Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

Identify Sabot Round, Is this French 140mm ?

British or from Your country?



btw:
About some armour made by WITU:

Protection of Light Armors Against Shaped Charge Projectiles
Prof. Ph.D. D.Sc. Adam Wisniewski
Military Institute of Armament Technology

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/12108.pdf
(greate pdf in englih!)

The numerical optimization of the novel kinetic energy penetrator for tank guns
Military Institute of Armament Technology

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/11441.pdf
(i english)

 

[Kunal Biswas]

British or from Your country?

I was assuming french..

 

[methos]

It is a British round, but Britain, French, Germany and another country (Italy? can't remember) use the same ammuniton, they decided to cooperate in the field of 140 mm guns and ammo.
At the left is the British 120 mm KE ammunition, while the rounds at the right might be experimental 110 mm/120 mm two part rounds with combustile but solid proppelant case.

The Swiss designed 140 mm rounds are smaller and are designed to be loadable by human loaders.

 

[militarysta]

I forgot,

Andriej - about that:

Erawa - it is some ill joke, a mistake of nature. It is example of absence of basic understanding of ERA functioning - ERA tiles are placed on the turret without giving them angle of 60...70 degrees which makes them effective.

Well, when we compare this ex-Soviet Union ERA (EDZ) which you placed in table, whit ERAWA-2 we can see that ERAWA-2 dosen't need so big "angle of 60...70 degrees " to be pretty effective:


Frot this "yours" ERA (EDZ):

0. = 490-500mm
30.= 350-360mm
60.= 100mm

ERAWA-2:

0. = 120mm
30. = 50mm
60. = 20mm

ERAWA just don't need so slopped ERA pannels like Kontakt-1 or Kotakt-5. So ERAWA-2 can be placed on more space without so big care about angle. The same about single layer Knife. Thats reason why part not protected in Bulat (against CE (HEAT) is phatetic when we compare it to PT-91MZ:

T-64BM BULAT / PT-91MZ



In next post I will write why single layer Knife ERA (whole Bulat) is ineffective against double HEAT warhead (double SC) and why ERAWA-2 is effective against thikind of threats.

 

[Andrei_bt]

I forgot,

Andriej - about that:



Well, when we compare this ex-Soviet Union ERA (EDZ) which you placed in table, whit ERAWA-2 we can see that ERAWA-2 dosen't need so big "angle of 60...70 degrees " to be pretty effective:


Frot this "yours" ERA (EDZ):

0. = 490-500mm
30.= 350-360mm
60.= 100mm

ERAWA-2:

0. = 120mm
30. = 50mm
60. = 20mm

ERAWA just don't need so slopped ERA pannels like Kontakt-1 or Kotakt-5. So ERAWA-2 can be placed on more space without so big care about angle. The same about single layer Knife. Thats reason why part not protected in Bulat (against CE (HEAT) is phatetic when we compare it to PT-91MZ:

T-64BM BULAT / PT-91MZ



In next post I will write why single layer Knife ERA (whole Bulat) is ineffective against double HEAT warhead (double SC) and why ERAWA-2 is effective against thikind of threats.

This is an ill joke about all this polish ERA. It is installed without angle of incline of about 60 degrees and it is aineffactive both against old and new rounds, not mentioning apfsds. By the whay it is based on one of the failed USSR project with small ERA tiles, not adopted. The effectiveness of ERA is based on the size of it's working elements, on T-72B, T-80 it is about 400...500 mm, on ERAWA - about 150 mm.

 

[militarysta]

This is an ill joke about all this polish ERA. It is installed without angle of incline of about 60 degrees

ERAWA-2 don't need so angle - in lower angle it have better efficiency then Kontakt-1 or others ERA in 50-60 degrees. Sorry ERAWA-2 is just better.

and it is aineffactive

We will see

explanation of the signs
(Объяснение знаков)

CP - capability of protection (Возможность защиты)

CP=(H-Hw)/H

H- Guaranteed penetration RHA armour with thick "H"
Hw - real depth of perforation RHA amrour (witness) after perforation ERAWA brick

both against old and new rounds,

ERAWA-2 CP - capability of protection (Возможность защиты) is:

1) single SC (ex:9M113) CP=95% (for 60.)
2) EFP diameter 100mm CP=94% (for 60.)
3) BK-14M HEAT CS CP=94-80% (for 60.)
4) 3BM15 APFSDS CP=57% (for 60.)
5) tandem SC (Panzerfust-3IT, PG-7VR, LAW)
CP= ~66%

photos:


BTW:
LAW, PzF-3F/IT, Spike - it's rather "new rounds"

not mentioning apfsds.

