Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Nice job. I want only to add that Leopard 2 composite armor model made by Militarysta is based on very accurate sources (let's just say that I also seen something, and I can say that what Militarysta done is reliable), it is preaty much the most accurate open source model for Leopard 2 front turret composite armor.

 

[kaustav2001]

GDLS PDF's:

Wow Damian, looks like u were in a really good mood today...:thumb:

 

[Damian]

Seems so Kaustav2001.

 

[kaustav2001]

Finnaly, my idea about Leopard-2A5 armour protection in circa 1994.
Of course it's only mi idea and based on misty assumptions

Thanks Militarysta... that must have taken quite a lot of effort. Would you have any info on how the LEO armour would hold up against more modern rounds like DM53/ DM63 or the M829 ammo from the US for that matter ?

 

[Damian]

Thanks Militarysta... that must have taken quite a lot of effort. Would you have any info on how the LEO armour would hold up against more modern rounds like DM53/ DM63 or the M829 ammo from the US for that matter ?

We do not know, any estimations will be rough estimations. I can only say that this armor without the wedge shaped NERA, was capable to protect against something that looked like DM43. So it will protect against APFSDS with penetrations levels around 600mm RHA.

But only if we assume that armor model made by Militarysta is Leopard 2A5/A6 armor, not the A4 or earlier variant.

I must say that even with these days knowledge about western composite armors, we in reality knows very little. All of them are very advanced designs, and there were plenty of their variants and test models. We do not know what tested variant in the end was used on vehicles. So Militarysta's model might be based on some armor prototype not used on vehicles.

 

[militarysta]

Thanks Militarysta... that must have taken quite a lot of effort.

Well this post is my most important, and propably the best post here. It's my own opus magnum in Leo2 armour thema and made this post takes ~4 yers from find how thick (in LOS) is Leopard-2 armour, find material about known test, armour, talks with tank crews, reading pdf's and other articles about tank armour. From non OPSPEC sources the most important where two article made by Paweł Przeździecki about "orgins of the Buringhton armour" (I posted links in that thema twice). So yes it's takes "a lot of effort" ;-)

Would you have any info on how the LEO armour would hold up against more modern rounds like DM53/ DM63 or the M829 ammo from the US for that matter ?

In my opnnion Leopard2A5-A6 basic armour for front turret just stoped APFSDS whit 650mm RHA (CL-3143, M829A1, M829A2, OLF-F2, DM43A1 and of course all modern 125mm APFSDS -3BM48, 3BM44M etc.

Whit NERA wedges this armour propably have more then 700-750mm RHA vs APFSDS so for turret front (and only for turret front!) it has chanse to survive hit by DM53 or maybe M829A3 - but it only very weak supposition and it can be wrong.

If I have right whit that model then older Leopard2A4 since ~1986 to 1990 shoud survive about ~550 vs APFSDS and circa 800mm vs HEAT (or more slighty more). So in hal of the 1980s it was very good armoured tank. But again - its only my own supposition.

 

[kaustav2001]

Wonder how this (+ a 30 mm cannon or better with the PUMA/ Lance turret) would stack up against the PUMA ?

Found something interesting about the Marder 2 (Originally Posted by users "Frank the soldier" & "nickless" on MP.net)

The vehicle was impressive (although it appears bigger than the PUMA) -
-a dismount crew of at least 7
-a fully stabilized 35mm gun and the ability to carry at least 300 rds for it
-partial protection against 30mm ammunition
Strange it seems like the reason it was cancelled because it was considered overweight @ 3 tons, too big & expensive for the post-cold war period.

Now the up-armoured PUMA weighs nearly the same & not to mention quite expensive & Marder with the above armour (& engine) upgrades would the PUMA in large nos. still make sense.

 

[methos]

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).

[...]

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.

I don't think so. The question is: what is "ready" and when can you mount a bigger gun. A gun is not just a steel tube with a thick block of steel at the end, but a rather complex system. There is the recoil system, the stabilization system, the breechblock, the trunnions and much more. It is not know if the M1E1 prototype's interal layout remained unchanged?
The Leopard 1 was able to mount the Rh 120 L/44, still a lot of changes had to be done.
The Leopard 2 was tested with a 140 mm gun and fielded with the L/55 version of the Rh 120. To mount this weapons a number of modifications had to be introduced in the Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A6 models, while the gun was specifically designed for this tank. The Rheinmetall gun was however not specifically designed for the XM1.
The Leopard 2AV could simply adopt the Rh 120 gun in a field workshop.

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

It is not designed to be adopted by various nations, instead it was made to Japan-specific requirements. The protection is significantly lower than on Western (and in the frontal area also than Russian) tanks, but it is very light which makes it good transportable.

