Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Ofcourse i dont say they are fools or smart any thing like that. I am more keen on the evidence aspect of the picture you showed is hit by Kornet or some other missile which the hizbollah had , some times you might use what you have at that point in time in that enegagement provided a target of opportunity.

Ofcourse i havent heard of any Israel sources like their military claiming that Kornet hit the front and it didnt cause any damage , not that Kornet is some mythical missile and Merkava is a non penetratable tank , i am more looking at the evidence pov. Hope that clarifies

Click to expand...

Ask Militarysta, he was investigating Lebanon war, I was more interested in Iraq.

The turret bustle is as fool proof as what it hits it , you could easily get hit by a 155 Artilery with a smart anti-tank round from topin a battle which in a classic tank battle will be supported by such artillery , the anti-tank round would hit your bustle and blow up your tank , if you have a bustle thats part of the turret then the explosive will simply end up entering inside your turret due to spontanous or sympathetic detonation.

In a classic tank hit consider your self lucky if the bustle blow up but does not damage the turret in any way even with blow up panels.

Click to expand...

I completely do not understand... isolated ammo compartments in turret bustle with blow off panels proved their effectivenes in tests and in battle. Non crew member died in M1 tank due to ammo explosion.

Ok to explain this in a simple way.

No matter where You hit in a buslte, armored doors will protect crew and blow off panels will release energy, pressure etc. from the bustle outside far from crew, tank will be disabled most probably, but crew will be living not KIA. This is the whole idea, screw the tank, it can be repaired or replaced, but it is much harder to replace well trained crew, their lives are most important.

noob question,

Ammo in Autoloader arrangement, when hit is equivalent to a hit where a tank ammo is stored inside the hull, as loaded ammo would be in the lower part of the turret in the hull area exposed to the tank crew, in both scenario the damage or causality should be more then a hit taken by a tank who stores its ammo outside the hull.

Is it so?

Click to expand...

If ammo is not isolated, and there are no blow off panels, then crew is screwed, period, maybe they will have slight chance to get out before ammo will start to cook off but these chances will be really slight.

Of course in theory it is possible in T-72/90 series to redesign autoloader to be safe, but this also means hull belly redesign.

In short, autoloader should be isolated by armored plate, ammunition port for autoloader cassettes in this plate also should have small sliding armored door. In a belly there should be installed two blow off panels, how big dunno, tests would show.

This could improve crew survivability in significant way, but I don't know if this is even possible to do.

What I know about Lebanon and Merkavas:

Destroyed Merkawa Mk.2B. tan hit propably 8.8.2006r. in Bint Dżubaj. 2 KIA.


Sad photo Merkava Mk.2. Tank hit 9th august 2006 near Ajta el-Szaab. Hit by ATGM/RPG in rear ammo store - tank just blow out. All crew - KIA (4)


Mk.3 Hit in engine by propably RPG.



Two Merkavs Mk.3 and Mk.2 after hits by strong ATGM (Metys, Kornet, or clone TOW-2). Tanks hits about 10th august 2006 near Al-Chijam.
Only Driver was KIA in Mk.3 (hit by shrapnels after ATGM detonation) and crew WIA. In. Mk.2 - no dates.













Merkvwa Mk.3 hit by ATGM. Tank quite OK, no dates about crew.




Perffect shot from RPG in to rear Merkava ammo store. Propably the store was empty becouse this tank not bow out.





Famous Merkawa Mk.4 hit by Kornet or Metys. No perforation, no havy damages.





Another famous Mk.IV - ( Wadi-Saluki) After hal a day tank was again on battelfield with new barrel.




Again Mk.IV with hit in rear ammo storage - no WIA no KIA, but tank havy damage. As I know ammo storage was empty -so lucky for crew there was no ammo detonation.

No comment. Burning Mk.3 - this two tanks was losed.





Mk.IV with flesh wound Tank after 2-3h in service again.




Havy damage Mk.IV after hit by ATGM in hull side. No KIA, propably 2 WIA.


rest -later

I also have some interesting photos, not from battlefield but from ANAD.

According to the polish military press (Nowa Technika Wojskowa) (New Military Technology):

During Lebanon only 18 Merkava's IV were hit. Only in 6 tanks armour was perforated. Of course in some tanks there was "multi hits" example - in one lost Mk.IV there was 23 hits for ATGM's and RPG's -this tank was lost with all crew (4KIA).
Only two tanks was "totally losed" -this Merkava (23hits) near Wadi-Saluki, and on one on big IED near Bint Jubalil. Rest tanks (16) was able to repair after some weeks or months.

