Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[methos]

I use different sources, UK for example or my own observations.

I do also, but there are not any Leopard 2 specific books in English literature. There are however some Spanish and some Dutch (which is at least partial understandable for a German-speaker).

Americans before they inducted M1, tested several hull and turret designs, Germans had this ability also, but they choose a very strange turret design. They were in a hurry.

Please tell me why the turret design is "strange"? It is not a unique German design and has been adopted by various other countries.
The "German design" in comparision to the M1 turret design has three differences - a larger mantlet, different sights placement and side armour which doesn't extend to the vehicle rear.
The German sight placement has also been used on the Chrysler XM1 prototype at an earlier stage of development, on the Arjun tank, the Merkava III tank, the Leclerc tank, the Lince prototype and the Vickers Mk.7 & Valiant. That's not the majority of all tanks, but still a considerable amount and a reason to doubt that this decission was made in a hurry and that it does not offer any advantages. The U.S. sight placement is pretty common, but a number of alternatives also exist. The Ariete and Challenger 1 have a hybrid solution - the sight is partial place above the turret and partial in the armour block. The Challenger 2 has the sights on the mantlet.
The armour behind the sight can theoretically be potent enough to protect all threats until a decade after the Leopard 2 was introduced.

The mantlet configuration is nothing Leopard 2 special, but it also can be found on other tanks like the Leclerc, the Arjun and the Type 90 etc. The weak zone generated by such a mantlet is not necessarily bigger than the weak zones of other tanks.

When it comes to the design of the side armor the M1 is the freak.

I also can't see why the Germans were in a hurry... their turret design was already made years prior the joint evaluation in the U.S. happened. The U.S. turret design is in my opinion not special... I mean, it is a very simple design, why should the Germans or other countries be to stupid to fit the sights in the same manner?

IMHO M1 is more perspective tank than Leopard 2 when it comes to classic design. Seriously, You would want to fight in a tank where there is huge ammunition rack that is unisolated? I would make a shit in my pants on real battlefield sitting in that thing and knowing that if something wrong will happen I will be like fried chicken.

You would be like a fried chicken, but all tanks except the M1 have unisolated ammunition.

Wrong! M1A2 when fielded in early 1990's recived sights stabilized in two-axis, in 1999 and in early XXI century both M1A2's (SEP upgrade) and M1A1's (SA and FEP upgrades) recived completely new FCS and sights with both two-axis stabilization and 2nd generation FLIR. Only prior 1990's M1 and M1A1 variants use one-axis stabilized sights.

You are right, I wanted to type "M1A1" and did a spelling error. How much sense would it make to specifically exclude the M1A1...

Yeah, and still they lost with "inferior" American tank.

Yes, but only a single time. You will see, even the Chieftain Mk.3 with one of the less sophisticated FCS was able to win the CAT shootings once. There should be some dependency from technological level and tank crew skill.

Hey remind me when I last time tried to completely eradicate some nation, not to mention that Germans and Poles are the same race... hmmm interesting argument, because I don't like German tank, I wan't to eradicate my own race... hmmm.

But this don't change a fact that Germans wanted last time to exterminate my own nation and several others + at the last time when Poland had it's independence day, some Germans come to my own country, to our capital and started to beat innocent civilians participating in our national holiday... then I ask who is still the rascist here and want to destroy other nation? Not to mention that these Germans called all Poles participating in our national holliday a fascists... I don't know like You but for this is sick.

We are talking here about tanks. That's what you should focus on. If you can't be impartial because of your own feelings/stereotypes, then please don't use this as part of your argumentation.

This invurnable tank was KV-1, T-34 was preatty much failed design, if not war, T-34 would have been preaty fast replaced by other designs with improvements.

At a time where the only German anti-tank gun was 3.7 cm caliber the failed T-34 was "invulnerable".

You know that I also have books, and in 1950's-1970's period I did not seen even single German tank crew member with such helmet? But I seen similiar helmets from 1960's period at least used by US Army tank crews.

No, they didn't wear them back then. However the helmets used by U.S. tank crews during the Cold War didn't protect against bullets and body armour was not used back then.

