Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[p2prada]

I really don't understand why You don't admitt that what we see on the photo is thin sheet metal?

He is a patriot, that's why.

 

[Damian]

He is a patriot, that's why.

I'am also a patriot, and I also criticize our own developments or say truth about them. Being patriot does not mean that we need to defend everything that is made in our countries.

 

[militarysta]

Rather @Kunal Biswas have right - as I said this first panel over the track is mobile and "light" -it's clearly visible on photos, but next one are havy - and yes this 14 + 8 are possible.

BTW: Ajrun hull is quite well protected. Really well. Mucht better then in Ob.188A1 (T-90A) and erlier russians tanks.

 

[Damian]

Rather @Kunal Biswas have right - as I said this first panel over the track is mobile and "light" -it's clearly visible on photos, but next one are havy - and yes this 14 + 8 are possible.

Khem, khem, RHA plates or even composite panels don't deform that way as it is visible on photos...

In India, a person who can criticize DRDO products is not a patriot.

You western fellows have some strange values.

1) Without critical point of view, further development and improvement is immposible, only stagnation.

2) Hey, we are considered by some as barbarians, aren't we?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The difference between plate of 2cm and 8cm is greater, I am not mistaking..

The plate looks like that only..

 

[Damian]

Kunal sir has seen the tank personally and thoroughly and would have even chatted with the DRDO chaps at the expo, hence it would be very difficult to believe the flaw in the tank as pointed out....

Oh gosh... what flaw!? Nobody is actually talking here about any flaw, in fact there is not any single flaw in that matter.

The difference between plate of 2cm and 8cm is greater, I am not mistaking..

Nobody says it does not have 80mm instead of 20mm, the question is do You know if that plate that I makred blue is solid armor or thin sheet metal, did You examined that part from bottom, did You get to the ground level to actually see how it looks from the bottom?

I highly suspect not... I suspect that from all people only I'am insane enought to get under a tank on display to see if it have hull belly evacuation hatch or not... if You get the point?

p2p, DRDO probably deserves a lot of criticism. But they are not financed well enough to do anything more than what they have achieved. The only way to do more would have been to use the chinese approach of copying soviet era tech. that is neither beneficial nor ethical.

There is another way. Make DRDO private owned and the goverment with army should make open contest for weapon makers so they can compete and the best design will be choose by army.

This is one of the many beautifull wonders of real capitalism.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Nobody says it does not have 80mm instead of 20mm,

I highly suspect not...

Why i said that matters, the matter is about is it thin plate or as i said a 7-8cm thick plate, Thinner Plate is lighter also on knocking ( Even by hand ) It feels different by the sound it makes, now both plates look same ( Outer & Inner ) same way they behave.. that is why i am saying its a 70-80mm plate..


Its closed from Bottom no opening from bottom, I haven't take pics there coz it had no importance for me back then..

 

[p2prada]

p2p, DRDO probably deserves a lot of criticism. But they are not financed well enough to do anything more than what they have achieved. The only way to do more would have been to use the chinese approach of copying soviet era tech. that is neither beneficial nor ethical.

Some departments have done better than others. Why?

Not because of money. But management.

Different departments cannot have the same leadership as the more successful departments.

Since the last decade, they have never been cash strapped. Even ADA said the govt has not held back funding and they received money whenever they asked for it. My friend pointed out the same thing. Time management is nonexistent. They have the money but it is like they don't know what to do with it within a given period of time. There are long term goals, but no short term goals like in private companies. So, what should have taken a week will take months.

Why do you think there are delays with FGFA even though money has been released? The reason is HAL is late with the cockpit designs. Comes back to Time.

Another reason why some departments have done well is because they don't have the long gestation period like tanks and aircraft. Radars have a gestation period of a year or two. So, a delay of another year does not affect as much as a decade or decade and a half gestation period for Arjun or LCA. All departments deliver late, including the most successful missile department.

We say money because we start comparing to other countries, but we forget that costs here are 4 to 5 times lesser. We are the best when it comes to frugal designs, but frugal does not mean best.

Let's not take this discussion any further because we are derailing the entire thread. Take this as something to think about.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There is another way. Make DRDO private owned and the goverment with army should make open contest for weapon makers so they can compete and the best design will be choose by army.

This is one of the many beautifull wonders of real capitalism.

In India BEML showing lots of wonders with help of middleman and arms dealers what not..

 

[p2prada]

In India BEML showing lots of wonders with help of middleman and arms dealers what not..

I was actually surprised it was BEML. I was quite sure it was some domestic private company or foreign when news first started trickling in.

If BEML can stoop to corruption, what makes you think DRDO cannot?

BEML has opened up a Pandora's box. We need to wait and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

UPA 2 has been the era of scams.

 

[militarysta]

@Damian

It is a mather of fighting for truth, to end this foolness with Germans making good or best AFV's myth.

