Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[asianobserve]

Yeah, it's cute. Seriously, that infantry compartment design is impractical. The should have considered some of the following designs...

 

[pmaitra]

Ah, AsianObserve, you are trying to impress someone who isn't too happy with your support for 'anti-Israel' Obama - right? Confess? Confess?

Well, it is doctrinal. The Israelis have had crew survival at the top of their priorities, so that kind of escape system. Not a bad idea, I agree.

 

[asianobserve]

Ah, AsianObserve, you are trying to impress someone who isn't too happy with your support for 'anti-Israel' Obama - right?

Politics and the quality of military products should not be confused. Israel's defence industries are some of the best in the World and I particularly like their heavily armored MBTs and personnel carrier.

 

[Damian]

Tank as a weapon system appears to be breathing its last from the world scene. Only India, Pakistan and China are interested ... vestiges and relics to be put on firing ranges for target practices.

It is complete BS from a person that do not know anything about tanks and their development programs and development cycles. The same pause in the west was from 1960's to 1980's, nothing really new was developed in NATO untill Soviets back then created first T-64 and it was a catalyst to kick R&D programs forward.

May I remind You that Russians are currently working on "Armata" heavy combat platform that will be used for new MBT, while US is working on both GCV that might be a basis for other vehicles than IFV only, and they are working on further modernization of M1 Abrams.

How many times smart asses were saying that tanks is dead?

Iraq could have been overrun even without tanks. The fact is there was nothing against the tanks in the towns of Iraq otherwise tank is a sitting duck in towns. Germans with tanks miserably failed in Stalingrad and Berlin.

Secondly, tanks could not sustain and needed modifications in the form of Strykers which primarily is rejection of tank warfare.

You seems to not knowing anything about US Army armor programs! And US Armys use of tanks.

No Iraq would not been overrun without tanks, in fact nor air forces, nor other lighter armored vehicles were as usefull as tanks. I even remember when not air forces, not helicopters or even light armored vehicles, but US Army M1 tanks saved asses of Polish soldiers during battle for cityhall when US tanks pinned down Iraqi insurgents giving Polish soldiers so much needed help.

Many other examples when tanks were usefull, I suggest You to read some war memoirs. For example there was an incident when insurgents destroyed fuel station and killed many civilians, they were angry, they wanted to even attack US Army medic teams trying to help wounded, and that mob was ready to attack untill several M1's come to the scene to provide support, then mob having respect to tank, withdraw.

Not to mention that Stryker is called IAV or Interim Armored Vehicle, it is interim solution, because it is planned that in the long term, Strykers will be replaced in most Brigades by heavy GCV IFV, something that will definetly be tracked, and not light.

What is even more funny is that Stryker is also gainign weight and armor, newest Stryker DVH with it's 20+ tons weight, is not even C-130 transportable as initial Stryker variants, and who knows how heavy it can be in the future with more armor upgrades.

M1 was used as it existed not that it was required. M1A1 somehow tried to prove its need was ultimate consigned to dust bin.

Is not it !!

Wrong once again. Both M1A1 and M1A2 prooved their usefullness, while the lightly armored, 20 tons wunderwaffe, the universal combat platform MGV from FCS program, was seen as a tin can deathtrap and MGV and as a whole FCS program, was incredibly expensive, it was seen as a waste of money.

Because why to spend money on to something that was designed per demands from 1990's and early 2000's, and was nothing else as a wet dream of some fantasy guys.

What we actually see is a slow back to the idea of heavy armored AFV's, like MBT's, heavy APC's and IFV's. Look at the tendency, we are not seeing specially new tanks right now, because currently used ones are still good enough, there is still no catalyst to make a new generation of MBT's, but IFV's programs have a priority, we see German SPz Puma, that is allready impressive with it's 40+ tons weight and armor, but US Army want a 50+ tons GCV, and Russians with "Armata" platform also want vehicles 50+ tons heavy, this is a tank weight right now. So please, spare us Your fantasy.

As for rest of You guys. BMT-72 was only experiment, there was also one more design, similiar developed on T-84 Oplot hull. I don't remember designation though.