 

[Damian]

I do also, but there are not any Leopard 2 specific books in English literature. There are however some Spanish and some Dutch (which is at least partial understandable for a German-speaker).

Let's just agree that we have different point of view on tank design, how it should look like. And I just don't like Leopard 2 overal design. IMHO it could have been better.

Please tell me why the turret design is "strange"? It is not a unique German design and has been adopted by various other countries.
The "German design" in comparision to the M1 turret design has three differences - a larger mantlet, different sights placement and side armour which doesn't extend to the vehicle rear.
The German sight placement has also been used on the Chrysler XM1 prototype at an earlier stage of development, on the Arjun tank, the Merkava III tank, the Leclerc tank, the Lince prototype and the Vickers Mk.7 & Valiant. That's not the majority of all tanks, but still a considerable amount and a reason to doubt that this decission was made in a hurry and that it does not offer any advantages. The U.S. sight placement is pretty common, but a number of alternatives also exist. The Ariete and Challenger 1 have a hybrid solution - the sight is partial place above the turret and partial in the armour block. The Challenger 2 has the sights on the mantlet.
The armour behind the sight can theoretically be potent enough to protect all threats until a decade after the Leopard 2 was introduced.

The mantlet configuration is nothing Leopard 2 special, but it also can be found on other tanks like the Leclerc, the Arjun and the Type 90 etc. The weak zone generated by such a mantlet is not necessarily bigger than the weak zones of other tanks.

When it comes to the design of the side armor the M1 is the freak.

I also can't see why the Germans were in a hurry... their turret design was already made years prior the joint evaluation in the U.S. happened. The U.S. turret design is in my opinion not special... I mean, it is a very simple design, why should the Germans or other countries be to stupid to fit the sights in the same manner?

1) Turret design of Leopard 2 is strange because it completely ignores any attempts to eliminate any possible weak zone that is not nececary in vehicle design.

2) As You can see also Americans had similiar turret design on early stage of XM1 development as well as several other countries and what we can observe? XM1 recives completely new turret design. Afer initial tests and evaluation, this turret design with allready changed placement of main sight, is altered (any cast element is replaced with RHA element for example, turret roof is flatened). Work is performed to completely eliminate any unnececary weak zone.

When we compare first 3 variants of Merkava and latest Merkava Mk4 we can see, that Merkava Mk4 actually repeats turret sights placement scheme from M1. Intead of main sight placed in a way that in case of Merkava Mk3 for example, creates very dangerous weak zone, Merkava Mk4 have a sight going through turret roof, and from front and sides is completely hidden behind armor. Let's go further. Even if Japanese designers based Type 90 design mostly on Leopard 2, we can see that they placed main sight behind armor and through turret roof.

Even more extreme example, when You compare size of 1G46 sight and EMES-15 for example, You can see that the first one is much bigger, still yet Soviet designers were able to place it completely behind armor and through the roof.

3) As far as I can see, Ariete and Challenger 1 shares sight placement just like M1, completely behind armor. I do not know how it look in Ariete. But Challenger 1 due to fact it have cast turret structure, have very uncommon internal layout that can make conffusions that lead to You opinion.

Challenger 2 have day sight in turret behind armor, and thermal sight on turret mantle. A very uncommon, exotic even design, that have some advantages and disadvantages. It's FCS is preatty interesting when it comes to sights stabilization. Day sight is similiar to modern variants of M1 tank, stabilized on both axes + automaticly added lead after lazing a target. Thermal sight however is more similiar in behaviour to M1 and M1A1 from 1980's. It is completely not stabilized however and relies on gun and turret stabilization. So crosshair in it need to move when lead is added just like in single axis stabilized sight of 1980's variants of M1 tank.

4) Mantle configuration is not special. However in my opinion should be reduced in size, it is still a weak zone, no matter how much armor would You place there it will allways be less protected than rest of turret front. Designers should think in a long term perspective, You don't know when this particular design will be replaced, You don't know how long enemy will use inferior ammo, You don't know if You will be able to up armor this specific part without causing problems to servomechanisms for example. Think about that.