Well, I would like to say that You are the biggets "myth-maker" about German armour and Leopard-2. For at least 3 years You post on many forums many thinghs about Leopard-2. Most of them are posted without knowledge about germans tanks. You haven't acess to tank instructions, you don't see the normal leopard-2 in store, you haven't tank-crew's friends who can explain why this or that solutios was placed in that shape in real tank. Sorry Damian but many of Your allegations against Leopards-2 are exaggerated:
1. Hull ammo store in leo-2 is in the best place when we consider hull ammo store case -the same in Ajrun, Leclerc and K2. It's on the best place - which I proved by posting draw whit angels and amo sotores in Leo2, T-72 and Merkava...
2. Placed EMES-15 whit spot for opticall channel was conscious and thoughtful choice - fot that reson in erly 80. was possible to achive the best WBG-x performances. And FCS operating safety and reliability. Without simplifying the optical channel would not be possible - like in M1 when TIS have only 1200m identyfication (not detection!) range.
3. Leopard-2 hull protection is not far inferior then M1 - for hull sides it's amost the same, frontal LOS protection is slighty worse (~50mm LOS).
4. FCS in erly Leopard-2A0-A4 was superior to the M1 - expecially for the PERI reson. If you don't belive me, Methos, or Paweł Przeździecki, try to translate russian article: ИСПЫТАНИЯ ЗАПАДНОГЕРМАНСКОГО ДНЕВНОГО КОМАНДИРСКОГО ПАНОРАМИЧЕСКОГО ПРИБОРА-ПРИЦЕЛА
5. LOS front turret in Leo2 was generally biger then in M1. Only except was place behind EMES-15 "watch-box" when was "only" 650mm RHA
You completly ignore the fact that in turret Leo-2 all "flammable" fctors are separated from the crew - ammo, hydraulic pomp and tank, pressure pipes, and most of mechanisms of the elevation. In M1 only ammo is separated from the crew. And talking about fire resistant oil in tank hydraulic under pressure ~6bar is fairy tail becouse this oil is more then 80C. hot and it always is danger for the crew, and "difficult to ignite" does not mean "fire resistant".
6. You had wrote many times about Leo-2 "inferior armour" during trade for US Army. Methos wrote how it was be...
"german special armour was not send to the USA"
Sorry but You are not even try to be objective about Leopard-2 thema. If You want to became professional journalist You shoud restrain Your personnal sympathies and animosities about some type of the MBT's. It's my advice.
Second advice - some solution can have many apsects - not only for tank part, but for whole tank, tank industry or even country army. Always should find all of them.
I wrote this on based of old knowledge, whithout anger or smth. I think You have potential to became helly good military journalist so do not miss this by lack of objectivity, and anger in the discussion.

 

[LurkerBaba]

A dedicated thread on DRDO etc exists http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-drdo-other-indian-defence-organizations.html\

Edit: I moved some posts

 

[Damian]

Well, I would like to say that You are the biggets "myth-maker" about German armour and Leopard-2. For at least 3 years You post on many forums many thinghs about Leopard-2. Most of them are posted without knowledge about germans tanks. You haven't acess to tank instructions, you don't see the normal leopard-2 in store, you haven't tank-crew's friends who can explain why this or that solutios was placed in that shape in real tank. Sorry Damian but many of Your allegations against Leopards-2 are exaggerated:

1) You says that I have no knowledge about German tanks, in the same time You are making assumption about non German tanks also without that knowledge. Sorry I do not agree, I read too many books about their designs to prise them as some super vehicles.

2) And what would happen if I would see Leopard 2 standing next to me? You think that such things make impression on me?

3) Tank crews are for most time ignorant and don't know much about tanks technology and design solutions. You think that if some German or one of our guys from 10th Armored Cavalry Brigade will say "whatch this man, this is so cool, it's the best tank in the..." bla bla bla will make impression on me? I have my own ideals how tank should be designed, and definetly Germans don't fit in most criteria I see as important for tank design.

1. Hull ammo store in leo-2 is in the best place when we consider hull ammo store case -the same in Ajrun, Leclerc and K2. It's on the best place - which I proved by posting draw whit angels and amo sotores in Leo2, T-72 and Merkava...

Yeah, because Germans are so genius that they were not even thinking about completely isolate hull magazine from crew. This is example of short sighting not being smart. Contrary to them and most of German weapon systems fanboys I see crew lifes as important and I do not completely put faith in armor or that penetration there would never happen. If I would design something and I know that people will fight in this thing, I would place high emphasize to provide them survivability even if vehicle on it's own won't survive. I don't know, maybe this is because Germans like to pretend that they know something, but neither in WWII they care much about what will happen with crew if vehicle will be penetrated, neither later they had any real combat experience to know how important this factor is.

Let me put this straight, You can allways replace tank or repair it, but a well trained crew, where huge pile of money was spent on their training, to feed them, give them medical care, pay them etc. Is not that easy to replace, and experienced crew is even more precious.

