Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[buttler]

It was not a scandal.

Our military was performing ballistic tests of PT-91 armor against DM33A1, however in Europe there are not many proving grounds big enough to safely fire combat ammunition (belive me, APFSDS long rods can fly very far and it is dangerous to fire combat ammunition on proving grounds, especially smaller ones). So to simulate firing from specific distance, specialists from Bumar, taken some rounds and reduced propelant charge quantity in case, so round fired for example from 600m, will simulate target hit by projectile fired from 1600m.

Hope that this explains.

Damian，pls give me some polish thread regarding this issue.thanx.

 

[Damian]

Ohhh, I think You should wait a bit, I ask Militarysta, maybe he will know more, and have some links saved somewhere.

But I have something interesting, it seems that only tank developed in Russia or Ukraine that have modern modular and universal dynamic protection, protecting hull sides is Ukrainian BM Oplot. Other vehicles have rather simple additional protection plates made from steel and some sort of polymer between.

BMPT "Ramka" (Object 199) and T-90MS "Tagil" (Object 188M), both have front hull and turret protected by modern, modular and universal dynamic protection, 4S23 Relikt. In T-90MS turret sides are also protected by dynamic protection, most probably the 4S24. But look at hull sides on both vehicles, looks like two very thin stee plates with one, two or more layers of some sort of polymer. It is definetly not dynamic protection. Does this mean that hull sides protection is not better than in other MBT's without any additional protection placed on hull sides?

At this photo we have BMD-4M with additional protection, we can see that structure of that protection is similiar to that on vehicles shown above.

So this means that these vehicles are not better protected over hull sides than vehicles below?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Can anyone make out what Round is this ?

 

[Damian]

US X-Rod, TERM or XM1111 MRM-KE, a variant of XM1111 MRM-CE, but instead of HEAT warhead there was a long rod depleted uranium penetrator.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That was Quick..

Sounds nasty though..

 

[Damian]

Yes, all of them are effects of very long R&D program to develop BLOS guided munitions. However in the final, depleted uranium long rod penetrator variant was left behind, it was seen that HEAT warhead is far more universal (it can be used to destroy not only armored vehicles) and with top attack mode can defeat any vehicle.

Other type of ATGM with kinetic energy penetrator was LOSAT, it was very big ATGM with long rod made from depleted uranium instead of HEAT warhead.

LOSAT was designed as a weapon that was capable to defeat such vehicles like Object 477 Molot/Boxer or Object 195, however it was LOS guided weapon and never was fielded, only very small quantity of them builded, I think launchers were placed on HMMWV.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Was the Shillelagh the first missile fired from a gun?

MGM-51 Shillelagh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ford MGM-51 Shillelagh was an American anti-tank guided missile designed to be launched from a conventional gun (cannon). It was originally intended to be the medium-range portion of a short, medium, long-range system for armored fighting vehicles in the 1960s and '70s to defeat future armor without an excessively large gun. Developing a system that could fire both shells and missiles reliably proved complex and largely unworkable. It served most notably as a primary weapon of the M551 Sheridan light tank, but the missile system was not issued to units serving in Vietnam. Ultimately very few of the 88,000 rounds produced were ever fired in combat.

 

[Damian]

One of the first, Soviets also had some developments right then.

9M112 for example that was used in T-64B and T-80B tanks, there were also other gun launched ATGM's, for example ones codenamed "Rubin" and "Bur" for Object 775 prototype tank.

 

[Damian]

This might be interesting for You all.

PzF-3 tandem HEAT warhead (dunno if T or T600 variant), hit angle 30 degrees, target is protected by ERAWA-2.

Same is angle of inclination of ERAWA-2 on PT-91.

And what designer of ERAWA says about tests. It seems that tests were very successfull, look at hit angle when ERAWA-2 was tested against T600 improved warhead... 15 degrees! Also what is far more important, tests were not staged by our armor designers but by Dynamit Nobel, manufacturer of PzF-3, and hit angles were clearly giving and edge for PzF-3 warheads.

 

[militarysta]

About polish APC (in fact IFV) Rosomak (Wolverine) frontal hull armour:



Armour pannel was tested agianst PG-7W (330-420mm RHA penetration) and 14,5mm.
The pictures show:
1. (top left) - tested armour pannel
2. (top right) - PG7W with degree like after shoot from ground level
3. (bottom left) - the same
4. (bottom right) - after PG-7W detonation. No perforation armour pannel. After that (2x PG-7W) armour was raised to 90. (or 0.) and
shot by 14,mm - in this case there wasn't perforation too.

 

[methos]

See also here (TankNet).
For surviving a 14.5 mm AP round at 1,000 m at least 25 mm RHA (or equivalent material) are required, for surviving a 14.5 mm AP round point blank 38 mm RHA (or equivalent material) are required. SInce it also survived 14.5 mm AP at 0°, the Rosomak will have a RHAe more than 50 - 76 mm. This means that the frontal armour might be stronger than that of a M2A2 Bradley (25.4 mm aluminium + ~25.4 steel at 60° glacis, 25.4 mm aluminium + 31.75 mm steel at 0°).

Boxer also claims to survive 14.5 mm AP at 0° and 60° (i.e. armour with and without slope).

