Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

If Tanks have to evolve, which path they should follow?

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 19 6.1%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 53 17.0%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 182 58.5%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 57 18.3%

  • Total voters
    311

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,188
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.
Hits on side turret are also very likely in assymetric warfare, ERA is light enough and effective enough to be placed there (however I would preffer composite armor + ERA combination).

So all in all, western MBT's more often equipped with addon composite or ERA in these days, offers great frontal protection, and better all around protection.

Why do you state this? Maybe you seen something on photo and did not understand this correctly?
I making single question, why no double layer of Knife over glacis plate? There is only single layer. So why? What is the reason? Weight limitations?

Same as leopard -2A4.
Also the PNK 6 has 1,2x for close distance
Oh, so inspiration is design from 80's? :)

Lack of simple vision blocks is a problem, especially in case when such huge thing like PNK-6 will be damaged. It would be better to place PNK-6 at turret rear, behind TC hatch, it would be also easier to integrate it with RWS.

You may provide data that I am wrong? Or maybe designers of this ERA lying?
Oh so You don't know this? Everybody lies! Who would be stupid enough to show all details of his design? Especially in Military?
 

Andrei_bt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
:) Can You quote? No, not really I suppose...
You state answering on my question - "Yes of course, and you know something about them?" that you don't know of course, nothing about them. So why you are stating something with no source and no knowledge?
I posted some examples on t-net a few years ago, they may remind you about the same basics of combined armor used on soviets, western tanks. Unlike in Poland in the us and western Europe no new physical laws were invented :lol:
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,188
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.
Hits on side turret are also very likely in assymetric warfare, ERA is light enough and effective enough to be placed there (however I would preffer composite armor + ERA combination).

So all in all, western MBT's more often equipped with addon composite or ERA in these days, offers great frontal protection, and better all around protection.

Why do you state this? Maybe you seen something on photo and did not understand this correctly?
I making single question, why no double layer of Knife over glacis plate? There is only single layer. So why? What is the reason? Weight limitations?

Same as leopard -2A4.
Also the PNK 6 has 1,2x for close distance
Oh, so inspiration is design from 80's? :)

Lack of simple vision blocks is a problem, especially in case when such huge thing like PNK-6 will be damaged. It would be better to place PNK-6 at turret rear, behind TC hatch, it would be also easier to integrate it with RWS.

You may provide data that I am wrong? Or maybe designers of this ERA lying?
Oh so You don't know this? Everybody lies! Who would be stupid enough to show all details of his design? Especially in Military?

You state answering on my question - "Yes of course, and you know something about them?" that you don't know of course, nothing about them. So why you are stating something with no source and no knowledge?
I posted some examples on t-net a few years ago, they may remind you about the same basics of combined armor used on soviets, western tanks. Unlike in Poland in the us and western Europe no new physical laws were invented
Your sources about western armors are not worth a broken cent. They are based on Soviet design (probably mostly on Combination K) that were back then more similiar to western (US and UK) designs from end of WWII and 50's-60's based on silica or glass like materials, not to more modern protection developed under Burlington program.

So no, no new physical laws were invented in my country, we are just sane enough to at least consider that someone used design working differently.
 
Last edited:

Andrei_bt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
There is only single layer. So why?
Why do yo state this ?
Hint: The correct question will be - how many leyers the Duplet ERA has. You failed to ask this, but made you statement.

Oh so You don't know this? Everybody lies!
So what is this -
 

Andrei_bt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
They are based on Soviet design (probably mostly on Combination K) that were back then more similiar to western (US and UK) designs from end of WWII and 50's-60's based on silica or glass like materials
why do you consider so?
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,188
Why do yo state this ?
Hint: The correct question will be - how many leyers the Duplet ERA has. You failed to ask this, but made you statement.
Do You know the difference between hull glacis plate and turret front armor? Glacis plate have 1 layer of Knife ERA, turret have 3 layers. But the question is, why glacis plate do not have 2 layers of ERA?

So what is this -
Drawing, nothing else, nothing more.

why do you consider so?
Because I read about Burlington development, and I seen some Soviet armors (Combination K and T-72 glacis plate inserts made from this glass like material). Burlington is different from these older designs, not to mention that there were many different variants of Burlington and other western composite armor development, for example US design codenamed "Chopper".
 

Andrei_bt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
Glacis plate have 1 layer of Knife ERA, turret have 3 layers. But the question is, why glacis plate do not have 2 layers of ERA?
I can not answer on incorrect question based on your inventions.