So seriously I don't give ---- about what German designers were thinking is best, I would never want to get in to this pile of metal to fight enemy. Because it is one of many examples of disgusting lack of respect to people that fight inside these machines.

2. Placed EMES-15 whit spot for opticall channel was conscious and thoughtful choice - fot that reson in erly 80. was possible to achive the best WBG-x performances. And FCS operating safety and reliability. Without simplifying the optical channel would not be possible - like in M1 when TIS have only 1200m identyfication (not detection!) range.

And again You completely don't have idea what You are talking about. You think that optical channel lenght to the gunner ocular is a factor that determines quality of optics itself? Please Jarek without such crap... Optical channel don't have anything to the sight itself. In Leopard 2 main sight could have been placed in the same way as in M1. You think that todays much better M1A2SEP main sight than sight in any Leopard 2 variant also needs such long optical channel to the gunners ocular? No!

Leopard 2 turret design and main sight placement rather shows that designers were in a hurry and dind't pay much attention to such important issue like weak zones. There is no reason that we should say such design solution is good, no it isn't and should be avoided, allways.

Besides this from where You taken 1200 range of target identification? From NTW monography that is full of crap and mistakes?

4. FCS in erly Leopard-2A0-A4 was superior to the M1 - expecially for the PERI reson. If you don't belive me, Methos, or Paweł Przeździecki, try to translate russian article: ИСПЫТАНИЯ ЗАПАДНОГЕРМАНСКОГО ДНЕВНОГО КОМАНДИРСКОГО ПАНОРАМИЧЕСКОГО ПРИБОРА-ПРИЦЕЛА

You may belive so, I don't.

5. LOS front turret in Leo2 was generally biger then in M1. Only except was place behind EMES-15 "watch-box" when was "only" 650mm RHA

M1 was interim model, in the M1IP, M1A1 and M1A2 it is better protected. And the placement of EMES-15 is idiotic as I pointed out above.

You completly ignore the fact that in turret Leo-2 all "flammable" fctors are separated from the crew - ammo, hydraulic pomp and tank, pressure pipes, and most of mechanisms of the elevation. In M1 only ammo is separated from the crew. And talking about fire resistant oil in tank hydraulic under pressure ~6bar is fairy tail becouse this oil is more then 80C. hot and it always is danger for the crew, and "difficult to ignite" does not mean "fire resistant".

No, You completely ignore the fact that most of ammunition in Leopard 2 is not isolated from crew, and semi combustible ammunition cases means that ammunition is far more vurnable to cook off when in contact with any hot object, be it projectile, shaped charge jet or spall or fire. So more important to isolate from crew is ammunition than hydraulics that are farr less vurnable to fire. Did You ever heard even nws from iraq that crew was injured by hydraulic fluids? I not, so it means that it was also not ignored in M1 design, because Americans have direct data about this problem from Israelis that have such problems with M60 tanks.

You see, this is the problem, You accuse me that I don't know anything about German tanks, but in the same time we have here beutifull show of ignorance about Americans and the data they collected both from Israelis, and their own crews that contrary to Germans, were fighting the real wars.

6. You had wrote many times about Leo-2 "inferior armour" during trade for US Army. Methos wrote how it was be...
"german special armour was not send to the USA"

But if that armor was never sent to USA, we never know if it was inferior or not (if German sources don't lie).

Sorry but You are not even try to be objective about Leopard-2 thema. If You want to became professional journalist You shoud restrain Your personnal sympathies and animosities about some type of the MBT's. It's my advice.
Second advice - some solution can have many apsects - not only for tank part, but for whole tank, tank industry or even country army. Always should find all of them.
I wrote this on based of old knowledge, whithout anger or smth. I think You have potential to became helly good military journalist so do not miss this by lack of objectivity, and anger in the discussion.

I will not change my opinion about Leopard 2. It is another example how good idea was failed by Germans.

You know what, If I would be our Minister of Defence I would order scrapping Leopard 2's or solding them to some banana republic (I don't care what Germans would have to say about that) if any alternative in form of other better tank or indigenous design would appear.

The only good thing I see in Leopard 2 is fuel efficency of it's engine, nothing more.

I don't know like You Jarek, but I like to put myself in the tank crews place in battle, and think what might happen to them on that battlefield. So when I think, if I would be tank designer, how I can design vehicle that will help them accomplish the task or survive, I definetly would not repeat design scheme of Leopard 2.

This is my opinion, You might agree with it or not. And no offence ok? I just have different idea about how should tanks look like.

If You would read some of tankers memoirs, You would see how many things like ammunition isolation or other type of safe storing it is important.

Especially these days when tanks quantity in armies are smaller and their role change, this is one of many important factors.

 

[methos]

Damian, I think militarysta is right in that you have sometimes not an impartial view on things.