Tank's losses (only Merkava Mk.IV):

1. 24.o7.2006 - near Bint Jubal - Mk.IV hit by strong ATGM, only TK was KIA, 2 WIA.
2. 24.07.2006 - look up - Mk.IV destroyed on IED only 1 KIA.
3. 3.08.2006 - Mk.IV hit by ATGM - TK was KIA (death from debris(shrapnels?) from exploding ATGM)
4. Wadi-Al-Saluki battle - 12.08.2006 - from 24 Merkava's Mk.IV 11 where hit:
- one Mk.IV took hit by ATGM - TK was KIA.
- near Randurija one Mk.IV was multi hits by Kornet's - 3KIA ammo storage was in fire after that - blow out. ( As I know for other source tank was hit in side hull armour by two Kornet's -it's overkill for all MTB)
- Near Chirbat Kasif one Mk.IV was destroyed by multi hits by ATGM's and RPG's - all crew KIA (this Mk.IV with 23 hits as I know)

Source: Paweł Przeździecki, Izraelski rydwan cz.2, Nowa Technika Wojskowa 5/2011,s.32-33

Merkava 4 is one of the most heavily protected tank and perhaps the most protected from all sides in the world and the heaviest as well , so some way its heartening it can withstand attack multiple time from small arms and also dissapointing that higher caliber weapon can still bog it down.

One thing we should not forget in any future war a tank on the ground faces threat from not only another tank but also 300/220 mm MRLS with Sensor Fused Top Attack Anti-Tank Weapon and 155 mm Caliber Artilery shell , any tank will at the least have to endure both before we see a tank battle from both sides.

In good old days much of these weapons were dangerous but since there were no SMART or Sensor Fused Rounds , the threat was not that great as any Artillery and 155 mm round hitting a moving target like tank had low probability , now with Intelligent Rounds those probability has drastically gone up.

I am not even considering manportable ATGM class weapons or similar ATGM used in conjunction of Attack Chopper.

Check tank bursting Rafale videos from the Libyan campaign. Hate to think what a 250Kg LGB can actually do to a tank.

p2prada said:

Check tank bursting Rafale videos from the Libyan campaign. Hate to think what a 250Kg LGB can actually do to a tank.

Click to expand...

Fighter can only exploit it as long as the organic AD cover is not great and Libya had close to zero , Rafale was free to hit what it want , when it wants and where it wants, if any Army has a decent organic AD support like Indian Army has then an aircraft/chopper engaging in tank bursting task would be a rarity.

Any ways can you link the video please ?

Merkava 4 is one of the most heavily protected tank and perhaps the most protected from all sides in the world and the heaviest as well , so some way its heartening it can withstand attack multiple time from small arms and also dissapointing that higher caliber weapon can still bog it down.

Click to expand...

Unfrotunetly this makes front hull of Merkava Mk4 weaker protected by pure armor than on oher MBT's.

And there is still not such thing as indestructible tank. From sides modern ATGM or big RPG still can do harm.

One thing we should not forget in any future war a tank on the ground faces threat from not only another tank but also 300/220 mm MRLS with Sensor Fused Top Attack Anti-Tank Weapon and 155 mm Caliber Artilery shell , any tank will at the least have to endure both before we see a tank battle from both sides.

Click to expand...

Advantage of tank is that it is mobile, highly mobile on tactical level, and can just escape from danger zone.

In good old days much of these weapons were dangerous but since there were no SMART or Sensor Fused Rounds , the threat was not that great as any Artillery and 155 mm round hitting a moving target like tank had low probability , now with Intelligent Rounds those probability has drastically gone up.

Click to expand...

This is why it is important that different types of weapon systems should cooperate.

Air Forces, light infantry, can find, identify and eliminate such threats.

I am not even considering manportable ATGM class weapons or similar ATGM used in conjunction of Attack Chopper.

Click to expand...

Answet to such threats is allready here, and it is called active protection system.

Damian said:

Advantage of tank is that it is mobile, highly mobile on tactical level, and can just escape from danger zone.
.

Click to expand...

He was talking abt Sensor Fused Top Attack Anti-Tank Weapons ..

He was talking abt Sensor Fused Top Attack Anti-Tank Weapons ..

Click to expand...

And still, these are fired in most possible position of enemy vehicles, these vehicles can escape or take different route, thus avoiding in some extent such threat.

IMHO Active Protection Systems and reinforced turret and hull top can also help.

militarysta said:

23 hits for ATGM's

Click to expand...

another military folklore

You lost smth:

one lost Mk.IV there was 23 hits for ATGM's and RPG's -this tank was lost with all crew (4KIA).

Click to expand...

If You try to quote do it in proper way.


btw: this:
andrei_bt - Сравнение Т-80У и "Леопард-2" и Сравнение Т-90А и М1А1 "Абрамс"

is better (funny and comical) "military folklore"

another military folklore

Click to expand...