Because I read about Burlington development
so you are talking about something you never ever seen even on photo :rofl: not personally...
It is very funny to listen "many different variants of Burlington" if you don't know a Single type :rofl:

and I seen some Soviet armors (Combination K and T-72 glacis plate inserts made from this glass like material).
what did you seen?
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,188
I can not answer on incorrect question based on your inventions.
WTF? What incorrect question? Question is simple, why there is only one layer of Knife ERA over glacis plate insted of two or more layers? And I asked more questions. Just admitt that You don't have slightest idea mr. "specialist" from Ukraine, and go away...

so you are talking about something you never ever seen even on photo not personally...
It is very funny to listen "many different variants of Burlington" if you don't know a Single type
Descriptions from documents are clear, no glass like material, no filler made from melted metal, for example alluminium, instead there were many layers of different materials, from descriptions in documents it seems that Burlington armor was made from start as design with reactive elements.

I do not need to see everything on photos, documents are precise enough.

what did you seen?
Are You ----ing kidding me?

And this is what?





The closest to Burlington is only T-72B armor inserts, still yet that armor greatly evolved from it's basic forms in to more advanced protection when it was fielded and later further developed.

Seriously I have enough discussion with internet troll...
 
Last edited:

Andrei_bt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
And this is what?
it is end 50-s combined hull armor. It shows the level of Poland in armor research.

The closest to Burlington is only T-72B armor inserts
So you don't have anything more? Just this old photo?
And this is the level of "burlington" armor inventors in beginning of 80-s :rofl:

link
You seems to be completely failed in this discussion, maybe later I post some photo and you' ll have something to invent )))
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,188
it is end 50-s combined hull armor. It shows the level of Poland in armor research.
It shows one of many types of armor developed in Soviet Union, not Poland, CAWA armors were far more advanced. You should educate Yourself about other countries AFV's development history ignorant.

So you don't have anything more? Just this old photo?
Oh but You have something more, so share it, SHARE IT!

And this is the level of "burlington" armor inventors in beginning of 80-s
Buahahaha, level of knowledge of our Ukrainian expert... this is not Burlington armor, but simpler and cheaper Stillbrew armor You "expert"! :lol:

Burlington was far more advanced, but also more expensive, and there were difficulties to integrate it with Chieftain, this is why Burlington was adopted in new designs like M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 1 (in all these tanks Burlington design was slightly altered by scientists working on armors in these countries, only British stay with more or less original and final Burlington configuration, while Germans and Americans decided or to alter internal design or use different materials or do both).

You seems to be completely failed in this discussion, maybe later I post some photo and you' ll have something to invent )))
Yes, seeing Your incredible argumentation based on... on actually what? Nothing? No arguments? Only Your typical "my dick is bigger than yours" rethorics? Then yeah, probably in size of dick and ego I'am completely failed to You.
 

Andrei_bt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
Why use of outdated autoloader design that is not safe in case of ammunition cook off
This option is availible -


Called 478H
same for T-55, T-72 and s on.


Burlington was far more advanced
So may you exactly say what is "Burlington" or "chobhaim"? :rofl:
And plese, expalin me why they used such armor on "chieftain" in 80-s, which is step behind Soviet' ued in sme period?

Burlington was adopted in new designs like M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 1
so if you state so, you must show evidence, drawings or photo? Technical description?
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
So what is this -
This draw is incorrectt:
1.screws are too big
2.thickness ERAWA-2 is entirely too small
3.the layers in the middle are poorly marked
etc.
picture whit better view:



Or maybe designers of this ERA lying?
Rather not :)
I posted hard proofs:
1. photos from tests ERAWA-2
2. offcial pdf's from WITU (Military Institute of Armament Technology)
3. some more facts about ERAWA-2
whats yours points?


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
1. ERAWA-2 have nothing common whit this Nii Stali ERA
2. ERAWA-2 don't replicate ERA solutions from CCCP
3. It's hard to wrote "fail" when ERAWA-2 achive this performance:

1) single SC (ex:9M113) CP=95% (for 60.) (for 0. ~75%)
2) EFP diameter 100mm CP=94% (for 60.) (for 0. ~75%)
3) BK-14M HEAT CS CP=94-80% (for 60.) (for 0. 63-77%)
4) 3BM15 APFSDS CP=57% (for 60.)
5) tandem SC (Panzerfust-3IT, PG-7VR, LAW)
CP= ~66% (for 0. ~45-50%)

for old ERAWA (1986) it was that:
For ERAWA-1 CP is equal to:
for hit angle 60. CP =~84%
for hit angle 0. CP= ~67%


---------------------------------------
Later I will write why ERAWA-2 works in diffrent way then Kontakt, an why developers don't copy solutions from Kotakt and others.
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,188
This option is availible -
Yeah, based on French technology, real "innovation" from Kharkiv. ;)

So may you exactly say what is "Burlington" or "chobhaim"?
And plese, expalin me why they used such armor on "chieftain" in 80-s, which is step behind Soviet' ued in sme period?
Burlington is a codename for R&D program to develop advanced multilayer composite armors, this "Chobhaim" seems to be some language invention of people that are poorly educated and unable to properly write Chobham that is a place where this R&D took place. Developed armors there do not have their own codenames, they are just armor 1, armor 2, etc. In fact the only armor we can call "Chobham" is only armor used in FV4030/4 Challenger 1, other tanks used armors developed under Burlington program like the original M1 up to M1A1 fielded in 1985, or codeveloped like German composite armor for Leopard 2.