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).

There are two "insert" plates inside the left module and one in the right module. The frontal coverage is very low, less than 50% of the turret front is covered by the "insert" plates.

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.

Single "heavy" NERA plate vs APFSDS:

In this case the NERA plate consisted of two 8 mm layers 440 HBN steel and 2 mm rubber sandwiched inbetween at 70° (leading to a LOS of 36 mm). On the German Leopard 2A5 the angle is smaller, but the layers are thicker (imo about 7 cm per NERA plating). The Germans also could have used harder steel (e.g. 550-600 HBN) or different compositions (like one plate being hard and the other soft). I think that a single NERA layer of the Leopard 2A5 wedge armour should be stronger than the tested NERA.
Then there are two layers (without the triangular inserts) - this could be a "protection mulitplier", increasing the overall efficiency significantly.

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.

I don't think that it makes much sense to have multiple plates of the same hardness layered. If we assume that instead A and E are steel plates of different hardness (dual hardness steel and triple hardness steel), then efficiency might rise much more. The steel-layering used in the French Leclerc tank is claimed to be 1.7 times as effective as RHA of the same weight/thickness.
German patents show that plates up to 180 mm thickness could be made of HHS as of 1993.

Without knowing how the special armour looks it is impossible to say wether this is Leopard 2A4 or Leopard 2A5 armour. From weight it could still be Leopard 2A4 armour, if the special armour is not very dense (like the Polish NERA).

Now the up-armoured PUMA weighs nearly the same & not to mention quite expensive & Marder with the above armour (& engine) upgrades would the PUMA in large nos. still make sense.

Puma is far better protected against all types of threats than the Marder 2 or any other IFV without uparmour-kit.

 

[Damian]

I don't think so. The question is: what is "ready" and when can you mount a bigger gun. A gun is not just a steel tube with a thick block of steel at the end, but a rather complex system. There is the recoil system, the stabilization system, the breechblock, the trunnions and much more. It is not know if the M1E1 prototype's interal layout remained unchanged?
The Leopard 1 was able to mount the Rh 120 L/44, still a lot of changes had to be done.
The Leopard 2 was tested with a 140 mm gun and fielded with the L/55 version of the Rh 120. To mount this weapons a number of modifications had to be introduced in the Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A6 models, while the gun was specifically designed for this tank. The Rheinmetall gun was however not specifically designed for the XM1.
The Leopard 2AV could simply adopt the Rh 120 gun in a field workshop.

Interior of M1 and M1A1 is very similiar, in fact the only changes are gun mount and slightly different coax machine gun ammo box and of course ammo racks in turret bustle magazines and hull magazine. Rest is more or less the same. As I said, M1IP introduced so called universal gun mount, it was probably attempt for quick conversion onf these tanks to M1A1 standard by rearming it, that gun mount probably also could have been installed in standard M1 turret as we can see on M1E1 prototype... but in the end that never happend, it was easier and cheaper to just manufacture new tanks.

I don't think that it makes much sense to have multiple plates of the same hardness layered. If we assume that instead A and E are steel plates of different hardness (dual hardness steel and triple hardness steel), then efficiency might rise much more. The steel-layering used in the French Leclerc tank is claimed to be 1.7 times as effective as RHA of the same weight/thickness.
German patents show that plates up to 180 mm thickness could be made of HHS as of 1993.

Without knowing how the special armour looks it is impossible to say wether this is Leopard 2A4 or Leopard 2A5 armour. From weight it could still be Leopard 2A4 armour, if the special armour is not very dense (like the Polish NERA).

Methos, the model drawing is based on what we seen. However due to OPSEC and known reasons, we can't show You what we seen. Sorry.

 

[methos]

How can you see the hardness of steel plates?

 

[Damian]

How can you see the hardness of steel plates?

These are only assumptions, there are still many unknown things. We only made assumption that this can look that way, but it might be very different. However overall design in reality looks like on drawing model.

 

[militarysta]

@Methos

There are two "insert" plates inside the left module and one in the right module. The frontal coverage is very low, less than 50% of the turret front is covered by the "insert" plates.

Im almoust sure that in right NERA module are two insert plates - just on photo one of them was removed. And this insert plates are made to protect against threat from not front but rather angle of 30-40. - so HEAT or APFSDS firstly hit "side wall" of NERA module and after that hit that insert plate. IMHO all was developed to always have two layers against threat.

I don't think that it makes much sense to have multiple plates of the same hardness layered.