5) It is indeed uncommon for tank design that turret side armor is completely protected by composite arrays. However it have it's logic. When we know that within safe manouvering angles tanks turret of such geometry will have side armor exposed, it might be better idea to give it more armor. We should remember that Leopard 2 in turret bustle stores not only ammunition in turret bustle, but also FCS elements, and servomechanisms for turret traverse. Any hit in turret bustle or will ignite ammunition, or disables one of most important vehicles components.

Leopard 2 turret also makes many other problems. You can't really upgrade this tank to give it new capabilities. For example idea that I got after analizing two solutions. The automatic 10 rounds drums magazines in Merkava Mk4 bustle, and Meggitt Company compact autoloader. I deduced that M1 series can be upgraded in such a way, that wo turret magazines are replaced by Meggitt design, but without autoloader. You just put there that automated rack for 34 rounds, replace two sliding blast doors with a solid bulkhead, one near loader have small ammunition port and terminal for ammunition magazine control, and everyone can deduce it further. Hey and why not connect loaders control terminal with FCS so when he choose what round should be loaded, it also tell FCS what round will be fired. Less work for gunner, easier work for loader.

So You see, You can do this with M1's turret, but not really with Leopard 2 turret without completely redesigning it.

6) Of course that M1's turret design is not special and is simple. This is the advantage. You have more uniform frontal protection, You have greater capabilities to upgrade this turret. It is simpler to weld because there are no exotic internal constructions to place main sight in front armor cavity and similiar problems. You have a turret bustle that can be equipped with, let's call it "semi-autoloader".

Methos, please as a person that I greatly respect, think in a long term perspective, because there are not many knowns what will happen in future, how vehicle will spend it's "life". This is how vehicles should be designed, and I think that XM1 designers were the ones that place great emphasis on this probem also, they didn't had big funds to make super tank from scratch. Block upgrades program forced them to think ahead, how they can design a tank, that will be best suited for any upgrades. This is in my opinion they made better tank than Leopard 2, and this is why M1 will probably have longer life, due to it's incredible ability to be easy upgraded without any significant changes in overall design.

Think in a long term.

You would be like a fried chicken, but all tanks except the M1 have unisolated ammunition.

And this gives us something to think. If we know that numbers of tanks will go down, we know that trained and experienced crews are expensive and incredibly worth to preserve their life. You see, I think that in a long term, M1 ended as much better design. Of course I don't say it haven't it's deficensies when was fielded, it have, but they are or exxagarated, or are bringon without the context. But in the end when we come to classic tank designs, M1 evolve to superior design, in fact if only US Army could have better funding for it's tank program, to better upgrade M1, and there would be a visioner in designing team, that could see the potential... they could have incredible opportunity to create ultimate MBT in it's classic design, something interim between generation 3rd and generation 4th.

At a time where the only German anti-tank gun was 3.7 cm caliber the failed T-34 was "invulnerable".

For Germans it could have been invurnable, but for Soviets it was not that great design that we know today from their propaganda. For example after tests in USA when Soviets sends their tanks for US evaluation. Americans said that for them, cleaning air filters for T-34 engine are sabotage, not a design that should be inducted by armed forces, there were many more issues like transmission, some worker said that he knows some parts of these transmission blocks from old american designed tracktors.

No, they didn't wear them back then. However the helmets used by U.S. tank crews during the Cold War didn't protect against bullets and body armour was not used back then.

AFAIK body armor was issued later when it become obvious that it can further reduce losses. I know that there was some sort of dedicated body armor for crews but they quickly started to use IBA armor and later IOTV armor or some newer plate carriers. As for CVC I don't know if there were any changes in material used for it's ballistic protection, however it was reported that it can protect against 7,62x39mm rounds.