The way you write it seems that you can only see "good design decisions" and "flaws" - but there are more things. Every design decision is a compromise between serveral factors. E.g. the location of the EMES-15 has a few reasons. First of all it is not blocking the view of the PERI sight - alternatively they could have raised the PERI as done later, but the Leopard 2 was alreay exceeding the American height limit without raised PERI. The second reason for such a sight configuration is that it is considered to be better protected against secondary fire (i.e. HMG rounds, autocannons firing HE to "blind" the tank, mortar rounds, shrapnells from artillery) - the drawback of the sight configuration is however that the armour block size has to be reduced. For a qualitative jugdment (e.g. "this is a weak spot which can be penetrated by 120/125 mm ammunition") we need to take a look at the time. One thing about (semi-modular) composite armour is that the armour does not need to be the same at every place. It is possible (and also likely) that the designers used different armour for different places. The armour behind the PERI is still thicker than the glacis armour of the T-72A which was considered to be immune to 105 mm APFSDS from normal combat ranges for the next five years. What if the Germans decided to use something like 200 mm RHA + 250 mm GRP + 200 mm RHA? This would only weigh slightly more than the composite armour at the 840 mm thick part, but should offer similar KE protection (and also enough CE protection for the following 5 years). Unluckily we can't make such jugdments, but we know that the late Cold War ammunitions reached similar penetration capabilites in RHA than the armour is thick there -> it is very probable that at least this munition will penetrate the EMES armour.

Regarding the not-isolated hull ammunition it is nearly the same. It is a compromise. If the designers would have stored all ammunition in the turret they would have needed to increase side turret armour (else a single hit against thin RHA armour could take out a whole tank), this would have increased the turret weight drastically (which can also be seen in the M1). Since the Leopard 2 did have a projected weight limit for the turret (i.e. 17 metric tons) it would be impossible to reach the same amount of armour protection for the turret front, which would mean that the tank is easier to destroy. So the ammo has be stored in hull.
Now someone could argue that the rear hull is a good place, but there is the engine compartment... it is very long and there is not really any place left - so the tank would have need to be strechted. The streched hull would be longer than the M1 hull. A long tank is less maneuverable than a short tank, which would be another compromise, this time affecting the mobility.
Now the last possible question is: When the ammo is stored in the hull front, why not isolating it? In my opinion it is rather simple. Due to the heavy side skirts, which are stronger than the ones of the M1 (but shorter, another compromise!), the armour will have for +/- 30° allways have a very high thickness - probably more or less the same protection level. So to hit the ammunition, you would need to attack from behind ([angle greater 90° from the front] which means that you can kill the tank also) or you can penetrate the glacis armour (which means that you can kill the tank). If the round penetrating the armour is a KE round, then I am pretty confident that all crew members would be wounded or killed.

 

[Damian]

Damian, I think militarysta is right in that you have sometimes not an impartial view on things.

There is no such thing as absolute impartiality.

E.g. the location of the EMES-15 has a few reasons. First of all it is not blocking the view of the PERI sight - alternatively they could have raised the PERI as done later, but the Leopard 2 was alreay exceeding the American height limit without raised PERI.

So they were designing tank primary for Heer or US Army eh? Not to mention that I not specially belive in that height limit seeing that CWS M2HB heavy machine gun mount is higher than PERI.

The second reason for such a sight configuration is that it is considered to be better protected against secondary fire (i.e. HMG rounds, autocannons firing HE to "blind" the tank, mortar rounds, shrapnells from artillery) -

Yeah right, because they just can't use armored "doghouse" for main sight? It is another lame excuse from Germans.

And all the sudden heighteining (but not changing overall position) during KWS II program was not a problem?

the drawback of the sight configuration is however that the armour block size has to be reduced. For a qualitative jugdment (e.g. "this is a weak spot which can be penetrated by 120/125 mm ammunition") we need to take a look at the time. One thing about (semi-modular) composite armour is that the armour does not need to be the same at every place. It is possible (and also likely) that the designers used different armour for different places. The armour behind the PERI is still thicker than the glacis armour of the T-72A which was considered to be immune to 105 mm APFSDS from normal combat ranges for the next five years. What if the Germans decided to use something like 200 mm RHA + 250 mm GRP + 200 mm RHA? This would only weigh slightly more than the composite armour at the 840 mm thick part, but should offer similar KE protection (and also enough CE protection for the following 5 years). Unluckily we can't make such jugdments, but we know that the late Cold War ammunitions reached similar penetration capabilites in RHA than the armour is thick there -> it is very probable that at least this munition will penetrate the EMES armour.

But You forget that the problem is not with the armor itself (not only at least). Placing sight in such place forces to make a hole in armor for sights optical channel. So we have several problems with this.

Sight is vurnable to be damaged and disabled with any hit in this area. There is high probability that armor there will be penetrated (weak zone), it makes turret design unnececary complicated during manufacturing.

