Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

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

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 25 7.3%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 57 16.7%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 198 58.1%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 61 17.9%

  • Total voters
    341

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
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)

Both photos shows two different tanks. Upper one is T-64E and lower one is T-72E, look at trackes and turrets, they are different, hulls also.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Ok...got it. To my untrained eye they looked awfully similar
What do u feel about the T-72 upgrade though? looks decent enough.
It is definetly a good upgrade. Especially for countries that do not have enough money to purchase something more modern. However Ukraine allmost sold out all T-72's that they inherited from Soviet times, so they slowly start to promote their upgrades of T-64 tanks, that they have much more than they had T-72's and T-80's.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
How about this other Asian beauty (from SoKor)? Can this kick the behind of a Leo 2 or M1?







Basic specs:
Weight: 55 t (54 long tons; 61 short tons)
Length: Overall: 10.8 m (35 ft 5 in); Chassis only: 7.5 metres (24 ft 7 in)
Width: 3.6 metres (11 ft 10 in)
Height: 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in)
Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Armor: Classified type of composite armour with ERA and NERA modular add-on armour in addition to soft-kill/hard-kill anti-missile defense systems
Main armament: 120 mm (4.72 in) 55 caliber smoothbore gun (40 rounds)
Secondary armament: 1× 12.7 mm (.50 caliber) K6 heavy machine gun (3,200 rounds); 1× 7.62 mm (.30 caliber) coaxial machine gun (12,000 rounds)
Engine: 4-cycle, 12-cylinder water-cooled diesel 1,500 hp (1,100 kW); with Samsung Techwin gas-turbine engine for auxiliary power
Power/weight: 27.2 hp/tonne
Suspension: In-arm Suspension Unit (ISU)
Operational range: 450 kilometres (280 mi)
Speed: Paved road: 70 km/h (43 mph); Cross country: 50 km/h (31 mph)
Acceleration from 0–32 km/h: (0–20 mph) in 7 seconds
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
How about this other Asian beauty (from SoKor)? Can this kick the behind of a Leo 2 or M1?







Basic specs:
Weight: 55 t (54 long tons; 61 short tons)
Length: Overall: 10.8 m (35 ft 5 in); Chassis only: 7.5 metres (24 ft 7 in)
Width: 3.6 metres (11 ft 10 in)
Height: 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in)
Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Armor: Classified type of composite armour with ERA and NERA modular add-on armour in addition to soft-kill/hard-kill anti-missile defense systems
Main armament: 120 mm (4.72 in) 55 caliber smoothbore gun (40 rounds)
Secondary armament: 1× 12.7 mm (.50 caliber) K6 heavy machine gun (3,200 rounds); 1× 7.62 mm (.30 caliber) coaxial machine gun (12,000 rounds)
Engine: 4-cycle, 12-cylinder water-cooled diesel 1,500 hp (1,100 kW); with Samsung Techwin gas-turbine engine for auxiliary power
Power/weight: 27.2 hp/tonne
Suspension: In-arm Suspension Unit (ISU)
Operational range: 450 kilometres (280 mi)
Speed: Paved road: 70 km/h (43 mph); Cross country: 50 km/h (31 mph)
Acceleration from 0–32 km/h: (0–20 mph) in 7 seconds
On these photos we have two different tanks. First photo is K1 Rokit MBT, this is not tank designed in South Korea, but was designed by General Dynamics Land Systems, manufacturer of M1 Abrams. It was designed for South Korean, I have even somewhere photo of one of first, if not the first prototype builded and tested in USA. It is generally smaller tank and inferior to M1. All it's main gun ammunition is stored in hull on unisolated and un protected racks. It is just tank designed to be not very expensive and suited for South Koreans, even interior is made for Asians mostly, I doubt that anyone higher than me would get inside this tank in all that personall equipment, and I'am 175cm tall.

K1 is armed with 105mm rifled KM68A1 gun, a South Korean licence version of US made M68A1 that is upgraded version of M68 gun that is US licence version of British L7 gun... nice family eh?

Upgraded variant of K1 is K1A1, not much difference here, only that it is armed with 120mm smoothbore KM256 gun that is South Korean licence version of US M256 gun that is licence and redesgined version of German Rhinemetall Rh-120 gun.

The second tank is South Korean designed K2 Black Panther tank, preatty much superior to K1 series, however in my opinion it is not better than newer version of M1 and Leopard 2. K2 front protection should be similiar to American and German tank (it inherits from M1 series, idea to place sights through turret roof and behind front armor that is in my opinion better idea than how it was solved in Leopard 2 and other tanks based on it's design), while it have definetly inferior side protection, especially on turret. This tank have autoloader based on French autoloader used by Leclerc, however K2 stores in autoloader cassettes only 14 rounds (Leclerc have there 22 rounds), while Leopard 2 turret ready rack (isolated) have 15 rounds, and M1A1/M1A2 series turret bustle racks (ready + semi ready, both isolated) have 18 rounds each (36 total).
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
BTW, Turkey's future MBT Altay will based on the K-2 MBT.