 

[methos]

When I try to think in a long term perspective, then I can't rate the M1 over the Leopard 2. In the end the early M1s and IPM1s are "wasted tanks" and not an example of long term planning. It was possible to design the M1 with a larger armour cavity as used on IPM1 and M1A1 - if the lower level of protection of the M1 was really neccessary, then they could simply filled the armour cavity only partial (which was possible since pre-1974). The M1 and IPM1 were also not designed in such a manner that they could be upgunned, which is again no example of long term planning. In the end the M1A2 is the first good tank of the M1 series, all previous examples have been intentionally made less sophisticated/potent as was possible at the time.
A "block" design is a good idea, I would expect the basic design to be adaptable in such a way, that even the oldest tanks can be used for the latest configurations - something that was thinkable at this time already (the Germans already wanted a modular vehicle chassis in Boxer-manner during the HS 30 development). The Germans did not manage to do so neither, but they did not deliberatly design a tank inferior to what was possible at the time.

In the end we cannot say that one or the other decision was wrong, because the Cold War never became "hot" and so it was never proven which was the better way of making a tank. But if the Cold War would have gotten "hot" after the Leopard 2 and the M1 were introduced in service, then it would have been in 1983 during Operation Able Archer - at this time the Leopard 2 was the only tank in NATO service which could effectively deal with the Soviet MBTs of the 2.5th and 3th generation (still only 830 German and 100-200 Dutch were ready at this time).

AFAIK body armor was issued later when it become obvious that it can further reduce losses. I know that there was some sort of dedicated body armor for crews but they quickly started to use IBA armor and later IOTV armor or some newer plate carriers. As for CVC I don't know if there were any changes in material used for it's ballistic protection, however it was reported that it can protect against 7,62x39mm rounds.

This could be true, but it also could be a myth like the "30 round G3 magazine".

 

[Damian]

When I try to think in a long term perspective, then I can't rate the M1 over the Leopard 2. In the end the early M1s and IPM1s are "wasted tanks" and not an example of long term planning. It was possible to design the M1 with a larger armour cavity as used on IPM1 and M1A1 - if the lower level of protection of the M1 was really neccessary, then they could simply filled the armour cavity only partial (which was possible since pre-1974). The M1 and IPM1 were also not designed in such a manner that they could be upgunned, which is again no example of long term planning. In the end the M1A2 is the first good tank of the M1 series, all previous examples have been intentionally made less sophisticated/potent as was possible at the time.

And again You are making mistakes.

M1 at the FSED development phase was prepared to have a larger gun, and M1IP was equipped with so called universal gun mount for 105mm gun and 120mm gun. These tanks from start were designed to be upgunned, however this never hapend, I think that it was just decided that cheaper and faster is just manufacturing new M1A1's, and as the older variants were ready to be upgunned, it could be done if nececary in future. Especially that both DATP and LATP (these days known as JSMC) were manufacturing 120 M1A1's per month, this gives 240 new tanks per month, and this means that they were or were capable to build 2,880 tanks per year, if they would keep this rate to 1990 they were capable to manufacture approx 14,400 M1A1's, this speaks itself for their manufacturing capabilities. So probably when they calculated what is more cost effective solution, manufacturing new tanks was a better idea.

Besides this, do we really know that original M1 was not as good protected as first Leopard 2? Let's compare their weight, Leopard 2 weight was around 55 metric tons, M1 was 54,5 metric tons heavy. We should remember that it have many components like engine, lighter than Leopard 2. In one of inteviews, M1's main designer, Dr. Lett, said that it was one of intentions to use weight saved on Gas Turbine engine that is naturally lighter than Diesel, on better armor protection. You said that for example Leclerc might use more space efficent armor, why basic M1 could not use also more space efficent armor?

M1A1 if not delays with CITV would look in 1985 as M1A2 was fielded in 1992, it was just unexpected delay with CITV, I think that main problem was to how transfer image seen by CITV camera via cabel to commander display, probably at that time there were also problems with flat displays that could be placed inside a tank without taking too much space.

A "block" design is a good idea, I would expect the basic design to be adaptable in such a way, that even the oldest tanks can be used for the latest configurations - something that was thinkable at this time already (the Germans already wanted a modular vehicle chassis in Boxer-manner during the HS 30 development). The Germans did not manage to do so neither, but they did not deliberatly design a tank inferior to what was possible at the time.