Sorry I don't buy it.

Regarding the not-isolated hull ammunition it is nearly the same. It is a compromise. If the designers would have stored all ammunition in the turret they would have needed to increase side turret armour (else a single hit against thin RHA armour could take out a whole tank), this would have increased the turret weight drastically (which can also be seen in the M1). Since the Leopard 2 did have a projected weight limit for the turret (i.e. 17 metric tons) it would be impossible to reach the same amount of armour protection for the turret front, which would mean that the tank is easier to destroy. So the ammo has be stored in hull.
Now someone could argue that the rear hull is a good place, but there is the engine compartment... it is very long and there is not really any place left - so the tank would have need to be strechted. The streched hull would be longer than the M1 hull. A long tank is less maneuverable than a short tank, which would be another compromise, this time affecting the mobility.

Turret bustle issue can be solved by not making it integral part of a tank. isolated bustle that is bolted to the turret bustle and can be replaced or even "jetisoned" from turret by disengagening attachement, this is how it was solved in Object 640, turret bustle with autoloader is there also not better protected than turret bustle of Leopard 2, in fact the whole idea was that bustle is just separated module that can be for example easy replaced like a magazine in assault rifle.

As You said this is the tradeoff, compromise. I rather preffer to sacrifice turret bustle than crew.

And there is third solution, more compact engine. Americans were able to design very compact and pwoerfull Diesel, XAP-1000 mounted in CATTB prototype where 140mm (!) rounds could be stored in hull ammunition magazine, isolated between turret and engine compartment. So it is possible.

Now the last possible question is: When the ammo is stored in the hull front, why not isolating it? In my opinion it is rather simple. Due to the heavy side skirts, which are stronger than the ones of the M1 (but shorter, another compromise!), the armour will have for +/- 30° allways have a very high thickness - probably more or less the same protection level. So to hit the ammunition, you would need to attack from behind ([angle greater 90° from the front] which means that you can kill the tank also) or you can penetrate the glacis armour (which means that you can kill the tank). If the round penetrating the armour is a KE round, then I am pretty confident that all crew members would be wounded or killed.

As above there were alternatives. And only a fool put his faith with pure armor protection. With pure 90 degrees hit angle or even less than 90 and more than 30 degrees hit would probably penetrate that armor.

What we know from recent conflicts is that:

Vehicle can survive armor perforation and be repairable.
Crew can survive vehicle armor perforation not matters HEAT or APFSDS (not all of them of course but even half of crew is a success).
Vehicle and crew will not survive if ammunition start to cook off, such cook off is allmost immposible to be extuinguished.
Fuel fire accidents are less violent and possible to be extuinguished.

So islating ammunition from crew is very important, everybody knows that. Look at Russians, they are taking the exactly same root as Americans, if possible complete isolations of ammunition from crew.

Damn and this will be funny now. Even our light, WPB Anders universal combat platform in light tank version with 120mm smoothbore gun, have better crew survivability (and remember that it is still technology demonstrator, not even prototype!) than most (allmost all besides M1?) MBT's out there, because whole ammunition is completely isolated from crew. It's good to know that our designers actually have this issue in mind.

If we look at most of the future tank projects, most of them also have isolated ammunition from crew compartment.

We should remember that numbers of tanks and tank crews during cold war in German Bundeswehre was allready incredibly small compared to Soviet Union or USA. These days tank numbers and trained crews (that are also proffesionals not conscripts) are even lower. So their survivability is even more important back then.

This is why I make such high opinions about M1 design that ended from medicore interim tank, to actually most long term sighted design that was done during the cold war.

I think that if new tanks won't be 4th generation with unmanned turrets, then their design scheme should be based around M1 design... unfortunetly for some completely irrational looking reasons, everybody is more or less copying Leopard 2 design scheme... seems that the myth of great German designs is still in good shape, hopefully not for long.

 

[methos]

Not to mention that I not specially belive in that height limit seeing that CWS M2HB heavy machine gun mount is higher than PERI.

Rolf Hilmes mentions in Kampfpanzer Entwicklungen der Nachkriegszeit that the official U.S. requirement for the height (to the turret roof) was a maximum height of only 2.41 m, the Leopard 2 roof is at 2.48 m. According to an older newspaper article their was also an height limit for the total height. U.S. also had limits for the width and the weight, coincidentally none for the length (which was the only part were the Leopard 2 was smaller).

Yeah right, because they just can't use armored "doghouse" for main sight? It is another lame excuse from Germans.

I don't think you understood that point. Armouring would not help much, especially not against HMG/autocannon salvos. It also would require a considerable amount of armour to protect the sight against splinters which then again would be senseless weight increase (because at this time the 65 cm armour were probably enough to deal with enemy fire).

And all the sudden heighteining (but not changing overall position) during KWS II program was not a problem?