IMHO Altay is more based on Leopard 2 series and M1 Abrams series than K2 when it comes to overall design. However some technology and design solutions might be based on South Korean achievements.

I really like Altay hull design, it's turret is however somewhat strange. Also it seems that vehicle have 4 man crew than 3 man crew, at least turret design suggest so.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
Sad video shown dead T-72M1 in Syria :


http://youtu.be/v50_U2FCdA0


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v50_U2FCdA0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The first 2s shown moment when T-72M1 takes hit from unkown RPG-7 granade under turet ring direct in to carossel autoloader. Rest is rather normal for T-72 hit in ammunition.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
T-84M Oplot (ukr. Fortress) will be presented among other Ukrainian products on Eurosatory 2012.



andrei_bt

Sad video shown dead T-72M1 in Syria :


http://youtu.be/v50_U2FCdA0


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v50_U2FCdA0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The first 2s shown moment when T-72M1 takes hit from unkown RPG-7 granade under turet ring direct in to carossel autoloader. Rest is rather normal for T-72 hit in ammunition.
Well, definetly crew didn't make it but... damn that was so intense, and quick... another argument that safe ammo storage is something good.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Challenger 2 in TES(H) (Theater Entry Standard - Herrick) variant with the latest addon armor kit.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meggitt Company - Compact Autoloader for M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks. Stored 34 rounds ready to immediate use, ammunition is completely isolated in compartment with blow off panels, just like standard racks currently used in tanks. This autoloader can be installed without any major modification in standard turret structure. It's design is very interesting.

What we can see in the lower left corner of the photo is Meggitt Company autoloader for M1128 Mobile Gun System Stryker, it holds approx 10 rounds with additional 8 rounds stored in hull. When installed in M1128 MGS, this autoloader is encased in armored box, preventing too easy ammunition cook off in case of armor perforation.

Update: Sorry I was wrong about M1128 Stryker MGS autoloader, it seems to be far more interesting design. There is 8 ready rounds autoloader magazine, and this is 10 reserve rounds automated replenisher for autoloader. More details here.

http://mdswebmaster.com/UK/MDS2008/cms/images/stories/pdf/PD_StrykerMGSNEW.pdf
 
Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
About famous "wedges" in Leopad2A5-A7.



Propably (I almoust sure) this "wedges" armour is some kind of NERA pannels.
What is NERA ---> UTG (use the google).

One NERA wedge weight ~500kg. Each outer wall of the triangle is made by two leayers(C1 and C2) , each layer is made from the other three layers. Inside this NERA modul there are two additional NERA plates - perpendicular to the surface (A and B).
Outer walls are inclined at 20. from the perpendicular axis. The arrangement of the wall is such that APFSDS/HEAT jet just must go through at least 3 layers (C1; C2, and one of the B).

How effective may by this protection? Well, in fact it can by no worse then Soviet havy ERA.
I posted on the picture part of "Disturbance of Shaped Charge Jets by Bulging Armour" pdf. When result testing 115mm SC (HEAT) warhed was pretty good.
Propaly this armour can reduce SC perforation for mucht more then 30%
Another beacons may be the fact that Polish rather simpler NERA:


Can stop HEAT SC whit slighty more then 300mm RHA perforation - if SC jet hit two pannel inside module on optimum angle.
So mayby this germans one can provide more protection for 3 layers of NERA pannel? 450-500mm RHA vs HEAT can be close to the reality - but it's only my assumption.

How about protection given by this ERA armour against APFSDS - I havn't idea jet, but 3 NERA layers just must have impact on the ability of the APFSDS rod perforation. It can by huge as that in HEAT jet case.

Last but not least: each NRA modul can be very easy and guickly replaced on the field using standard crane on Bergenpanzer - it's a matter of removing two bolts. And what is interesting:

we can see that on NERA panle surface are some kind of "incision" or perforation - propably this NERA pannel are made in that way to save some protection possibilities after one hit and this "incision" are made to stop overgrown "bulging" reaction, or just cracks in SHS plates.
 
Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
About UP:
there is mistake in two places:
The arrangement of the wall is such that APFSDS/HEAT jet just must go through at least 3 layers (C1; C2, and one of the B).
The arrangement of the wall is such that APFSDS/HEAT jet just must go through at least 2 layers of course - it will be always two layers of NERA panell, so this:
Can stop HEAT SC whit slighty more then 300mm RHA perforation - if SC jet hit two pannel inside module on optimum angle.
So mayby this germans one can provide more protection for 3 layers of NERA pannel? 450-500mm RHA vs HEAT can be close to the reality - but it's only my assumption.

How about protection given by this ERA armour against APFSDS - I havn't idea jet, but 3 NERA layers just must have impact on the ability of the APFSDS rod perforation. It can by huge as that in HEAT jet case.
Shoud be written as only two layers of NERA whare avaible against thread.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
To add something to the Militarysta post. we should remember about advance in materials technology.

There seems to be a path in this advance towards nano technology, at least to reduce weight of these materials, but increase in their protection values might be another profit from nano technology.