But this is exactly what Americans are doing currently with their M1's. Up to this day nobody really knows how many original M1's and M1IP's were converted to M1A2 standard, but there were photographs of hundreds these old variants transported for conversion to ANAD and JSMC. This is a fact that only hulls are really converted and new turrets builded due to significant structural differences between Block 1 turret's and Block 2 turret's. But still, these tanks are converted. If this would not be true, then from 1993 to 2012 JSMC would build for US Army approx ~1,600 or more, new M1A2's.

In the end we cannot say that one or the other decision was wrong, because the Cold War never became "hot" and so it was never proven which was the better way of making a tank. But if the Cold War would have gotten "hot" after the Leopard 2 and the M1 were introduced in service, then it would have been in 1983 during Operation Able Archer - at this time the Leopard 2 was the only tank in NATO service which could effectively deal with the Soviet MBTs of the 2.5th and 3th generation (still only 830 German and 100-200 Dutch were ready at this time).

With ammunition used back then, non NATO tank could efficently fight with Soviet tanks back then. First rounds that were more or less capable to do something were DM33 and M829.

And to be honest, if war would start and last for a longer period of time, whole NATO would possibly use M1's instead of their own tanks, simply because they would not be capable to manufacture them (soviets could bombard factories) and it would be much simpler to just increase production in US instead of trying to maintain it in Europe. Just like during WWII when most allied forces used American tanks, not British made for example.

This could be true, but it also could be a myth like the "30 round G3 magazine".

Not a myth, it is reality. It was reported in Lessons Learned from Iraq, as well I seen a photo when tank crewmen shown his helmet with a mark of bullet hit. CVC is preatty tough thing.

 

[methos]

M1 at the FSED development phase was prepared to have a larger gun, and M1IP was equipped with so called universal gun mount for 105mm gun and 120mm gun. These tanks from start were designed to be upgunned, however this never hapend, I think that it was just decided that cheaper and faster is just manufacturing new M1A1's, and as the older variants were ready to be upgunned, [...]

The basic M1 (XM1) could not mount the German Rh 120 L/44 according to German sources. Back then it wasn't even decided which 120 mm gun would be prefered by the U.S. forces, the British rifled one or the German smoothbore. When the IPM1 was fielded however it was already decided that the German gun should be prefered, so it seems like I made a mistake.

Besides this, do we really know that original M1 was not as good protected as first Leopard 2? Let's compare their weight, Leopard 2 weight was around 55 metric tons, M1 was 54,5 metric tons heavy. We should remember that it have many components like engine, lighter than Leopard 2. In one of inteviews, M1's main designer, Dr. Lett, said that it was one of intentions to use weight saved on Gas Turbine engine that is naturally lighter than Diesel, on better armor protection. You said that for example Leclerc might use more space efficent armor, why basic M1 could not use also more space efficent armor?

1. U.S. requirements according to Hunnicutt were to survive a 127 mm shaped charge and a 115 mm APFSDS from 800 m. German sources mention that the 2AV turret exceeded this requirement.
2. U.S. turret has a larger surface (mabye something like 10%) and does have nearly twice as much side armour. To be more protective the armour would not only more space-efficient, but also far more weight-efficient.
3. All sources (German, U.S. and UK) I have read claim that the M1 was fitted with Burlington armour (or Chobham armour). The same armour was also available to the Germans, which did prefer their own solution (which depending on source is based on Burlington). The thickness/weight efficiency of Burlington armour is roughly known.
4. Gas turbine is only slightly more weight efficient as a diesel engine, because the M1 has to carry twice as much fuel. For exact figures we would also need to know the weight of all other components.
5. The M1 has thinner armour, so if the Leopard 2 armour is also based partially on Burlington, it seems unlikely that the M1 is better protected.
6. Leclerc turret has lower armour thickness, while being pretty heavy (18 - 19 tonnes, not sure if combat loaden or empty). So it could be that the Leclerc armour is a lot denser than the armour of the early Leopard 2 or the M1 - for saying this we would again need the weight of all components. One known component is the autolaoder, which should be heavier than a human one, but could lead to a more weight efficient turret design (smaller turret).