BM-15 and DM-33A1 aren't modern APFSDS, but against 1970' 1980' ERAWA-2 is quite good:

By the whay it is based on one of the failed USSR project with small ERA tiles, not adopted.

Well ERAWA was developed in Poland - even if this under is true - so what? ERAWA-2 is very very efective against HEAT, double HEAT and EFP warhead -it's far beter then Kontakt-1 and better then single layer Knife or others.

The effectiveness of ERA is based on the size of it's working elements, o

It's argument on level "how good your are (as a lover) is based on the size of your penis".
It's bullshit dear Andriej.
ERAWA-2 works on slighty diffrent mechanism of action then Kontakt or Knife. ERAWA-2 was dveloped against double HEAT warhead and EFP.


btw: How about single layer Kinfe on Bulat - is it good against double SC? Of course not Fail of the decade - developed very good ERA but effective against double SC (HEAT) only in double or triple package - like on Oplot-M turret or sides. And this solution weight so mucht - even on Oplot-M hull is single layer. On Bulat there is only single layer of Knife. But teh single layer of Kinfe just can't be protection against doube SC, for that reson:

Fail of decade becouse just all modern ATGM's and RPG's have double warhead - new Relikt and ERAWA-2 can protect against that - Knife in single layer modul - can't. But double -triple layers Knife is to hevy for many tanks: T-64, T-72, etc.
Fail, fail, fail.

 

[Damian]

It is installed without angle of incline of about 60 degrees and it is aineffactive both against old and new rounds, not mentioning apfsds.

And still ERAWA-2 was capable to greatly reduce penetration capabilities of PzF-3 that is very good and capable RPG.

Maybe we should make some things clear because people like You do not understand. Only because in Soviet Union, or in Ukraine or Russia or many other countries, someone make ERA that is needed to be angled at 60 degrees to work properly, does not mean that in some country someone did not overcome this problem.

Same story with Knife, the principles of it's working mechanism are simple and brilliant, indeed brilliant, this ERA solves many problems but in the same time have it's own disadvantages, like size and bulk of modules or it's weight (size and weight seem to be pretty big for ERA).

Seriously I just can't understand why some people belive that if they were not capable to overcome some problems, someone else somewhere else was not capable to do that.

This is like with these silly estimations of western composite armors protection levels made in Soviet Union, they were actually based on what? Working mechanism of soviet armors that were very different in, well in actually all aspects?

To be honest Combination K is actually more similiar to Silica Core Armor than to armors developed and adopted under Burlington program, even NERA like inserts in T-72B are very, very different than NATO composite armors, especially if take in to account here that it seems that besides semi reactive elements NATO also used more high hardness materials later supported with higher density materials.

And indeed, when we look at Soviet and NATO composite armors we can see great differences, from volume of composite inserts in armor (this volume is higher in NATO designs) to the actual possible numbers of used materials, their types and possible combinations.

And I do not say that something is here better or worser, rather to show that similiar level of protection could have been achieved by use of different solutions with different end effects.

So we should actually make here a very serious question, if anyone, that did not make any real tests on different armor types with many different types of ammunition and weapon systems using this ammunition, can actually say anything as a one real truth, about armor x or armor y.

I actually prefer countries that do not do tall talks about their achievements, but constantly and quietly upgrade their weapon system, ammunition and protection solutions. An there are even some big players that do not do that.

So Andrei, before You start to call something a "joke", maybe You first test it, make experiments and compare, then make conclusions... however I would doubt in impartiality of such conclusions because of obvious fact that You were never been impartial in anything...

 

[Andrei_bt]

ERAWA it is an outstanding invention of Poland - it brakes all laws of physics! Americans, Israel, Russians - they install they reactive armor inclined at about 60 degrees, Polish inventors doesn't need this ))))))))
A plain explanation - this ERAWA is unconscious attempt to copy basic failed design of T-72B ERA installation – the designers of ERAWA just did not understand the principles of ERA functioning known for all reasonable and experienced designers. They just copied T-72B! But PT-91 is an ancient T-72M remake.

 

[Andrei_bt]

are very, very different than NATO composite armors

You don't know about them and stete they are different

 

[Andrei_bt]

It's argument on level "how good your are (as a lover) is based on the size of your penis".

It is like polish PC gamers and children understand this problem. Maybe we will talk about this ater you grow up

 

[Damian]

ERAWA it is an outstanding invention of Poland - it brakes all laws of physics! Americans, Israel, Russians - they install they reactive armor inclined at about 60 degrees, Polish inventors doesn't need this ))))))))

Show me American or Israeli ERA angled at 60 degrees or more, not to mention that cassette itself not need to be angled.

A plain explanation - this ERAWA is unconscious attempt to copy basic failed design of T-72B ERA installation – the designers of ERAWA just did not understand the principles of ERA functioning known for all reasonable and experienced designers. They just copied T-72B! But PT-91 is an ancient T-72M remake.