Why? In Chechnya T-72B's were also surviving multiple hits from enemy anti tank weapons (both RPG's and ATGM's). In Iraq the same situation where M1A1HA/HC's or Challenger 2's were surviving multiple hits from RPG's (in case of CR2 even one ATGM).

I completely do not see a reason why it immposible... because You say so?

In Greece tests Leopard 2 turret frontal armor also survived multiple hits from APFSDS ammunition (DM53?), only 2 penetrators go through (probably main sight weak zone).

Have You any hard, and I mean hard, proof that frontal armor of modern MBT's can't survive multiple hits on their front armor?

And do not make fool from Yourself showing us tests on old tanks claiming that these are equivalent to much more modern designs.

Again about Merkavas in Lebanon 2006.

Interview with genral Avidgor Klein from Chal published in RAPORT -wojsko, technika, obronność, 2/2010, s.73-79
part of it about merkavas loses:

resume:

- Bin Jebeil one Mk.IV lost on big IED (1KIA 2WIA)
- Bin Jebeil (near) one Mk.IV hit by ATGM - no perforation Tk was KIA from hit shock (hit his head on something and died)
Wadi al-Saluqi battle:
- 16 Merkavas IV was hit
- 9 tankers was KIA
- in 8 Merkava's was armour perforation

It's older and not as accurate as previously cited article source - so there is a difference in the description.

In Iraq the same situation where M1A1HA/HC's or Challenger 2's were surviving multiple hits from RPG's (in case of CR2 even one ATGM).

Click to expand...

One Chally2 survive hits more then 20 RPGs rounds in Basra During second Al-Fallujah battel M1A2 surviveda dozen hits from RPG in frontal turret armour. But it is in the literature.

In Greece tests Leopard 2 turret frontal armor also survived multiple hits from APFSDS ammunition (DM53?), only 2 penetrators go through (probably main sight weak zone).

Click to expand...

In fact there was a two nacked Leo-2A6 turrets without mask. Each was fired 16 times -so this two turrets takes 32 hits*.
Amunition wasn't DM53 and DM63 but propably Israeli M332 (CL3143)(I am still trying to confirm this information about M332).
-this ammo was bought by Itally(?) and Spain (for Leo2) M332 have 650mm RHA penetration for 2000m, only two rods perforated the Leo2 armour.
It's a great result.

*Here is the inaccuracy - sometimes meet at a value 18 shots, propably this is only APFSDS? and rest was HEAT warhead? Even if - 2 perforation for 18 shots is still greate resultat, and indeed - this two perforation was under EMES-15.

One Chally2 survive hits more then 20 RPGs rounds in Basra

Click to expand...

There was also ATGM fired in that tank, Milan if I remember correctly. Tank was completely disabled (thrown tracks, damaged sights).

During second Al-Fallujah battel M1A2 surviveda dozen hits from RPG in frontal turret armour. But it is in the literature.

Click to expand...

You have something about these incident? I have some photos in books of tanks hit by RPG's in Iraq without much success for the insurgents, but I do not have too many descriptions.

In fact there was a two nacked Leo-2A6 turrets without mask. Each was fired 16 times -so this two turrets takes 32 hits.
Amunition wasn't DM53 and DM63 but propably Israeli M332 (CL3143)(I am still trying to confirm this information about M332).
-this ammo was bought by Itally(?) and Spain (for Leo2) M332 have 650mm RHA penetration for 2000m, only two rods perforated the Leo2 armour.
It's a great result.

Click to expand...

Oh, thanks, do You know what was distance from which these ammunition was fired to turrets?

You have something about these incident? I have some photos in books of tanks hit by RPG's in Iraq without much success for the insurgents, but I do not have too many descriptions.

Click to expand...

Yes, in Polish I have many ARMIA, and MSS Komandos. I'll copy it 4you.

Oh, thanks, do You know what was distance from which these ammunition was fired to turrets?

Click to expand...

No info about distnce, well about ammo - not DM63 not DM53. Propably this M332...but it's look strange.

Thanks.

BTW, low res photo of that mentioned Challenger 2.

Damian said:

And still, these are fired in most possible position of enemy vehicles, these vehicles can escape or take different route, thus avoiding in some extent such threat.

Click to expand...

Obviously such systems are more effective and cost wise more useful to use if there is heavy armoured concentration spread over wider area like hundreds of tank , these sensor fused ammo are very expensive.

But if you are dealing with small number of tanks in couple of 10s or just less than hundred , you can just use the MRLS to saturate the area or use it to lay mines spread randomly over wider area.

Now if only you have a chopper with ATGM then you can pick and choose your target.

The point any way i was trying to make is we would rarely see a classic tank to tank battle in the future , even if we do there would be lot of threat a tank will have to go through before it merges or confronts another tank.