 

[Drsomnath999]

@ Damian

which is the most vulnerable part /weakest side of armor in a turret of any tank??
Is it the top side of the turret ???

 

[Damian]

@ Damian

which is the most vulnerable part /weakest side of armor in a turret of any tank??
Is it the top side of the turret ???

Depends on design, there are so many designs that You should ask about tanks that interest You. So because such variety, I'am unable to respond in simple way. In one design it will be the whole turret side armor, in the other only bustle, in the third one no weak zones, and in the forth it can be more exposed turret ring area.

 

[methos]

which is the most vulnerable part /weakest side of armor in a turret of any tank??
Is it the top side of the turret ???

Depends on the turret and your weapon. Some tanks (Leopard 2E, Strv 122, Merkava IV etc.) have heavy armour on top of the turret or ERA tiles (T-90s, T-84s, etc.) to protect against bomblets and top-attack missiles. Other tanks have onl 5 - 7 cm thick roof armour (basic Leopard 2, Arjun, M1A2, etc.). Without bomblets and top-attack weapons hitting the turret roof is impossible in most scenarios.

On modern NATO tanks turret side is covered by composite armour, which also should be enough to deal with the average RPG and weaker ATGMs (but I beat a modern Milan-2 could penetrate most/all of them at 0° impact angle). On Soviet/Russian turrets (inlcuding T-90S) the rear half of the turret is only a 7 - 8 cm thick steel plate sloped back at 30° (meaning 14 - 16 cm armour) - this should be penetratable by any RPG. Indian Arjun, South-Korean K2, Chinese and Pakistani tanks have similar weak side armour, but put external storage bins and sometimes ERA at the sides - which should help against the oldest RPGs (but not as much as composite armour helps).

The turret rear is always the weakest spot, but at this place there are huge storage containes which have to be penetrated (and isolated ammunition comparments on some tanks).

 

[Damian]

Yup, Methos is right.

However Methos, I can agree that some tanks with turret roof reinforced, might survive a hit from bomblet, even older RPG, I doubt that this protection will be enought against modern dedicated top attack amunition like Spike or Javelin.

 

[Drsomnath999]

well which side of turret would be easy for sensor fuze weapon's Skeet warhead to penetrate .
Is it top side of the turret ????

 

[Damian]

And this "Skeet" is what type of weapon? RPG? ATGM? ATGM with top attack? Artillery bomblet?

Besides this it depends on penetration level of weapon, and protection level offered by armor. It is not that simple to answer without knowing whole data.

 

[Drsomnath999]

And this "Skeet" is what type of weapon? RPG? ATGM? ATGM with top attack? Artillery bomblet?

well i am talking about CBU 105 SFW weapon,

When the combination of height contours and heat signatures indicative of a target are detected, the Skeet detonates, firing an explosively formed penetrator (EFP) into the target vehicle at high speed, enabling it to penetrate armor plating and destroy what is underneath the armor plating. Note that SFW disables targets using the kinetic energy of the EFP, not the blast of an explosive charge.

Besides this it depends on penetration level of weapon, and protection level offered by armor. It is not that simple to answer without knowing whole data.

well i mean which is the most prone side of attack by those skeet warhead ,???

 

[Damian]

Ahh, so this is a bomb with bomblets, then it is designed to attack turret top armor, or overall vehicle top armor, including turret roof or engine deck.

 

[methos]

It depends on the exact round. There are actually two different types of top-attack ATGM.
The Austrian army for example has BILL ATGMs, which work in an "overfly" mode, i.e. the missile flies above the target and when it is located above the roof the warhead will detonate. Taking a look at a cut-through missile we can see three things:
1.) The warhead has a diameter significantly smaller than the missile's diameter (maybe 90-100 mm)
2.) The warhead is not pointing directly down, but at an estimated 30° angle
3.) There is no (at least I haven't seen any) way how the missiles finds the optimum fusing distance

So in the end the missile's warhead is rather weak, it has been claimed by the Austrian Bundesheer to penetrate 60+ cm of RHA.