Yes yes, of course, Ukrainian bloger that is also biggest Ukrainian propagandist, know everything about development of foreing weapon systems.

So Ukrainians copied UVZ Object 187 turret?

You don't know about them and stete they are different

Yes of course, and You know something about them?

Documentation that we can read, what we know about them, even materials You provide, clearly show very significant differences.

Indeed, for example Combination K, have more similarities to SCA than to Burlington, even T-72B armor is very different than Burlington. However I was not talking about current composite armor solutions used in Ukraine or Russia, but reading Your materials it is rather clear that still, western composite armors are different and it is possible that they are maybe working in slightly different way.

What we also know is fact, that at least in frontal armor, there is more composite insert in western MBT's than in Russian/Ukrainian ones, it is clearly visible when we compare photos of empty armor cavities and drawings Your provide.

The only real mystery in case of most designs are used material and composite array composition (where, what type of material is placed and how these materials (layers) work together).

It is like polish PC gamers and children understand this problem. Maybe we will talk about this ater you grow up

Words of man that is not even trying to write properly in english... very adult, wonder, when You will grow up...

PS. It is pathetic that You need to write 3, yes 3 posts to answer posts written several houres earlier...

 

[Andrei_bt]

So? You lost your "Nintendo" and decided to become an artist, but why T-72M (PT91) becomes so huge tank? If you don't know even the size of it you may refrain from discussing such complex questions like armor and ERA.
A reminder – PT-91 and it's modification is a plain T-72M tank with old amour inserts (they should be in museum, but not in production by now)

It protects only against rather old M111 rounds.
The ERA of the same level as "konakt-1", this so called small tiles, like now used on ERAWA was an old design, not put into service developed in USSR. Somehow this was transferred to Poland and a "magic" ERAWA appeared –

 

[Andrei_bt]

Show me American or Israeli ERA angled at 60 degrees or more, not to mention that cassette itself not need to be angled

ERA tiles must be placed at about 60 degrees...

israel

USA


ALL the world now use ERA tiles at angle to impact of about 60...70 degree, only two exclusions - failed PT-91 and T-72B. Their designers did not understand the basics of ERA function.

 

[Damian]

So? You lost your "Nintendo" and decided to become an artist, but why T-72M (PT91) becomes so huge tank? If you don't know even the size of it you may refrain from discussing such complex questions like armor and ERA.
A reminder – PT-91 and it's modification is a plain T-72M tank with old amour inserts (they should be in museum, but not in production by now)

I think You have problems with basic thinking and understanding point of adversary in discussion.

So to make it easier for You:

1) There was no reason to show PT-91 and T-64BM in the same size, purpose of these drawing is to show coverage of ERA, nothing else, nothing more.
2) Nobody says that basic protection of PT-91 is very good, it isn't, PT-91 is upgraded T-72M1 (not T-72M), nothing more, nothing else, there were 3 types of new composite armors developed in Poland, CAWA-1, CAWA-1NA and CAWA-2, none were however accepted in to production due to costs and also because CAWA can't be used in cast turret structure. It also become obvious that Soviet cast turrets are, in some way completely flawed designs because any attempt to replace or repair composite armor like that in T-72 variants older than T-72B or with armors similiar to Combination K (armor made "‹"‹by the molten filler metal material) will make very significant structure damages, (btw there were problems with turret structure damages in T-64's ) so to use CAWA armors, new turret welded from rolled plates would be needed. Such modernization would in fact mean designing a completely new tank, and when PT-91 was designed, financial situation was difficult (thanks for socialism BTW, this sick system made us all only poorer...) and MoD decided not to do that.

If You don't know that it only shows Your poor knowledge about non Soviet AFV's development history.

The ERA of the same level as "konakt-1", this so called small tiles, like now used on ERAWA was an old design, not put into service developed in USSR. Somehow this was transferred to Poland and a "magic" ERAWA appeared –

Cassettes on that photo are not even close to ERAWA in design, I highly recommend You to buy glasses...

ALL the world now use ERA tiles at angle to impact of about 60...70 degree, only two exclusions - failed PT-91 and T-72B. Their designers did not understand the basics of ERA function.

And as we see cassettes on these photos are not angled, reactive elements inside cassettes are, so tell me, because even I living in my country, never seen how reactive elements are placed in ERAWA cassettes, how do You know how they are placed?

Oh I get it, x-ray vision?

 

[Andrei_bt]

Yes of course, and You know something about them?

It was your statement that they are "are very, very different than NATO composite armors ". So it is you, who should provide explanaitions.

 

[Damian]

It was your statement that they are "are very, very different than NATO composite armors ". So it is you, who should provide explanaitions.

