor scheme is simply inferior. The lower glacis , even with the ROMORA-(A?) armor, was unable to cope with an RPG-29 whereas the Abrams had no major issues defeating this weapon. Feel free to correct me. Thanks !

This is correct.

I see.I would like to ask you of something.
As we can see,the individual caps are not as sturdy as a blast door.So how about adding a manually sliding blast door over those ammo caps for increased protection??Now since the ammunition bins are already sealed with lids,the loader doesn't have to shut the door every time and it can be kept open.In case the ammunition compartment is breached with spalls or SC jet,the loader could slide the door shut.And since the bins are somewhat sealed already,it should give the loader enough time to react and close the door before the lids fail and the fire starts to sip into the crew compartment.Small wheels can be fitted between the door frame and the door to ease the job of sliding.
In this way the protection could be increased without any added complexity and cost of a electro-hydraulic sliding mechanism.Now ofcourse this isn't the perfect solution but it should increase the safety level.
Do you think what I said is practically deployable or not??Would like to know your opinion.
Thanks............

Impractical to be honest, and I writed earlier why, also good luck shuting these blast doors manually fast enough if something bad would happen.

 

[Blood+]

Impractical to be honest, and I writed earlier why, also good luck shuting these blast doors manually fast enough if something bad would happen.

I see your point @Damian and like I told earlier,it was not the perfect solution.My point was however that there is already these lids/shutters to seal the ammunition bins,so these leads should give the loader enough time to manually slide the door shut before the lids/shutters give up and fire sips into crew compartment.If you take a look at the poster,the turret seems to be was still intact when the picture was taken.Which means,the shutters held at least from the time propelant started to cook-off till the picture was taken (I don't know what happened after the photograph was taken)......my point again being the caps/shutters can give the gunner the crucial few moments to react and close that proposed door.
Besides,the blast door' doesn't have to be as heavy as in say....a Leopard or a M1A1 because the ammunitions are already sealed in their armored bins and the shutters should somewhat limit the effects of propelant cook-off before the resulting super heated propelant gases can reach to the door.The door is to be used just as a precautionary/backup measure in case the individual shutters give up under extreme pressure.

I never said it would be as much safe as a electro-hydraully operated blast door would be but still.... something is better than nothing,isn't it??

 

[Damian]

Maybe it would work, who knows wihout tests.

However currently the best solution would be to just redesign turret to be a two crewmembers design with autoloader in isolated turret bustle.

 

[Blood+]

Maybe it would work, who knows wihout tests.

However currently the best solution would be to just redesign turret to be a two crewmembers design with autoloader in isolated turret bustle.

That's something I absolutely agree with.In this regard,the proposed upgrade by the Ukrainians seems very lucrative.That's the way forward along with adoption of a high velocity smooth barrel gun.

 

[Sovngard]

It's very interesting for its design, that will be the standard for the next gen. of tanks:
- automatic loader
- unnamed turret
- crew in the hull
- engine in front
- electric drive

The FMBT concept designed by the Western Design Corporation submitted to the 1993 Tank design contest (Armor magazine) clearly demonstrates what will the 21 st century main battle tank look like.

Source : http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1993/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1993web.pdf#page=10&zoom=90,0,790 page 7

 

[Damian]

"Armata" platform will have two versions, 1st with engine at back for new tank, and 2nd with engine at rear for heavy infantry fighting vehicle, both of these versions will also include other vehicles.

Engine at front is not good for main battle tank, makes protection rather inefficent because engine takes space that can be used for armor.

The FMBT concept designed by the Western Design Corporation submitted to the 1993 Tank design contest (Armor magazine) clearly demonstrates what will the 21 st century main battle tank look like.

Not it does not. 1990's were these naive times when people believed that active protection systems can replace armor, or that there will be absolute situational awareness that will also replace armor protection. And a two man crew, that would be rather inefficent. Up to this day, it's hard to find sucessfull tank fire control system that is capable to compensate a lack of 3rd crewman.