It was planned to uparmour the PERI R17A2 sight to be immune against these secondary threats, but the Germans and Netherlands did not want to increase the weight level too much, so they did not field the armour for PERI, the hull applique or the roof armour; the Strv 122 and the "Leopard 2A6+" models (Leopardo 2E, Leopard 2A6HEL) are equipped with the applique armour.
The Germans plan to replace the PERI R17A2 with the more modern and better armoured PERI RTWL-B of the Puma.

But You forget that the problem is not with the armor itself (not only at least). Placing sight in such place forces to make a hole in armor for sights optical channel. So we have several problems with this.

First of all the optical channel is sloped downwards, to hit it you would need to have an impatc angle from 20 - 30° from the horizontal. Then the question remains if such a hit would be capable of really following this channel and not after hitting the EMES sight change the angle slightly and then hit the armour.
How probable is it that the sights channel gets hit? The probability is very, very small, if you think that the optical channel is a problem, then you also would need to mark the holes for the coaxial MGs as problem.

Turret bustle issue can be solved by not making it integral part of a tank. isolated bustle that is bolted to the turret bustle and can be replaced or even "jetisoned" from turret by disengagening attachement, this is how it was solved in Object 640, turret bustle with autoloader is there also not better protected than turret bustle of Leopard 2, in fact the whole idea was that bustle is just separated module that can be for example easy replaced like a magazine in assault rifle.

If the turret bustle is unprotected and all ammunition is stored in there, then a small BMP-1 or a single RPG gunner can make the tank useless in battle... how long can a tank without any main gun ammunition survive on the battlefield?

And there is third solution, more compact engine. Americans were able to design very compact and pwoerfull Diesel, XAP-1000 mounted in CATTB prototype where 140mm (!) rounds could be stored in hull ammunition magazine, isolated between turret and engine compartment. So it is possible.

Yes, today it is possible, but not in 1979. Today the Leopard 2 can also have an isolated ammunition comparment in the hull front.

Crew can survive vehicle armor perforation not matters HEAT or APFSDS (not all of them of course but even half of crew is a success).

There is a big difference in regards to splinter and spall in HEAT and APFSDS. To "kill" a tank completely with a HEAT round you need at least 100 mm more penetration power than the armour provides protection against (at least according to Rolf Hilmes and some Russian article). The HEAT jet will make a very small hole and all mass which will enter the vehicle will be the small HEAT jet. KE ammunition however weighs much more and creates a huge amount of spall, it throws very much of the vehicle armour in the crew comparment (especially when the armour is sloped). KE is more lethal against tanks.

Damn and this will be funny now. Even our light, WPB Anders universal combat platform in light tank version with 120mm smoothbore gun, have better crew survivability (and remember that it is still technology demonstrator, not even prototype!) than most (allmost all besides M1?) MBT's out there, because whole ammunition is completely isolated from crew. It's good to know that our designers actually have this issue in mind.

The only reason why the Leopard 2 is still out there is that the Soviets/Russians haven't fielded a new tank. Next generation tanks (PzKW 2000, NGP) all should have the crew located in an heavily armoured comparment with fully isolated ammunition and unmanned turret (I don't know if the PzKW 2000 also should have an unmanned turret, but it was canceled so fast that they didn't even finish the wanted configuration).

We should remember that numbers of tanks and tank crews during cold war in German Bundeswehre was allready incredibly small compared to Soviet Union or USA. These days tank numbers and trained crews (that are also proffesionals not conscripts) are even lower. So their survivability is even more important back then.

If anybody will attack the Germans we might see a Leopard 2 with "higher" crew survivability. Else, since the German government refuses to deploy tanks outside Europe (or with exception of the Balkans ourside Germany), there won't be any need for this.

 

[Damian]

Rolf Hilmes mentions in Kampfpanzer Entwicklungen der Nachkriegszeit that the official U.S. requirement for the height (to the turret roof) was a maximum height of only 2.41 m, the Leopard 2 roof is at 2.48 m. According to an older newspaper article their was also an height limit for the total height. U.S. also had limits for the width and the weight, coincidentally none for the length (which was the only part were the Leopard 2 was smaller).

But they had solution for vehicle height problems... hydrogas suspension with controlled variable height levels. Germans did not had such strict limitations for program funding as Americans, and both XM1 and Leopard 2 were tested with such suspension.

There is allways alternative and other solution.

I don't think you understood that point. Armouring would not help much, especially not against HMG/autocannon salvos. It also would require a considerable amount of armour to protect the sight against splinters which then again would be senseless weight increase (because at this time the 65 cm armour were probably enough to deal with enemy fire).

It seems that this is not that big problem for Americans, Israelis, South Koreans, Japanese, even Turkish because their Altay also have sight on turret roof. And in the end Leopard 2 main sight also ended on the roof, although they could change it's position to be behind armor not going through it.