And I allready said why they are different... You don't understand very well in english? Poor, poor Andrei...

 

[Andrei_bt]

There was no reason to show PT-91 and T-64BM in the same size, purpose of these drawing is to show coverage of ERA, nothing else, nothing more.

so what is it? an expressionism art exibition? If you decided to show ERA covewer you may use the same dimentions for similiar tanksa (t-72 and T-64 have the basicly same hight at turret top).

If You don't know that it only shows Your poor knowledge about non Soviet AFV's development history.

You may better ask me something, than consider you know everyting ))) I havw no interest in financial situation, socialism and so on.

Cassettes on that photo are not even close to ERAWA in design

Thank you for advice, they are not completely seme, but it is what was used as ERAWA pattern - faild Nii Stali design and failed Tagil designed installation on the turret. Before someone wants to replicate a device he must finf out it's functionning. This was missed in Pollish installation of ERAW on PT91.

And as we see cassettes on these photos are not angled, reactive elements inside cassettes are, so tell me, because even I living in my country, never seen how reactive elements are placed in ERAWA cassettes, how do You know how they are placed?

Oh I get it, x-ray vision?

The elements in Kontakt-1 ERA are angeled (inside the container) -

But it is not realised in ERAWA, or ERAWA-2

and it does not require x-ray vision

 

[Andrei_bt]

And I allready said why they are different... You don't understand very well in english? Poor, poor Andrei...

Hard to understand something from person, who admited, that he knows nothing about this question

 

[Damian]

so what is it? an expressionism art exibition? If you decided to show ERA covewer you may use the same dimentions for similiar tanksa (t-72 and T-64 have the basicly same hight at turret top).

God help me... this was made by Militarysta only to show ERA coverage, compare them, nothing else, nothing more, You have a problems with understanding simple things?

You may better ask me something, than consider you know everyting ))) I havw no interest in financial situation, socialism and so on.

I ask, why no ERA or composite on BM Oplot turret side armor? Especially in age of assymetric warfare. Why no double layer of ERA on glacis plate? Why PNK-6 is placed in such way, so no vision block for TC for close range view on front of his station (T-90MS in that matter is much better designed), why no hatch with open protected mode? Why glacis plate is not redesigned to maximize protection and to completely eliminate vision blocks weak zone? Why no even lightly armored gun mantle mask? Why use of outdated autoloader design that is not safe in case of ammunition cook off (unless someone was stupid enough to completely belive in armor) and I can make such question whole day, and probably I will not get any ciritcal (in constructive way of course) answers to these questions.

And If You are not interested in all factors standing behind decisions about modernization of currently used design or behind development of completely new design, what specialist You are?

Thank you for advice, they are not completely seme, but it is what was used as ERAWA pattern - faild Nii Stali design and failed Tagil designed installation on the turret. Before someone wants to replicate a device he must finf out it's functionning. This was missed in Pollish installation of ERAW on PT91.

Wait a second? So if ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 were capable to reduce penetration capabilities of PzF-3 with tandem HEAT warhead to such level that shaped charge jet was not capable to perforate steel plate behind ERAWA, it means that ERAWA is not working?

Incredible logic...

But it is not realised in ERAWA, or ERAWA-2
and it does not require x-ray vision

Oh yeah, so we should know belive 100% in some drawings, but without the actual photos? Ok can we now be serious?

Hard to understand something from person, who admited, that he knows nothing about this question

Where did I admited? Can You quote? No, not really I suppose...

 

[Andrei_bt]

I ask, why no ERA or composite on BM Oplot turret side armor?

It is true for most modern tanks. Side armor is secrificed to increase frontal armor. In the question of Oplot the all angle protection was placed mostly on side hull.

Especially in age of assymetric warfare. Why no double layer of ERA on glacis plate?

Why do you state this? Maybe you seen something on photo and did not understand this correctly?

Why PNK-6 is placed in such way, so no vision block for TC for close range view on front of his station

Same as leopard -2A4.
Also the PNK 6 has 1,2x for close distance

(T-90MS in that matter is much better designed)

It has no optical chanel (but it was included basicaly) with it it will be very big.

huge drawbeck.

, why no hatch with open protected mode? Why glacis plate is not redesigned to maximize protection and to completely eliminate vision blocks weak zone? Why no even lightly armored gun mantle mask? Why use of outdated autoloader design that is not safe in case of ammunition cook off (unless someone was stupid enough to completely belive in armor) and I can make such question whole day, and probably I will not get any ciritcal (in constructive way of course) answers to these questions.

Oh yeah, so we should know belive 100% in some drawings, but without the actual photos? Ok can we now be serious?

You may provide data that I am wrong? Or maybe designers of this ERA lying?