It could be that the M1 is as good protected as the Leopard 2 in the frontal area, but it seems to be reasonable to assume otherwise.

With ammunition used back then, non NATO tank could efficently fight with Soviet tanks back then. First rounds that were more or less capable to do something were DM33 and M829.

Still 120 mm DM13 did penetrate more armour than M735 and probably also than M774. This means that for the cast turrets, which got thicker further from the center away, the area which can penetrated is larger. M735 also could also not penetrate the glacis of the T-72 at longer ranges, while 120 mm DM13 and M774 should do that (M774 however entered service later and should be less available). If the uparmoured glacis of the T-72M1/T-72A could be penetrated by 120 mm DM13 is questionable, that depends on how efficient the design was against sloped armour.
However something we should not forget is that the Germans also got 120 mm DM12 HEAT-MP rounds. Depending on source/estimate this round can penetrate 600 - 700 mm RHA. That's enough to punch a hole through the armour of T-64A/B, T-72/M, T-80 at all places in worst case and in best case also the armour of T-72A/M1 and T-80B at all places. The U.S. analouge for the rifled 105 mm gun was the M456, which can penetrate only 425 mm RHA - only usefull against the weak places. ERA was in 1983 not fielded in the Soviet army.

And to be honest, if war would start and last for a longer period of time, whole NATO would possibly use M1's instead of their own tanks, simply because they would not be capable to manufacture them (soviets could bombard factories) and it would be much simpler to just increase production in US instead of trying to maintain it in Europe. Just like during WWII when most allied forces used American tanks, not British made for example.

If the Cold War would have started to become a real war, then it is also questionable if the U.S. tank factories could continue manufacturing with ease.

Not a myth, it is reality. It was reported in Lessons Learned from Iraq, as well I seen a photo when tank crewmen shown his helmet with a mark of bullet hit. CVC is preatty tough thing.

I was talking about wether it was being issued in case of a war. Body armour was during the Cold War something rather seldom, the whole infantry and mechanized forces did not have enough. So all tank crews would get them, but the infantry not?

 

[Damian]

The basic M1 (XM1) could not mount the German Rh 120 L/44 according to German sources. Back then it wasn't even decided which 120 mm gun would be prefered by the U.S. forces, the British rifled one or the German smoothbore. When the IPM1 was fielded however it was already decided that the German gun should be prefered, so it seems like I made a mistake.

I seen early concept models showing M1 with larger gun. Vehicle itself was ready, just what gun should be used was not decided.

1. U.S. requirements according to Hunnicutt were to survive a 127 mm shaped charge and a 115 mm APFSDS from 800 m. German sources mention that the 2AV turret exceeded this requirement.
2. U.S. turret has a larger surface (mabye something like 10%) and does have nearly twice as much side armour. To be more protective the armour would not only more space-efficient, but also far more weight-efficient.
3. All sources (German, U.S. and UK) I have read claim that the M1 was fitted with Burlington armour (or Chobham armour). The same armour was also available to the Germans, which did prefer their own solution (which depending on source is based on Burlington). The thickness/weight efficiency of Burlington armour is roughly known.
4. Gas turbine is only slightly more weight efficient as a diesel engine, because the M1 has to carry twice as much fuel. For exact figures we would also need to know the weight of all other components.
5. The M1 has thinner armour, so if the Leopard 2 armour is also based partially on Burlington, it seems unlikely that the M1 is better protected.
6. Leclerc turret has lower armour thickness, while being pretty heavy (18 - 19 tonnes, not sure if combat loaden or empty). So it could be that the Leclerc armour is a lot denser than the armour of the early Leopard 2 or the M1 - for saying this we would again need the weight of all components. One known component is the autolaoder, which should be heavier than a human one, but could lead to a more weight efficient turret design (smaller turret).

It could be that the M1 is as good protected as the Leopard 2 in the frontal area, but it seems to be reasonable to assume otherwise.