Burlington program ended with several different designs, the most promising ones were choose and then fielded. However this technology was still evolving to a point where each one of the big NATO tank designing and manufacturing country, ended with it's completely own armor but with common ancestor, armor developed under Burlington program.

Of course there are no photos or drawings of these armors, west contrary to some countries is not stupid enough to make such things public.

And plese, expalin me why they used such armor on "chieftain" in 80-s, which is step behind Soviet' ued in sme period?
Words of "expert" who pretends to know everything!

Because genius, Chieftain was allredy old, without any perspectives, Challenger 1 was in full production, explain me why spend huge pile of money to upgrade old tank, when You have a production line manufacturing newer much better one?

Americans done the same, they know that bringing M60 series to new standards will cost incredible money, why do this with old tank when original manufacturing plan was to manufacture ~12,000 M1 tanks for US Armed Forces alone, so who the hell needed deeply upgraded old tank? Same for Germans, deep upgrade programs for Leopard 1 were quickly scrapped and Germans said bye bye to Leo1, simple as that.

Only Soviets living in the most idiotic economic and political system, not only had so many tanks, and most of them were old ones, not only spend money to keep this old ones in line and upgrade them, so they even manufactured 3 types of main battle tanks with similiar or same characteristics. Pure lunacy and stupidity... and some people there are still schocked why USSR collapsed...

so if you state so, you must show evidence, drawings or photo? Technical description?
Read Burlington files, or other documents that are not classified. These can be found in the internet. DITC site have plenty of documents, but archieve is big and it will take time to find interesting ones.

Paweł Przezdziecki wrote article in polish about development of special armors in US and UK during WWII and after it.

http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf

http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf

But I doubt You understand this language, or many other people here, try translator, but I doubt that You find anything usefull for Ukrainian intelligence or KMDB. :lol:
 

methos

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
302
I am quite confused with Indian 125 mm FSAPDS ammo:
This image here says Mk. 1 has a L/D-ratio of 14, whereas Mk. 2 has a L/D-ratio of 20.
But here Mk. 1 is claimed to have a L/D-ratio of 20. Also an older 125 mm APFSDS exists. So could it be that Mk. 1 has been mistaken for the older APFSDS in the first image, or does they use different designations? Note also that the first image shows the two APFSDS on OFB.gov.in or Mk. 2 looks like the older APFSDS.
Jane's wrote some years ago (1995) that India has been developing a modular APFSDS design, which could be scaled and used in 100, 105, 120 and 125 mm caliber (with a penetration of 500 mm at 2,000 m range).
Also Jane's reported that the Indian Mk. 1 ammunition is a licence built version of the M711 (CL 3254). OFB.gov.in's value for L/D-ratio (~20) matches Jane's. This would mean Mk. 1 = CL 3254 and Mk. 2 = CL3579 (which is also noted on IMI's homepage).
Jane's, the Indian Ordnance Factories and the first-linked-to image all give different muzzle velocities for the rounds.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
ERA tiles must be placed at about 60 degrees...

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.
Rather You have problem whit understood that if ERA have really big CP (capabilities of protection) it can be angled at really small angle - with the same efficiency as diffrent ERA whit lower CP, but whit better screening coverage area:
the best example:
Bulat and PT-91MZ:


Of course ERAWA-2 on turret is whit some angle - in both planes:


Comparing ERAWA-2 with older types of ERA is pointless for that reson:


In older types of ERA have that kinde of angel internal parts becouse the main idea was differences in the time of initiation layers of explosive in ERA bricks. The variously inclined elemnts in ERA bricks have differences in the time of initiation. Like in Kontakt-1 or Blazer etc.
The disadvantages of the ERA are:
1) very thick ERA brcks
2) impossibility to sealed covered area (gaps between ERA bricks)
3) lack of resistance to napalm and termite
4) ERA bricks are quite fragile

ERAWA-2 works on different way:
1) external plate is made by RHA plate whit HB about 560-590HB ( whit doubling its thickness vs HEAT jet)
2) amount of explosive charge in the ERA is maximized, but asymmetrically arranged. (amount of explosive charge in contact ERA-1 appears to be less than 35% of what is in ERAWA-2)
3) between the layers is a RHA plate with high hardness HB again.
As a result, ERAWA-2 have quite impressive CP, and dosen't need to be so angeled as older estern ERA.
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,020
Country flag
Hope I don't derail this thread.

How long is the life of a MBT? Consider the option that engines and transmissions can be replaced.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
Hope I don't derail this thread.

How long is the life of a MBT? Consider the option that engines and transmissions can be replaced.
Well it's between 30 and 40 years, even without replaced PP. Usally tanks have long-life.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top