Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

This looks more like a painted metallic frame with bolts whose purpose is to keeping composite armor modules together.

Take a look at the gun mantlet, its armor still has rectangular holes.

BTW, nice video.

Perhaps armor modules were reinforced, so they don't become so easy damaged as previously?

 

[Sovngard]

Perhaps armor modules were reinforced, so they don't become so easy damaged as previously?

Perhaps that the metallic frame had to be removed and thus not present on this well-known picture.

But if you take a look at the height of the edge of the rear module, just at the left of the cylindrical thing which is above the chains and balls curtain, you can observe that there is a metallic strip which protects the inside part, probably a part of the frame which holds the armor module.

 

[methos]

I doubt that basic hull was made from alluminium, it have no sense and make vehicle vurnable to fire.

The whole vehicle shell was made of Aluminium. The British army tested a number of different vehicles with all Aluminium hulls and turrets for reducing the combat weight (it seems that the British had some more advanced techniques for welding very thick Aluminium plates). The FV4211 "Aluminium Chieftain" is probably the vehicle closest to the projected Chieftain Mk 5/2 and has both the hull and the turret shell made of Aluminium. The so called Jagd-Chieftain prototype with mock-up gun developed during the Anglo-German cooperation also had a hull completely made of Aluminium. The Valiant MBT prototype also had a full Aluminium construction.

Zaloga changed his estimations many times. My conclusion differs from yours, deal with this.

Haven't seen him changing his estimates a single time.

Do you trully believe that GDLS and US Army would reveal to Zaloga true protection levels of their tank that are classified?

I think that GDLS and the Army does provide the same statements as the British MoD/Vickers or the German MoD/KMW. In German literature it is cleary said that the protection requirement for the Leopard 2 was surviving 125 mm APFSDS at long/medium ranges (written by P.-W. Krapke, who happened to work on the Leopard 2 programme) or that the MBT-70 was designed with protection against 105 mm APDS at 800 m ranges or greater (as written by Spielberger).
Similiar statements about the protection requirements can be found in many other books... Zaloga also writes about protection requirement of the Abrams vs 115 mm APFSDS - do you think that Zaloga is bad/dumb and makes this statement based on the old TACOM programme alone? There is no proof that he didn't get this information from the Army or GDLS. In fact even the Army's own magazine writes about protection against 115 mm APFSDS in an article about the history of the Abrams tank

Steven J. Zaloga M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-1992 published 1993, at page 9-10 he wrotes 350mm RHAe vs KE and 700mm RHAe vs CE for basic variant of the M1.
Steven J. Zaloga M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural published 2009, at page 15 the same author wrotes 470mm RHAe vs KE and 650mm RHAe vs CE for the same basic variant of the M1.

No. In his later book he writes about Soviet estimates and not his own ones. He writes that a Soviet report estimated the M1 to have a protection level of 470 mm RHAe vs KE and 650 mm RHAe vs HEAT, while the M1A1 was believed to have 600 mm RHAe vs KE and 700 mm RHAe vs HEAT protection. The question is however how accurate the Soviet report is. Soviet composite armour has always been of a considerable different desgin - their armour had very high density due to the use of extremely thick cast steel layers (about 400+ mm in most cases), which is why their estimations must not be accurate for Western MBTs (with bulky armour consisting of many lightweight elements). Zaloga however writes in the same book twice that the M1 Abrams was designed with protection requirements against 115 mm APFSDS (105 mm APFSDS was used as reference) and that this was essentially the same protection requirement as the T-72 had.
Zaloga writes also in his book about the T-55, that a T-55 with BDD (brow) armour has with 380 mm RHAe vs KE about equivalent protection as the earliest M1 Abrams.

So not only Zaloga is not credible, but also you are loosing your credibility by not only not knowing this niuanse, but also quoting author who changes his mind over the years.

You just didn't pay attention reading his writings.