 

[Sovngard]

Not it does not. 1990's were these naive times when people believed that active protection systems can replace armor, or that there will be absolute situational awareness that will also replace armor protection. And a two man crew, that would be rather inefficent. Up to this day, it's hard to find sucessfull tank fire control system that is capable to compensate a lack of 3rd crewman.

Have you ever read the PDF ?

Three crew members that sit together, not two as you've said earlier.

It still has a composite armor proof against 120mm APFSDS at 500 meters across the 90 degree frontal arc. The only active protection system is a soft kill device (chaff launcher).

 

[Damian]

Three crew members that sit together, not two as you've said earlier.

Ups, my bad, you are right, point for you.

It still has a composite armor proof against 120mm APFSDS at 500 meters across the 90 degree frontal arc.

Yeah, right, I wonder looking at the drawing, where you would place such armor?
However this vehicle on drawing have some good, perspective eatures, like it's turret, autoloader, overall design. Just place engine at rear, move crew and turret a bit more to the front, and install decent armor package at front, and voila.

 

[Blood+]

Below is a jem produced by our beloved Dazzler guy :

A word of advise for you, dont
buy too much of *** "experts"
they are nothing but tank sim
players with a fantsay of
theoritical comparisons, not to
mention their pixel
measurements.
Ukrainians appreciated AK turret
design and suggested it may be
the way it is. Unless you or
anyone know the flaws of the
turret, dont recommend things
you have o idea about. We
already have too much of
Ukrainian involvement in AK and
AZ projects but what we read on
internet is just engine and
transmission usually. In reality, tt
goes all the way to armour and
tank ammunition etc.
Thing about it, IF AK and
Chinese turrets had such a
flaw,,why on earth would they
be persuing it, that too for
multiple upgrades and batches
(China, 99, 99G, A, A2 etc)? You
think Both Chinese and
Pakistanis are that stupid and a
bunch of SIM fanatics know
more? There is plenty of amour
gone in it and the theory of 60
deg vulnerability is more of a
fantasy UNLESS proven in the
battlefield.
All i saw was 60 deg protected
turrets of T-72s, T-80BVs blown
up into pieces by single HEAT or
average APFSDS rounds.

I recommend you read Anderi bt
and Lidsky M on that forum if
you need real technical
information. Rest are Polish born
Yankee wannabees.

 

[Damian]

It was a funny read. Especially that Andrei_bt also writed about frontal 60 degree protection of tank turrets. Or perhaps our Pakistani "friend" is not capable to read in russian and to understand a very simple drawings?

Бронирование современных отечественных танков

Here is something about Russian and Ukrainian tanks protection, from Andrei's site.

And here is drawing of T-64B tank turret, and how requirement for 60-70 degrees frontal protection is provided by proper turret geometry.

T-80BVs blown
up into pieces by single HEAT or
average APFSDS rounds.

Of course or "specialist" does not known that T-80BV's in Chechnya were not equipped with dynamic protection... it's conatiners were empty. Other problem is however that T-80BV does not have the best solved dynamic protection emplacement, especially for side hull protection. In this case T-64BV and T-72B are better.

Rest are Polish born
Yankee wannabees.

USA = Big Satan
Israel = Small Satan
Poland = Tiny Satan!!!

People from 3rd world countries are funny indeed.

 

[Blood+]

It was a funny read. Especially that Andrei_bt also writed about frontal 60 degree protection of tank turrets. Or perhaps our Pakistani "friend" is not capable to read in russian and to understand a very simple drawings?

Бронирование современных отечественных танков

Here is something about Russian and Ukrainian tanks protection, from Andrei's site.

And here is drawing of T-64B tank turret, and how requirement for 60-70 degrees frontal protection is provided by proper turret geometry.



Of course or "specialist" does not known that T-80BV's in Chechnya were not equipped with dynamic protection... it's conatiners were empty. Other problem is however that T-80BV does not have the best solved dynamic protection emplacement, especially for side hull protection. In this case T-64BV and T-72B are better.



USA = Big Satan
Israel = Small Satan
Poland = Tiny Satan!!!

People from 3rd world countries are funny indeed.

OYEEEEE......we Indians are from a 3rd world country too!! So Damn you @Damian ..........NAH,just kidding yaar.