German company IBD is currently showing it's up-armor kits for Leopard 2 tanks and other veicles. They say that some materials (or all of them) can be made with nano technology to greatly reduce weight without sacrificing protection.

US Army Future Combat Systems program had it's universal combat platform MGV (Manned Ground Vehicle), weighting 20-29 tons depending on variant (weight of hull in each variant was or should be same, increase in weight depended on mission module that was actually installed) with such a low weight and hull armor that was rather thin, this vehicle had within it's frontal arc, protection enough to withstand fire from 45mm automatic cannon. This means it could withstand fire from many today autocannons like Bofors 40mm auto cannon. Other today used vehicles in this weight class have problems even with 20mm or 25mm autocannons fire.

So assumption that Americans also used nano technology and advanced materials can be preaty close to reality.

Sure this type of material technology can be still in the very early stage of development, probably there are still some problems but... just think what possibilities it can give.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202


Another unknown to me M1A2SEP test vehicle, screen taken from General Dynamics Land Systems site. Preatty interesting to still see these weight simulating steel plates welded to turret front armor.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
Finnaly, my idea about Leopard-2A5 armour protection in circa 1994.

Of course it's only mi idea and based on misty assumptions :D



The red part is NERA modules:
N1-A and N1-B are two layers of the outer wall NERA modul. Each thickness about ~30-40mm, and inclined at an angle 20. starting from the longitudinal axis - so LOS of the outer wall will be 2x 87-110mm (180-220mm).
N2-A and N2-B are down -outer layers of NERA modul. Inside NERA module are two triangular NERA plates - N3-A and N-3B each one about 40mm thick. Always for any angle and place APFSDS or HEAT jet hit two NERA layers.
As I said - polish simple NERA:

is able to stop (whit spall-linear) HEAT warhed whit slighy more then 300mm RHA perforation if jet hit two layers whit optimum angle. So this german ones shoud offer at last that kind of protection (or better). In "Disturbance of Shaped Charge Jets by Bulging Armour" pdf SC (HEAT) lost about 30% (or more) after hit in one layer of simple NERA. We can see that on NERA panel surface are some kind of "incision" or perforation - propably this NERA pannel are made in that way to save some protection possibilities after one hit and this "incision" are made to stop overgrown "bulging" reaction, or just cracks in SHS plates. One NERA module weight 500kg, and can be veryquickly and easy replaced on field.

After NERA module we have main armour - the whole LOS is 840-850mm thick. The layers:

A - 40mm RHA plates whit HB >550 (external wall Leo-2 turret)
B - 500mm "special armour" (no idea what kind of "sepcial" is this it can be Burlinghton style, or internal NERA)
A - 40mm RHA plates whit HB >550
A - 40mm RHA plates whit HB >550
C -about 40-50mm thick propably some kind of kevlar or aramid layer to cath crack parts of tha last "A" plate
D -something 50mm thick in my opinion it should be ceramics layer
D - second 50mm layer
E - 30mm of RHA plate whit rather bigger plasticity and HB less then 440HB.
E - 30mm of RHA plate whit rather bigger plasticity and HB less then 440HB.
E - 30mm of RHA plate whit rather bigger plasticity and HB less then 440HB.

So this model include ~120mm RHA plates with hight HB, 500mm "special armour", about 50mm kevlar/aramid, 100mm ceramics, and 90mm RHA inner plates.

Some rumors preach that LKEI (DM43) whit perforation 560/620mm RHA for 2000m was not able to perforate this main armour, and even not achive inner ceramics and RHA layers (D and E layers on draw). So this model ( after adding these layers) should offer protection bigger then 650mm RHA vs APFSDS in whorse scenario. What is suprising consistent whit greek Leo-2A6HEL turret test when israeli CL-3143 was not able to perforate those armour. CL-3143 have about 650mm RHA for 2000m. When we add those NERA pannels protection shoud easily exceed 700mm RHA vs KE.

Protection against HEAT is difficult to estimate - NERA module shoud neutralize a least two precursors in modern HEAT warhead, or neutralize one precursor and reduce at about 20-30% main SC. Main armour offer pretty god protection against CE becouse hight HB in RHA doubles its thickness so there is about 380-400mm RHA vs HEAT, and 100mm in two ceramics layer - all should give even about 500mm vs HEAT. And we have 500mm thick "special armour" cavity which is unknown - it can be burlinghton style multi layers structure, or many internal NERA pannels. In simplest cenario (two-tree NERA layers) this cavit shoud offer about 300-400mm vs HEAT (based on "Disturbance of Shaped Charge Jets by Bulging Armour" pdf and polsih NERA pannels) so whole main armour protection should give more then 800-900mm vs HEAT(!)
When we add NERA panels this armour shoud stop even double SC warhed whit 1100-1300mm RHA perforation.

BTW: when we look at this value 800-900mm vs HEAT for turret without NERA pannels - its fairly consistent whit Metis and MEtis-M perforation level. After add NERA pannels its level between Kornet and Chrizantiema. Accidentally?
 

Articles

Top