Don't try to tell me what means what. Arrangement can mean anything, did you ever had any closer ties to military and actually knows that military likes to call many things in a very enigmatic thing?

I disagree with you.

Yes, I had closer ties to the military. And about the arrangement term we seem to disagree. I don't really see why you need to do that, given that Hunnicutt provides a number of examples where the location/thickness of the armour was changed and how this is the more logical given that the meaning "changed the arrangement/composition of the armour itself" requires more specification to be meant.

 

[Damian]

The whole vehicle shell was made of Aluminium. The British army tested a number of different vehicles with all Aluminium hulls and turrets for reducing the combat weight (it seems that the British had some more advanced techniques for welding very thick Aluminium plates). The FV4211 "Aluminium Chieftain" is probably the vehicle closest to the projected Chieftain Mk 5/2 and has both the hull and the turret shell made of Aluminium. The so called Jagd-Chieftain prototype with mock-up gun developed during the Anglo-German cooperation also had a hull completely made of Aluminium. The Valiant MBT prototype also had a full Aluminium construction.

And this was a blind spot. I seen statements that Vickers Mk4 had problems with it's alluminium structure being unable to handle weight of the universal turret developed by Vickers.

Haven't seen him changing his estimates a single time.

Yes he changed his mind, if author writes different values then he changes his mind.

I think that GDLS and the Army does provide the same statements as the British MoD/Vickers or the German MoD/KMW. In German literature it is cleary said that the protection requirement for the Leopard 2 was surviving 125 mm APFSDS at long/medium ranges (written by P.-W. Krapke, who happened to work on the Leopard 2 programme) or that the MBT-70 was designed with protection against 105 mm APDS at 800 m ranges or greater (as written by Spielberger).
Similiar statements about the protection requirements can be found in many other books... Zaloga also writes about protection requirement of the Abrams vs 115 mm APFSDS - do you think that Zaloga is bad/dumb and makes this statement based on the old TACOM programme alone? There is no proof that he didn't get this information from the Army or GDLS. In fact even the Army's own magazine writes about protection against 115 mm APFSDS in an article about the history of the Abrams tank

I don't say that authors are dumb. What I say is that informations are not nececary correct, and I will made my own research on this subject.

No. In his later book he writes about Soviet estimates and not his own ones. He writes that a Soviet report estimated the M1 to have a protection level of 470 mm RHAe vs KE and 650 mm RHAe vs HEAT, while the M1A1 was believed to have 600 mm RHAe vs KE and 700 mm RHAe vs HEAT protection. The question is however how accurate the Soviet report is. Soviet composite armour has always been of a considerable different desgin - their armour had very high density due to the use of extremely thick cast steel layers (about 400+ mm in most cases), which is why their estimations must not be accurate for Western MBTs (with bulky armour consisting of many lightweight elements). Zaloga however writes in the same book twice that the M1 Abrams was designed with protection requirements against 115 mm APFSDS (105 mm APFSDS was used as reference) and that this was essentially the same protection requirement as the T-72 had.
Zaloga writes also in his book about the T-55, that a T-55 with BDD (brow) armour has with 380 mm RHAe vs KE about equivalent protection as the earliest M1 Abrams.

It does not change my mind. Especially that we know that requirement for 115mm APFSDS protection was pre "Burlington" adaptation requirement. In fact requirement does not need to be changed, as choosen armor array can simply exceed requirement, and there is no nececity to inform about requirement changes for OPSEC sake.

You just didn't pay attention reading his writings.

I did. And I still stand with my statement.

Yes, I had closer ties to the military. And about the arrangement term we seem to disagree. I don't really see why you need to do that, given that Hunnicutt provides a number of examples where the location/thickness of the armour was changed and how this is the more logical given that the meaning "changed the arrangement/composition of the armour itself" requires more specification to be meant.

So we will disagree, again, I stand with my opinion. Especially that there is a drawing in Hunnicutt book, probably from TACOM archives, where is written that there was rellocation of weight and redistribution of special armor to increase survivability, which means there were significant changes to the armor arrays.

 

[Damian]

Perhaps that the metallic frame had to be removed and thus not present on this well-known picture.

But if you take a look at the height of the edge of the rear module, just at the left of the cylindrical thing which is above the chains and balls curtain, you can observe that there is a metallic strip which protects the inside part, probably a part of the frame which holds the armor module.

Might be that your theory is right, or not, who knows.

 

[HMS Astute]

Pentagon researches 'more mobile' hi-tech tank

The research arm of the US military is looking at designs for new hi-tech tanks, focusing less on armour and more on mobility and speed.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) says it wants to "revolutionise" tank design.

The body says advancements in weaponry in recent years have made heavily armoured tanks less effective.

The next generation of tanks will instead be better able to avoid attacks in the first place.

"It's about breaking the 'more armour' paradigm and revolutionising protection for all armoured fighting vehicles," said Kevin Massey, Darpa program manager.

"Inspired by how X-plane programs have improved aircraft capabilities over the past 60 years, we plan to pursue groundbreaking fundamental research and development to help make future armoured fighting vehicles significantly more mobile, effective, safe and affordable."

The agency is planning to award contracts to companies and researchers in these fields over the coming months.

It expects new tanks to be more mobile and agile, allowing them to dodge attacks, cover all types of terrain and avoid detection.

The objective is to make tanks half the weight and twice as fast.

It also wants more technology for tank crews, with aids like driver assistance and automation of some functions, "similar to the capabilities found in modern commercial airplane cockpits".

Darpa says it hopes to start work on developing the new technology before April next year.

BBC News - Pentagon researches 'more mobile' hi-tech tank

 

[Damian]

BBC News - Pentagon researches 'more mobile' hi-tech tank

It's not exactly correct. The recent conference held by US Army with scientists from Army Research Laboratory stated, that they won't resign from high armor protection, they plan to use new lightweight and very strong materials (most likely nanotechnology involved) to reduce vehicle weight without sacrificing protection, among other sollutions.

On the other hand, it's DARPA initiative, DARPA was never supplier of vehicle designs for US Army, ARNG and USMC, they can supply some technologies from time to time, nothing more.

Agencies responsible for ground combat vehicles development and testing are TACOM and TARDEC, and they have completely different idea how next generation fighting vehicles should look like.

 

[cobra commando]

Syria enhances T-72 protection - IHS Jane's 360

 

[militarysta]

Very nice 360 panorma view inside some Polish Army vehicles:

Wirtualna wycieczka po bazie wojskowej. Zobacz dumÄ™ naszej armii

- Rosomak IFV
- WR-40 Langusta MLRS
- Krab 155mm SPH
- Leopard-2A5

Really worth to see!

 

[militarysta]

 

[militarysta]

And in this condition tanks arrived from Germany:
(genneraly in very good condition, but refresh was needed)

 

[militarysta]

Polish Army during trening:

 

[Damian]

Perhaps soon I will have opportunity to take closer look inside M1A2SEPv2.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Don`t troll, Take this as a last warning ..

 

[militarysta]

Propably T-64BW hull glastic (upper plate) cut-vieb after catastrophic explosion.
Nice visible layers

Here are plans:

(STEF as 0.4 vs HE and 0.77 vs HEAT)

vs APDSDS
~430mm RHA (up to 440mm)

vs HEAT
~ 510mm RHA

 

[Damian]

There are informations that South Korean Army just ecently in june, inducted in to service first batch of the K2 main battle tanks. It was said that tanks will be officialy presented in september.

 

[militarysta]

 

[Damian]

T-55 turret armor thickness estimations. Drawing was created by "Archbishop Lazarus", many thanks to him.

 

[Dazzler]

type-99 turret roof thickness comparison

 

[CCP]

type-99 turret roof thickness comparison

let me help you.


Type 99A2 ( 1000mm)

leopard 2a6 (700mm) look at the empty space