 

[Damian]

Some of your countrymen are funny too, especially some of their reactions.

But perhaps this is a difference, I prefer cold logic (2+2=4) and realism, some preffer emotions and... emotions? Other thing is that I have very small tolerance for ignorance.

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

@Andrei_bt

I have some questions about BM "Oplot". I seen speculations that it have modified glacis plate of the hull front, which is inclined not at 68 degrees as in most T tanks, but at 70+ degrees, is this right? Also I am right that BM "Oplot" hull front is protected by two layers of "Duplet" ERA?

 

[Blood+]

Some of your countrymen are funny too, especially some of their reactions.

Sadly yes.But blind nationalism and raw emotion can never follow any logic.....you should know better.

But perhaps this is a difference, I prefer cold logic (2+2=4) and realism, some preffer emotions and... emotions? Other thing is that I have very small tolerance for ignorance.

That I know very well by now.But I would say you should enjoy them rather than getting impatient and all heated up.


Anyway,I want to ask you something about the auto loaders.
Has there been any known instances recorded where T 80s or T 72s were damaged or destroyed due to carousel cook off by SC jets??Note that I'm asking about ready ammunitions in carousels and not the ammunitions kept in crew compartment.

Thanks.......

 

[Damian]

That I know very well by now.But I would say you should enjoy them rather than getting impatient and all heated up.


Anyway,I want to ask you something about the auto loaders.
Has there been any known instances recorded where T 80s or T 72s were damaged or destroyed due to carousel cook off by SC jets??Note that I'm asking about ready ammunitions in carousels and not the ammunitions kept in crew compartment.

Thanks.......

Yeah, I believe such cases were recorded. In case of T-72's autoloader, it is harder to hit ammunition stored in it than for example in case of T-80, you know the design differences.

You know it all depends on hit angle, sometimes hit angle is such that SC jet or KE penetrator will not hit anything important, sometimes they directly hit ammunition, or sometimes only a crew member. This is a game of chances.

 

[Dazzler]

Below is a jem produced by our beloved Dazzler guy :

A word of advise for you, dont
buy too much of *** "experts"
they are nothing but tank sim
players with a fantsay of
theoritical comparisons, not to
mention their pixel
measurements.
Ukrainians appreciated AK turret
design and suggested it may be
the way it is. Unless you or
anyone know the flaws of the
turret, dont recommend things
you have o idea about. We
already have too much of
Ukrainian involvement in AK and
AZ projects but what we read on
internet is just engine and
transmission usually. In reality, tt
goes all the way to armour and
tank ammunition etc.
Thing about it, IF AK and
Chinese turrets had such a
flaw,,why on earth would they
be persuing it, that too for
multiple upgrades and batches
(China, 99, 99G, A, A2 etc)? You
think Both Chinese and
Pakistanis are that stupid and a
bunch of SIM fanatics know
more? There is plenty of amour
gone in it and the theory of 60
deg vulnerability is more of a
fantasy UNLESS proven in the
battlefield.
All i saw was 60 deg protected
turrets of T-72s, T-80BVs blown
up into pieces by single HEAT or
average APFSDS rounds.

I recommend you read Anderi bt
and Lidsky M on that forum if
you need real technical
information. Rest are Polish born
Yankee wannabees.

dig more please, its good to have good reads as such

 

[Sovngard]

Yeah, right, I wonder looking at the drawing, where you would place such armor?

There is a composite armor cavity (which is nearly identical to the one of the M1 Abrams's frontal hull) just in front of the electric transmissions.
See illustrations on page 8 and 9 of the magazine and look carefully this time.

However this vehicle on drawing have some good, perspective eatures, like it's turret, autoloader, overall design. Just place engine at rear, move crew and turret a bit more to the front, and install decent armor package at front, and voila.

Just let the engine at the front !

It will require less modifications in case of transformation into an ARV, SPH, HAPC or other variants.

There will be no need to move again the wiring, the powerpack, the undercarriage and some others parts of the internal layout.

The crew is less shaken when they sit in the middle of the hull : it's better for them because less nausea and hematoma.