As I know it have big sense - total resistance of the stack of steel plates (RHA) whit the same HB is always bigger then one thick layer RHA plate - like in this polish ITU EFP test on very primitive model:
One 70mm thick RHA plate perforated from 33m by EFP 100mm diameter:


5 plates whit all 70mm RHA thick non perforated by the same EFP:


Model of working made in WITU shown why the stack of steel plates have bigger resistance the one thick layer:

So 3 and 2 the same layers have sense becouse its protection level will be slighty bigger then one thick plate whit the same HB and mass.

 

[syncro]

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.

Italian vehicles Iveco VLM Lince mk2 and VTMM already use IBD nano materials

 

[methos]

Im almoust sure that in right NERA module are two insert plates - just on photo one of them was removed. And this insert plates are made to protect against threat from not front but rather angle of 30-40. - so HEAT or APFSDS firstly hit "side wall" of NERA module and after that hit that insert plate. IMHO all was developed to always have two layers against threat.

I have photos from four different tanks where only 3 insert triangles are existing. I don't have a single photo of Leopard 2 with 4 inserts.

As I know it have big sense - total resistance of the stack of steel plates (RHA) whit the same HB is always bigger then one thick layer RHA plate - like in this polish ITU EFP test on very primitive model:

This is true for RHA, but not for higher hardened armour. Increased hardness often means decreased ductility. Also note that triple hardness steel will be more efficient than multiple layers of HHS.

 

[militarysta]

I have photos from four different tanks where only 3 insert triangles are existing. I don't have a single photo of Leopard 2 with 4 inserts.

Sure? I have two diffrent photos (black and colour) in two sources without this 4 insert, but this is the same tank. Are You sure that they are four diffrent tanks?
BTW: on left NERA modul (looking at the fornt of the tank) only one insert haven't sense -why when the lef turret sides is weaker in integrity placed only one NERA insert?

This is true for RHA, but not for higher hardened armour. Increased hardness often means decreased ductility. Also note that triple hardness steel will be more efficient than multiple layers of HHS.

Well as I known backplate in Leopard-2 is summary 80-90mm thick but in 3 plates eacht 30mm thick. And it can't be HHS but rather normal HB <440 whit bigger plasticy(more elastic?).
And this double HHS (40mm + 40mm) after "special armour" block rather is according to the other armour models and ideas.

 

[Damian]

WPB Anders in light tank variant with CT-CV turret armed with 105mm low recoil gun on Eurosatory 2012.

Altair - Eurosatory: Belgijski Anders

 

[asianobserve]

What are those rods protruding from the sides?

 

[Damian]

What are those rods protruding from the sides?

Ukrainian Active Protection System Zasłon. These are protecting elements, when projectile pass nearby they explode destroying it or changing it's trajectory, and thus protecting vehicle.


It was also tested on Rosomak (Wolverine) APC, and designated as Szerszeń (Hornet).

 

[methos]

Well as I known backplate in Leopard-2 is summary 80-90mm thick but in 3 plates eacht 30mm thick. And it can't be HHS but rather normal HB <440 whit bigger plasticy(more elastic?).
And this double HHS (40mm + 40mm) after "special armour" block rather is according to the other armour models and ideas.

With "triple hardness steel" and "dual hardness steel" I don't mean multiple layers of HHS or SHS. I mean different hardness steel plates layered. It is known that when you layer RHA, SHS and HHS it will offer more protection than RHA or HHS of the same thickness. The exact thickness and the order of the layers will affect the level of protection. Paul L. claimed in his Armor Basics that triple hardness steel will offer 1.5 times as much protection as RHA of the same thickness, while HHS is somewhere at 1.3-1.4 times.
It has been claimed on different sources that the welded Leopard 1A3 turret features three steel layers of different hardness. The MBT-70 used in it's spaced layout two different types of steel.
The Leclerc from 1992 is claimed to be using another type of triple hardness steel with a thickness efficiency of up to 1.7. If the armour depicted by you is the armour of the Leopard 2A5 (from 1995) then I would expect a similar efficiency of the layered steel. If it is the armour of the Leopard 2A4 or even an earlier variant, then I still would expect triple hardness steel. Dual hardness steel is slightly less protective, but still can achieve HHS level or above.

Sure? I have two diffrent photos (black and colour) in two sources without this 4 insert, but this is the same tank. Are You sure that they are four diffrent tanks?
BTW: on left NERA modul (looking at the fornt of the tank) only one insert haven't sense -why when the lef turret sides is weaker in integrity placed only one NERA insert?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

I have not looked back through the posts in this thread, but is SP arty normally included with MBT discussion as far as armor technology is concerned? Asking because perhaps advanced armor technology is not critical to the role of SP arty. Or am I wrong?