It was planned to uparmour the PERI R17A2 sight to be immune against these secondary threats, but the Germans and Netherlands did not want to increase the weight level too much, so they did not field the armour for PERI, the hull applique or the roof armour; the Strv 122 and the "Leopard 2A6+" models (Leopardo 2E, Leopard 2A6HEL) are equipped with the applique armour.
The Germans plan to replace the PERI R17A2 with the more modern and better armoured PERI RTWL-B of the Puma.

How much more weight armor for PERI-R17A2 would add to the vehicles overall weight?

First of all the optical channel is sloped downwards, to hit it you would need to have an impatc angle from 20 - 30° from the horizontal. Then the question remains if such a hit would be capable of really following this channel and not after hitting the EMES sight change the angle slightly and then hit the armour.
How probable is it that the sights channel gets hit? The probability is very, very small, if you think that the optical channel is a problem, then you also would need to mark the holes for the coaxial MGs as problem.

I don't think it is sloped downwards.

I don't see any slope with sights optical channel.

It is a weakness in vehicles protection and overall design.

If the turret bustle is unprotected and all ammunition is stored in there, then a small BMP-1 or a single RPG gunner can make the tank useless in battle... how long can a tank without any main gun ammunition survive on the battlefield?

To ensire shaped charges protection for such bustle, it can be armored with relatively light yet effective ERA or heavy ERA.

As we can see everything is possible. Russians were not only capable to design turret bustle as a seperate replaceable module, but they also had ideas how to protect it without adding too much weight to it.

Yes, today it is possible, but not in 1979. Today the Leopard 2 can also have an isolated ammunition comparment in the hull front.

It was possible even back then. Engine could have been mounted transversly, Americans were for example experimenting at least on paper with transversly mounted AGT-1500C to make more space in hull rear. It was called TMEPS. I think that such designs would be succesfull if only someone would think about it earlier when whole vehicle was designed.

As for front hull magazine. It will be very problematic to made it isolated, looking at hull design normal rack should be replaced with rotating drum behind armored bulkhead with small ammunition port. However how much ammunition it would store then? In the rear more space could be aquired, and a chain type could be installed there. WIth the design similiar to Meggitt company compact autoloader even 34 or maybe more rounds could be stored there. Rack could be electrically or manually operated (in both cases).

There is a big difference in regards to splinter and spall in HEAT and APFSDS. To "kill" a tank completely with a HEAT round you need at least 100 mm more penetration power than the armour provides protection against (at least according to Rolf Hilmes and some Russian article). The HEAT jet will make a very small hole and all mass which will enter the vehicle will be the small HEAT jet. KE ammunition however weighs much more and creates a huge amount of spall, it throws very much of the vehicle armour in the crew comparment (especially when the armour is sloped). KE is more lethal against tanks.

Of course, I didn't say otherwise, only that crew can survive KE hit. Especially today when individual armor protection is also made for vehicles crew. I don't know how it looks in Germany but in USA during peace time and war time crews were not only nomex uniforms protecting them from fire, but also ballistic protection protecting from spall and small arms fire. CVC helmet was reported to be able to stop 7,62x39mm ammunition in Iraq, preatty impressive. SO they have a chance to survive, however nomex uniform won't save them when ammunition start to burning. We all know how violent is such fire.

The only reason why the Leopard 2 is still out there is that the Soviets/Russians haven't fielded a new tank. Next generation tanks (PzKW 2000, NGP) all should have the crew located in an heavily armoured comparment with fully isolated ammunition and unmanned turret (I don't know if the PzKW 2000 also should have an unmanned turret, but it was canceled so fast that they didn't even finish the wanted configuration).

We can allways talk about prototypes, Americans also have many impressive ones. However what is important is what we have now, and what we can have in future. And what should be avoided. As I said, Leopard 2 design scheme should be avoided.

If anybody will attack the Germans we might see a Leopard 2 with "higher" crew survivability. Else, since the German government refuses to deploy tanks outside Europe (or with exception of the Balkans ourside Germany), there won't be any need for this.

I don't care about German goverment politics. But there are many users of this tank, also my country have them, and we might deploy them somewhere. This is the problem, and these are also my motives, so the people will know the weakness of these tanks, and might think twice before saying "hey, we should deploy them somewhere, they are German tanks, so they are the best", and when shit happens all crew is dead because RPG-29 hit in ammunition rack in hull from the side.

And not everybody have up-armor kits for their tanks, or have money to buy them. Danish Leopard 2A5DK are driving with slat armors mostly (and mostly cages are damaged), Canadians only recently on Leopard 2A4M got solid up armor package, A6M's were driving with slat armor only.

They are lucky that there is no direct threat from modern RPG's and ATGM's... even USMC decided that they take only belly armor, safe seats and other minor elements of TUSK kits, without ARAT ERA tiles.

 

[methos]

How much more weight armor for PERI-R17A2 would add to the vehicles overall weight?