Of course or "specialist" does not known that T-80BV's in Chechnya were not equipped with dynamic protection... it's conatiners were empty. Other problem is however that T-80BV does not have the best solved dynamic protection emplacement, especially for side hull protection. In this case T-64BV and T-72B are better.

4S20 bricks can be mounted on the whole lenght of the T-80BV side skirts (not only at the level of the front hull sponsons) but that was not a common practice in the russian army since the T-80BV will certainly loose them when fighting against NATO MBTs in the Fulda gap.

What about the automatic fire suppression system ? During the War in Chechnya, it did not prevent the T-80's turret to be thrown in the air as the Iraqis's T-72M...

Does these metallic side skirts are made of 4S22 reactive elements ?

 

[Damian]

There is a composite armor cavity (which is nearly identical to the one of the M1 Abrams's frontal hull) just in front of the electric transmissions.
See illustrations on page 8 and 9 of the magazine and look carefully this time.

It's too thin. To be efficent, special armor needs to be thick enough. Unless someone believe in magical armor. Sorry we are still not using advanced nanomaterials, and even then, it is very probable that armor will need to be thick.

Just let the engine at the front !

It will require less modifications in case of transformation into an ARV, SPH, HAPC or other variants.

There will be no need to move again the wiring, the powerpack, the undercarriage and some others parts of the internal layout.

The crew is less shaken when they sit in the middle of the hull : it's better for them because less nausea and hematoma.

No, engine at front is not efficent for tank.

And guess what, complete modularity of single platform is useless. There is no single type of hull that will perfectly meet requirements for all types of vehicles.

Besides this, why I would want to converse existing tank in to APC?

I build a purpose designed tank with rear mounted engine, and purpose builded APC with front mounted engine, and they serve in their original configuration through their whole service life cycle. Simple, reliable anc cheap.

Germans experienced idioticy of completely modular design with their MRAV Boxer. It's completely modular design makes it unnececary heavier, more complex and expensive, while vehicle after being builded in single variant, stays in that variant for it's whole service life. Mission modules are not replaced.

Oh and guess what, special armor itself provides enough protection against nausea and hematoma. There is no need to place there something more.

4S20 bricks can be mounted on the whole lenght of the T-80BV side skirts (not only at the level of the front hull sponsons) but that was not a common practice in the russian army since the T-80BV will certainly loose them when fighting against NATO MBTs in the Fulda gap.

I seen only a single T-80BV with full lenght of side hull protected by ERA. And this looked more like field modification or some sort of test vehicle.

What about the automatic fire suppression system ? It will not prevent the turret to be throw in the air as the Iraqis's T-72M ?

Good luck with that.

Does these metallic side skirts are made of 4S22 reactive elements ?

Yes.

 

[Dazzler]

I seen only a single T-80BV with full lenght of side hull protected by ERA. And this looked more like field modification or some sort of test vehicle.

 

[Sovngard]

It's too thin. To be efficent, special armor needs to be thick enough. Unless someone believe in magical armor. Sorry we are still not using advanced nanomaterials, and even then, it is very probable that armor will need to be thick.

No, engine at front is not efficent for tank.

It's your view after all...

Besides this, why I would want to converse existing tank in to APC?

Maybe because Israelis and Russians already doing this.

I build a purpose designed tank with rear mounted engine, and purpose builded APC with front mounted engine, and they serve in their original configuration through their whole service life cycle. Simple, reliable anc cheap.

But it still not in service in the Polish land forces.

It's completely modular design makes it unnececary heavier

It's because its hull is made of steel instead of aluminum.

Empty weight :

VPC* : 22 900 kg
Boxer : 25 000 kg


*(command variant of the VBCI without the Dragar turret)

more complex and expensive, while vehicle after being builded in single variant, stays in that variant for it's whole service life. Mission modules are not replaced.

Why should they change constantly mission modules ? Nevertheless, the Boxer provides significant development potential.

Is there a concrete feedback about the performances of the Boxer in Afghanistan ?

Oh and guess what, special armor itself provides enough protection against nausea and hematoma. There is no need to place there something more.

:fkidding:

Good luck with that.

You didn't answer to my question.

Yes.

Thanks.