1) We do not know if XM1 also didn't exceed this requirement.
2) So what we actually know about this armor? Besides a fact that it was also not original Burlington developed by British, but Americans somehow altered it's design (no known source says how they altered and what they altered).
3) You see, as above.
4) I agree.
5) We do not know this, what we know is that both countries have access to Burlington armor technology, and most probably altered it's design somehow. In fact Burlington in M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 1, all of them might be in the end 3 different armors, although closely connected to each other by having one common ancestor.
6) I agree.

Still 120 mm DM13 did penetrate more armour than M735 and probably also than M774. This means that for the cast turrets, which got thicker further from the center away, the area which can penetrated is larger. M735 also could also not penetrate the glacis of the T-72 at longer ranges, while 120 mm DM13 and M774 should do that (M774 however entered service later and should be less available). If the uparmoured glacis of the T-72M1/T-72A could be penetrated by 120 mm DM13 is questionable, that depends on how efficient the design was against sloped armour.
However something we should not forget is that the Germans also got 120 mm DM12 HEAT-MP rounds. Depending on source/estimate this round can penetrate 600 - 700 mm RHA. That's enough to punch a hole through the armour of T-64A/B, T-72/M, T-80 at all places in worst case and in best case also the armour of T-72A/M1 and T-80B at all places. The U.S. analouge for the rifled 105 mm gun was the M456, which can penetrate only 425 mm RHA - only usefull against the weak places. ERA was in 1983 not fielded in the Soviet army.

Yes, HEAT could do that but we forgot about one very important aspect, all composite armors are more efficent against HEAT than APFSDS, so in the end it could be just the same situation as in case of these APFSDS's used by NATO back then. Opinion that NATO and Soviet tanks would probably waste tons of ammunition against each other without effects could be very close to potential reality.

If the Cold War would have started to become a real war, then it is also questionable if the U.S. tank factories could continue manufacturing with ease.

It would be definetly easier for them to do so. Of course in case of conventional warfare, not nuclear one. USA is preatty far from Soviet Union, had decent air defence, also in case of war not only GOCO facilities would manufacture weapons but also civilian ones.

I was talking about wether it was being issued in case of a war. Body armour was during the Cold War something rather seldom, the whole infantry and mechanized forces did not have enough. So all tank crews would get them, but the infantry not?

I don't know how it would look like in case of Europe, but US forces at that time were preatty much fully equiped with PASGT, it was not bullet proof, rather a flack vest it was, but sufficent enough to increase survivability. I seen somewhere a photos or videos from 1980's of M1 tanks crew with PASGT flack vest. Besides I'am sure that at that time US had plenty of older flack vests from Vietnam era, probably not issued during peace time, but at war time USAEUR would probably get them as they got priority with everything they need. In 1980-1985 period they got more M1's in Germany than they had M60 series.

 

[methos]

Yes, HEAT could do that but we forgot about one very important aspect, all composite armors are more efficent against HEAT than APFSDS, so in the end it could be just the same situation as in case of these APFSDS's used by NATO back then. Opinion that NATO and Soviet tanks would probably waste tons of ammunition against each other without effects could be very close to potential reality.

CIA estimates, TankNet estimates (Paul L.) and some estimates from literature (mostly Zaloga) assume that 600 - 700 mm RHA penetration is enough to deal with the Soviet tanks of 1983. Even though HEAT would still be effecitve against the less armoured parts, which can be penetrated by 105 mm APFSDS.

 

[Damian]

CIA estimates, TankNet estimates (Paul L.) and some estimates from literature (mostly Zaloga) assume that 600 - 700 mm RHA penetration is enough to deal with the Soviet tanks of 1983. Even though HEAT would still be effecitve against the less armoured parts, which can be penetrated by 105 mm APFSDS.

You know, these estimates might be based on downgraded export variants that were more avaiable for NATO to evaluate than for example T-64 variants. This is exactly the same thing as in case of Soviet estimations for NATO 3rd generation MBT's.

We should remember that Soviets also had preaty capable ammunition back then, and were testing their tanks against these ammo types.

 

[Damian]

Methos I found a model of original M1 with both 105mm rifled gun and 120mm smoothbore gun. In Hunnicutt books there is also drawing from TACOM archieves with descriptions, one of them says that original M1 turret was capable to use FRG 120mm smoothbore gun.