I don't know. However aim for the Leopard 2A5 was 60 t combat weight and the German/Dutch configuration weighs 59,7 t fully loaden. In the end some weight could have been saved at other places (for example the armour of the roadwheels is not really this necessary in a symmetric conflict).

I don't think it is sloped downwards.

In case of Leopard 2A5/2A6 it is sloped and afaik also in Leopard 2A4.

To ensire shaped charges protection for such bustle, it can be armored with relatively light yet effective ERA or heavy ERA.
[images]
As we can see everything is possible. Russians were not only capable to design turret bustle as a seperate replaceable module, but they also had ideas how to protect it without adding too much weight to it.

Yes, but then again this is not the technology level from the 1970s. If someone would today design a new Leopard 2 then the tank would look completely different in large parts. Armour would at least partial be modular, active protection systems would also be used, engine would be smaller but better (high density power engine), turret probably unmanned and with autoloader, more modern sights and 360° view for all crewmembers, the ammunition would be completely isolated and 140 mm gun would be used. Just like NGP.

I don't care about German goverment politics. But there are many users of this tank, also my country have them, and we might deploy them somewhere. This is the problem, and these are also my motives, so the people will know the weakness of these tanks, and might think twice before saying "hey, we should deploy them somewhere, they are German tanks, so they are the best", and when shit happens all crew is dead because RPG-29 hit in ammunition rack in hull from the side.

If the RPG-29 is capable of penetrating the armour and setting all rounds to fire. Insensitive propellant tests with 120 mm DM63 have shown that only the hit rounds will start to burn. And the fire extinguish system might be able to stop a fire of only 5 rounds (which is actually designed to extinguish more fire). Problematic is storing HE/HEAT ammunition there.
I have my doubts that RPG-29 will penetrate the heavy sideskirts and the base armour. The heavy side skirts seem to be made of special armour, at least the later ones. Since the "new" Leopard 2 hulls are used together with "old" turrets (the oldest turrets from the first batches were taken and then heavily reworked) to form the Leopard 2A5. The Polish army operates some "Leopard 2A4" which in fact are only Leopard 2A4 turrets on older hulls (i.e. the old hulls belonging to the turrets for Leopard 2A5). That a RPG designed a decade after the armour fitted to the hull (if it weren't upgraded, which is still possible) is nothing special.

 

[Damian]

I don't know. However aim for the Leopard 2A5 was 60 t combat weight and the German/Dutch configuration weighs 59,7 t fully loaden. In the end some weight could have been saved at other places (for example the armour of the roadwheels is not really this necessary in a symmetric conflict).

Either way, many thing s could have been done differently.

In case of Leopard 2A5/2A6 it is sloped and afaik also in Leopard 2A4.

IMHO it's not sloped, just camera angle make such impression.

Yes, but then again this is not the technology level from the 1970s. If someone would today design a new Leopard 2 then the tank would look completely different in large parts. Armour would at least partial be modular, active protection systems would also be used, engine would be smaller but better (high density power engine), turret probably unmanned and with autoloader, more modern sights and 360° view for all crewmembers, the ammunition would be completely isolated and 140 mm gun would be used. Just like NGP.

many design solutions were avaiable back then. Besides this even when Leopard 2 was fielded, it turret bustle protection level is small, any hit in that bustle will end with tank disabled from combat, not matters how much ammunition is there. Because or turret ammo rack will be destroyed, or FCS and turret drives elements will be destroyed. So the tradeoff is allready there.

If the RPG-29 is capable of penetrating the armour and setting all rounds to fire. Insensitive propellant tests with 120 mm DM63 have shown that only the hit rounds will start to burn. And the fire extinguish system might be able to stop a fire of only 5 rounds (which is actually designed to extinguish more fire). Problematic is storing HE/HEAT ammunition there.

Insensitive ammunition was only tested outside tank. In a tank this insensitivnes might be worth nothing. And I really not belive in effectiveness of such solution, mostly because shaped charge jet even after penetrating armor have enough power to penetrate several ammo nests in ammo rack, so not one round will start to burn but several of them, it is enough to kill crew and tank.

I have my doubts that RPG-29 will penetrate the heavy sideskirts and the base armour. The heavy side skirts seem to be made of special armour, at least the later ones. Since the "new" Leopard 2 hulls are used together with "old" turrets (the oldest turrets from the first batches were taken and then heavily reworked) to form the Leopard 2A5. The Polish army operates some "Leopard 2A4" which in fact are only Leopard 2A4 turrets on older hulls (i.e. the old hulls belonging to the turrets for Leopard 2A5). That a RPG designed a decade after the armour fitted to the hull (if it weren't upgraded, which is still possible) is nothing special.

Side skirts are too thin to protect against such threat. Heavy composite skirts like in up armor kits are needed, or modern ERA with anti tandem warheads capabilities.

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT): News & Discussion

Interesting video: