Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Kunal Biswas]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-invite-india-modernize-t-90s.html#post577538

Views are welcome here..

 

[militarysta]

Old about ERAWA:

http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/m...yczne-tom1/wysokoenergetyczne/AWisniewski.pdf

Good pdf

 

[militarysta]

PL 156463 B1 - Patenty na Tech.Money.pl

ERAWA-1 patent

http://tech.money.pl/przemysl/patenty/pl-168122-245951.html

"tank with ERA armour" patent

both of them old

 

[Damian]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-invite-india-modernize-t-90s.html#post577538

Views are welcome here..

Good, Ukrainians have some plenty of good ideas. Besides do not forget, Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building and Design Bureau and Malyshev Plant was the most progressive tank designing and manufacturing center in whole Soviet Union, they were the best there.

 

[militarysta]

ANALYSIS OF BAR AND NET SCREENS STRUCTURE PROTECTING
VEHICLES AGAINST ANTI-TANK GRENADES FIRED FROM RPG-7
Marek Szudrowicz
Military Institute of Armoured and Automotive Technology

http://ilot.edu.pl/kones/2011/1_2011/2011_szudrowicz_analysis_of_bar_and_net_screens_structure.pdf

Another good pdf. "Must read" for all intersted in tank and IFV protection

 

[militarysta]

http://www.ruag.com/de/Space/Media/...fPRO-P/Ballistischer_Schutz_gep_Fahrzeuge.pdf

RUAG armour - nothing special in pdf, nice photos

 

[militarysta]

The Future Combat System: Minimizing Risk While Maximizing Capability
USAWC Strategy Research Project
by
Colonel Brian R. Zahn, USA
May 2000
Working Paper

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/publications/working_papers/wp-00-2.pdf

Cyring after FCS..but...Damian -pleas a look on table on page 23 is values for M1A2 possible?

Component Weights (lbs):
M1A2
Hull 38,880 (17 635kg)
Suspension 24,350 (11 044kg)
Power Plant 10,660 (4835kg)
Aux. Auto 3,960 (1796kg)
Wpn Station 43,900 (19 912)
Fire Control Included in WS 3,770 (1710kg)
Ammunition 3,590 (1628kg)
OVE 3,070 (1392kg)
Fuel 3,580 (1623kg)
Crew 840 (381kg)
Total 136,600 (61 960kg)
Tons 68.3
SOURCE: U.S. ARMY TACOM/TARDEC BRIEFING ON THE 20-TON WHEELED HYBRID WEAPONS CONCEPT

Interesting isn't it?

ps.to simplicity I transfered ilbs to kg

 

[Damian]

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/publications/working_papers/wp-00-2.pdf

Cyring after FCS..but...Damian -pleas a look on table on page 23 is values for M1A2 possible?

Component Weights (lbs):
M1A2
Hull 38,880
Suspension 24,350
Power Plant 10,660
Aux. Auto 3,960
Wpn Station 43,900
Fire Control Included in WS 3,770
Ammunition 3,590
OVE 3,070
Fuel 3,580
Crew 840
Total 136,600
Tons 68.3
SOURCE: U.S. ARMY TACOM/TARDEC BRIEFING ON THE 20-TON WHEELED HYBRID WEAPONS CONCEPT

Interesting isn't it?

Problem is that Americans use short tons instead of metric tons. So for Americans M1A2 will be near 70 tons, while for us, europeans, it will be around 60-63 tons.

But of course the exact weight of all vehicle components are rather classified... Americans like to make disinformation everywhere possible to confuse their possible enemies.

 

[Akim]

Lately in this stream we discuss 3-4 models of таnks here. Little things, certainly important, but they not interesting ( can therefore от-сюда many eloped). Such feeling, that we walk on a circle. I suggest to diversify the spectrum of discussed MBT.

 

[militarysta]

Problem is that Americans use short tons instead of metric tons. So for Americans M1A2 will be near 70 tons, while for us, europeans, it will be around 60-63 tons.

But of course the exact weight of all vehicle components are rather classified... Americans like to make disinformation everywhere possible to confuse their possible enemies.

After recount to kg -for me looks possible

 

[Damian]

Maybe yes, maybe not, without factory documentation that is far more detailed, You can't be sure, in case of every vehicle.

 

[militarysta]

For all light combat platforms lovers:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/DLCD-D... Combat Vehicle Concept Paper 19 May 1998.pdf

compare with M1A2.

Concusion:

Comparison of ACV and M1A2
47. This study shows that even when using an ambush tactic the ACV suffered 1.7 to 3.1 times the casualties and was only 1/3 to 2/3 as effective as the M1A2. The results of the comparison between the effectiveness of the ACV compared with the M1A2 are summarized in the table below. This table shows that the firepower and protection limitations of the ACV resulted in much heavier losses to both direct and indirect fire. The ACV could not manoeuvre in the presence of the enemy, which severely restricted its tactical flexibility and deployment. As a consequence of higher losses, the ACV battle group was considered combat ineffective following the battle in both the Defence and Attack Vignettes.

Summary
50. As in the Defence Vignette, the firepower and protection limitations of the ACV restricted its tactical employment and flexibility. It was forced to fire from prepared positions at the flank of the enemy tanks if it wanted to survive. The ACV cannot manoeuvre in the presence of the enemy, and exposed ACVs were very vulnerable. The ACV force was successful at forcing RED to break off the attack but suffered 2.1 times the casualties as the M1A2 force. Against the T-80, the ACV force suffered 2.2 times the losses and achieved only 1/3 the LER of the M1A2 force. In a quick attack where the ACV had to be exposed, it suffered 3.1 times the casulaties and achieved only 1/3 the LER of the M1A2 force. The ACV force also suffered 2.5 times the losses to indirect fife. The M1A2 easily defeated the RED force while the ACV was considered ineffective in the offence and intimate support roles.
51. Enhancing the ACV with extra armour proved ineffective as it was still out-gunned by the 125mm of the T-80. Adding a TBM capability significantly improved the LER of the ACV when the terrain permitted its use. When forced to manoeuvre, it was still very vulnerable to both direct and indirect fife.

 

[Damian]

For all light combat platforms lovers:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/DLCD-D... Combat Vehicle Concept Paper 19 May 1998.pdf

Interesting!

Then someone in USA should make a very important question, who gave permission to Rumsfeld to cancell all heavy platforms modernization plans (and development of new heavy platforms) and waste money on future combat systems program?

And there is also a lesson for other countries, that should be considered as something very important to the national security.

 

[Akim]

Romanian TR - 85M1 is possible to name MBT, although an armament remained as at a middle tank, but mass grew and increased long. His parameters correspond М60. Although FCS more quite. Speed of turn of turret increased, the corner of getting up of cannon changed. ERA allows to fight with cumulative ammunitions. A tank is worse on the parameters of Turkish M60 Sabra, but better Croatian М60А3. In general Romanian armoured forces are considered weakest the in region.

APFSDS BM - 412, created by dint of Israel and RHA has in 415mm on a 2000 m
Is now conducted development of modernization of TR- 85M2 with the cannon of MG253 and with Israel ERA 3 generations. More information on a novelty for me it is not. A tank will be to the соответсвовать level of Т-55AGM, M84, PT-91, T-64BV.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Т-55AGM

 

[Kunal Biswas]

T-55AGM

 

[Kunal Biswas]

t-55agm

 

[Kunal Biswas]

T-55AGM

 

[Kunal Biswas]

T-55AGM

[/IMG]

 

[Akim]

Т-55AGM

Romanian tank of longer ( he has 6 supporting skating rinks), but the this additional is long only from an engine. Inwardly still closely.
While the engine power for them is identical.