So conclusion is that M1 from the beggining was ready to use bigger gun, however tank was ready earlier than evaluation for new gun ended, so it used 105mm gun allready used by US Armed Forces to not delay whole program.

Also besides Chrysler XM1 that won, General Motors XM1 was at least projected to use US 105mm M68 rifled gun, FRG 120mm smoothbore gun and unspecified UK 120mm gun (dunno Rifled or Smoothbore).

So as it seems Americans from start were planning in the long term to have a tank with bigger gun, contrary to what German sources may say.



Here is M1E1 that is basic M1 turret and hull with 120mm smoothbore gun installed and steel plates acting as weight simulators welded to turret.

This is a tank without up armored turret.

 

[Damian]

Something new from Ukraine.

Unknown T-72 upgrade.

T-64E upgrade.

BMPV-64, one of T-64 based HAPC/HIFV or UCP platforms.

 

[Damian]

T-80 based HAPC/HIFV and UCP platform.

T-55 based HAPC.

More cna be found here:

werfer: День танкиста
Танкоремонт-2011 - 25 Сентября 2011 - Фотоотчёты - ГS

 

[Damian]

Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, Lima, Ohio.

 

[Shaitan]

mark 2

 

[Damian]

More photos from Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Damian]

Thanks Kunal for that video. However it will be interesting when completely new vehicles from BAe and GDLS will be tested, but prototypes should be shown around 2014, so we will need to wait.

 

[kaustav2001]

Something new from Ukraine.
Unknown T-72 upgrade.

Isn't it the same one that was shown in IDEX 2011 (without the RCWS), read somewhere that those are Kontakt ERA modules. Nicely done (very clear pics) & is the RCWS a GSh-23 or a Gsh-30-2 (unlikely)

 

[kaustav2001]

Nice Post Kunal.. the Namer looks imposing. Biggest & definitely one of the best protected APCs out there.

 

[asianobserve]

To our tank experts, please share your thoughts on the Japanese Type 10 MBT.

As an Asian I like this tank because it is compact in a way that seems particularly suited to our built and height (at least those of us in the SEA region). But I think of all the frontline MBTs out there this tank is the latest and I think is packed with a lot of cutting edge tank tech like Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) and active suspension.

For comparison on weight with existing MBTs:

Type 10 - 43.25 tonnes (standard) 48 tonnes (fully)
M1 Abrams - 67.6 short tons (60.4 long tons; 61.3 t)
Leopard 2 - 2A6: 62.3 tonnes (61.3 long tons; 68.7 short tons)
Lechrec - 54.5 tonnes
Type 90 - 50.2 tonnes
K-1 - K1: 51.1 metric tons (56.3 short tons);K1A1: 53.2 metric tons
Type 99 - 54 tonnes for Type-99G; 57 tonnes for Type-99A1; 58 tonnes for Type-99A2
Arjun - 58.5 tonnes (57.6 long tons; 64.5 short tons)

The T-90 comes closest in weight at 47.5 tonnes (46.7 long tons; 52.4 short tons).

 

[Damian]

Type 10 like all or most Asian MBT's don't have side turret protection based on composite armor, but thin RHA armor covered by storage boxes. I think I do not need to repeat what this means with such box shaped turret geometry.

Side hull is protected only by basic armor and thin sheet metal skirts. Front turret armor modules appear to be thin compared to many other MBT's.

I think that strongest points in this tank design are powerpack and electronics, while protection seems to be inferior compared to other MBT's, however we do not know how space and weight efficent is front turret armor or front hull armor, and there it might be comparable with other MBT's.

Crew survivability is probably same as in 99% of other MBT's, if ammo starts to burn, crew is probably dead allready before they will bail put from tank.

IMHO Japanese claims that Type 10 was designed for assymetric warfare are false, because there one of the most important aspects is maximum armor protection, in Type 10 I hardly see any suficent side protection for example. In my opinion it is just modern, light weight replacement for Type 74 tanks that operates in regions not nececary suited for heavier vehicles, and Type 10 is also designed to supplement older but heavier and probably better protected Type 90.