The roof add-on armour of the Strv 122 etc. is at least 20 cm thick (imo closer to 25 cm) plus 7 cm normal turret roof armour. At the impact angle of BILL this will be more than 54 cm LOS, so if the composite armour is 1.2 times more efficient than RHA it can not be penetrated by BILL (even using the IMO too low value of 20 cm: 40 x 1.2 = 48 + 14).

The TOW variants with top-attack mode use an EFP warhead - the German SMArt 155 EFP warhead penetrates only 100 - 120 mm RHA - the TOW warhead will have less standoff distance while detonating, but it will also have a smaller warhead. It very likely cannot pierce through the reinforced roof armour of the Strv 122 or Merkava IV.

The other type of top-attack ATGMs is the "lofted" mode, i.e. the missile uses it's direct attack mode but with a lofted trajectory so that it will hit the roof. Javelin, Spike etc. use this mode. While the warhead size is not reduced by this mode, we need to take a look at pictures of it being used... the impact angle is very shallow, which means that again actual armour thickness will increase - I don't know the exact angles, but it could be very similar to the angle of BILL's warhead. Spike-LR has 700 mm penetration into RHA, Javelin something similar (both have about the same diameter).

If the roof armour performs significantly better than RHA (1.5 - 2.0 times the protection against CE) then it should be judged as impenetratable for most top-attack missiles. PARS-LR might be a problem, since it got a significantly stronger warhead.

 

[Drsomnath999]

Ahh, so this is a bomb with bomblets, then it is designed to attack turret top armor, or overall vehicle top armor, including turret roof or engine deck.

U missed 1 more thing sir

i.e Cupola - Additional small "turret" on top of superstructure/tank turret, usually reserved for commander, providing him with 360° vision. However the downside is that cupolas usually present a rather vulnerable target and their damage means incapacitation of the vehicle's commander.

 

[methos]

well which side of turret would be easy for sensor fuze weapon's Skeet warhead to penetrate .
Is it top side of the turret ????

That depends on the tank... which tank do you want to penetrate?

 

[Damian]

U missed 1 more thing sir

i.e Cupola - Additional small "turret" on top of superstructure/tank turret, usually reserved for commander, providing him with 360° vision. However the downside is that cupolas usually present a rather vulnerable target and their damage means incapacitation of the vehicle's commander.

It depends on cupola design and hatch design. For example in M1 series, cupola have rather thick hatch, and in M1A2 new hatch is actually a partially spaced armor, it means there is a hatch and welded to it as some distance additiona armor plate. In Merkava Mk4 or improved Leopard 2 tanks, like Strv122 hatch is made from thick composite armor, it is so thick and heavy that it can be only opened by using electric system or handcranck.

 

[Drsomnath999]

That depends on the tank... which tank do you want to penetrate?

but do u think that small size warhead would be as effective as other types of warhead

 

[methos]

but do u think that small size warhead would be as effective as other types of warhead

On shaped charge warheads the size is determining the destructive power. The large the warhead (or the heavier), the more armour can it penetrate. This is why modern the size of RPGs and missiles increased from 60 mm (Bazooka during WW2) to 159 mm (PARS 3 LR ATGM). Small sized shaped charge warheads are still capable to penetrate some of the weak spots of a tank, but if these weak spots exist and how weak they are differs from tank to tank.

 

[pmaitra]

but do u think that small size warhead would be as effective as other types of warhead

Methos is right. Do have a look at some diagrams posted by Damian and a video that I had posted long time back. Shaped charge is very effective.

Also, there are munitions, where, you actually have a jet of super-heated molten copper than can drive a hole through several inches of steel.

Difficult to believe, I know, but true.

 

[niharjhatn]

Yup, Methos is right.

However Methos, I can agree that some tanks with turret roof reinforced, might survive a hit from bomblet, even older RPG, I doubt that this protection will be enought against modern dedicated top attack amunition like Spike or Javelin.

The real guts behind the AP properties javelin rocket, apart from the top-down and fire and forget is its ability to get past reactive armour... and the huge limitations of explosive reactive armour are greatly exposed by these two charged explosives.

Electric/ultrasonic reactive armour is probably the way to go in the future.