 

[militarysta]

See also here (TankNet).
For surviving a 14.5 mm AP round at 1,000 m at least 25 mm RHA (or equivalent material) are required, for surviving a 14.5 mm AP round point blank 38 mm RHA (or equivalent material) are required. SInce it also survived 14.5 mm AP at 0°, the Rosomak will have a RHAe more than 50 - 76 mm. This means that the frontal armour might be stronger than that of a M2A2 Bradley (25.4 mm aluminium + ~25.4 steel at 60° glacis, 25.4 mm aluminium + 31.75 mm steel at 0°).

Boxer also claims to survive 14.5 mm AP at 0° and 60° (i.e. armour with and without slope).

Hi,

1. This on TankNet about Rosomak have serious mistake - this turret photo whit "outlet hole" in turret shows not effect hit by RPG but "only" f-f from other "KTO Rosomak". It was hit by 30mm ATK Mk 44 Buschmaster II by APFSDS (not MP-T). Turret in hit AMV was rotated at 90. when next "Rosomak" accidentally fired - 30mm pierced through turret, but improbable luck - only gunner was lighty (very lighty) wounded.
Better pictures:
.

2. Well the Rosomak is armored not as perfect as Boxer.
Basic polish AMV "Rosomak" have STANAG 4569 level IV for +/- 60. for front hull and turret (14,5mm AP), and for rest of APC/IFV level III (7,62mm AP/WC core ).
Afgan Rosomak have improved armour to STANAG 4569 level IV for whole (around) APC/IFV, and this anti-RPG protection.
Frontal modular armour can withstand PG-7W granade ad this angle of incidence as in the photograph - tested in poland PG-7W granade have about 330-420mm RHA penetration and they are far far better then this Chineese and Pakistan's clones spoted and taken in Afganistan. This what Pakistan an Chineese factory produce can achive only ~300mm for PG-7W. Poor quality and it's next lucky thing for our troops in A-stan.
This frontal modular amrour (and armour between double sides of the vehicle hull) weight 3500kg, apart this they are on "afgan" "Rosomak" anti-rpg pannels RPGnet produced by Qinetiq - one big pannel (for one wole side APC) weight ~500kg, whole RPGnet for Rosomak weight about 1000-1100kg. What is interesting:
-normal cage armor can stopp about 40-50% RPGs granade
-cage armor made by WITU is lighter and can stop about 60-65% RPGs granade
- LASSO, made by RUAG has similar capabilities
But only this funny RPGnet can stopp more ten 65% granade including newer grenades - PG-7VL PG-7VR, etc and its lighter then LASSO -so it was choosen for "Afgan Rosomak" (Rosomak-M1M in polish nomenclature).

 

[Damian]

Meanwhile delegation from Thailand, visited Ukraine to see BM "Oplot" capabilities.

 

[methos]

1. This on TankNet about Rosomak have serious mistake - this turret photo whit "outlet hole" in turret shows not effect hit by RPG but "only" f-f from other "KTO Rosomak". It was hit by 30mm ATK Mk 44 Buschmaster II by APFSDS (not MP-T). Turret in hit AMV was rotated at 90. when next "Rosomak" accidentally fired - 30mm pierced through turret, but improbable luck - only gunner was lighty (very lighty) wounded.

The people on TankNet have some points speaking for their assumptions - the damage profile is not that of an APFSDS (regardless of medium or large caliber) - APFSDS penetrations leave just a small hole with "marks" done by the fins in homogenous steel and in most types of composite armour, since the normally got a cover plate made of a metal (steel, aluminium) or some type of plastic) even when the impact angle is only 60° or 70°. We don't see a small hole, but a rather large crater. The outer metal layer seems to have been hit by a shockwave which came from the point of hit - an APFSDS does only cause shockwaves in NERA (by compressing material) and ERA (by triggering the explosive). I don't see anything speaking for NERA here, so I would assume the use of a round/projectile containing HE.
Second point is the way the armour looks. There are three circles formed by penetration of smaller fragments which have their center near the impact place of the round... this does not happen due to APFSDS - but it is typical for EFP or projectiles with fragments (HE-FRAG, ABM and to some extend also RPG).
The third point is the multi-hit capability. How large is this crater? 20 cm in diameter? - too much for a KE round. For STANAG 4569 Level III/IV (KE protection 7.62 mm AP with WC core/14.5 mm AP) hits are sometimes only 25 mm away.

 

[Damian]

This might be exit hole. Think about it.

But as far as I know indeed, some well informed guys were talking about F-F incident.

 

[militarysta]

I made a mistake:

anti-rpg pannels RPGnet produced by Qinetiq - one big pannel (for one wole side APC) weight ~500kg, whole RPGnet for Rosomak weight about 1000-1100kg.

Mistake.
Whole RPGNet for "Rosomak" weight 320-500kg

 

[Damian]

I found interesting photos of M1A2SEP v2, there are many interesting details not seen on less detailed photos.

Below photos of vehicle rear, take a carefull look on right rear light.

 

[Damian]

You can see that under light is placed small rear view camera for driver-mechanic... but knowing Americans and their obsession about situational awareness probably also tank commander can look through this camera by his CITV display panel.

Another interesting detail, side turret surfaces are already prepared for mounting frames for which M32 dynamic protection cassettes are mounted.

I think it is safe to conclude that Americans currently very seriously treat dynamic protection as light yet extremely effective way to protect sides of vehicle and they can in future expand placement of dynamic protection on front and vehicle top.

More cooperation with NII Stali?

PS. I actually noticed it later after writing this post, M1A2SEP v2 have actually not one but two rear cameras, both mounted under rear lights.

 

[Damian]

More photos.

 

[Damian]