Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

@Militarysta:

I haven't time and wish of descripsions. Would You be so kind and write about this what I made?

Sure. Ok what we see here is known composite armor array for side turret surface over turret bustle magazines (array over crew compartment is different).

We suspect that it is similiar to what we observed in Leopard 2 armor array. So what we suspect is:

Dark Blue - HHS (High Hardness Steel) or SHS (Semi Hardness Steel) armor.
Brown - composite armor arrays.
White - could be some sort of isolator/amortization, who knows.
Light Green - RHA.

This is what we suspect how side turret armor at this place on at least some M1 series looks like. Because tank on photo is of uncertain version, we can't say if older or newer tanks have similiar armor array in this or other places.

PS. Militarysta, Your armor drawing makes armor a bit too thin. I strongly recommend to compare Your drawing with my proper drawing showing armor arrays from top view.

A very optimistic statement. Only the frontal armour (and that only because of Duplet) might be similar in performance to that of the Puma. But where is the heavy side armour resisting medium caliber APFSDS? Where is the roof armour protecting against bomblets? Where is the APS which protects against ATGMs?

BMPT-64 have Duplet/Knife-2 ERA modules over front and side surfaces of hull, on photos they are clearly visible. These modules also partially protect turret roof. Duplet/Knife-2 provides protection against APDS, APFSDS, HEAT, RPG and ATGM threats. I was coresponding some time ago with a man working there, he said that there is also possible to add composite armor if nececary.

Puma is better protected (all-round and mine-protection are at least stronger),

I would not be so sure.

 

[methos]

BMPT-64 have Duplet/Knife-2 ERA modules over front and side surfaces of hull, on photos they are clearly visible. These modules also partially protect turret roof. Duplet/Knife-2 provides protection against APDS, APFSDS, HEAT, RPG and ATGM threats. I was coresponding some time ago with a man working there, he said that there is also possible to add composite armor if nececary.

It is ERA. It does not destroy the round, it only weakens it by reducing the size of the penetrator and deforming it. Let's say we shoot a 30 mm APFSDS at the front... how many of the linear shaped charges will hit it? Here the rule of thumb is "the shorter the penetrator, the less probable is it that it will be hit". Two layers a good reason why hitting a peneterator multiple times is more probable, but the basic steel shell behind the ERA does only protect against 14.5 mm AP rounds. So if the fragments of the penetrator are greater or faster, then the armour will be perforated.
Against HEAT jets it is a different thing, because they are very instable and easily tend to break. Still I wonder how Duplet will perform against large warheads designed to counter ERA (there exist a number of different methods, not only tandem warheads - HE precussor charges are common or like HOT-3 the usage of a small subprojectile containing a HEAT warhed).

The efficiency of ERA differs by threat and the location of the hit. Duplet and Knife both use linear shaped charges and Harkonnen comes up with an efficiency of about 90% vs KE (i.e. the KE threat is reduced to 10% of it's power), but all other countries which studied the use of linear shaped charges (like e.g. the U.S. dash-dot device) have abandoned the idea of using it as part of their armour designs. Values like 90% seem to be fantasies from patriots and fanboys.

I would not be so sure.

It depends on the threat. Side base armour of the BMPT-64 is very thin and the ERA effiency should be even less because of the angle of inclation. The complete roadwheels and parts of the side skirts are not covered by ERA. On Puma the side skirts extend to the middle of the roadwheels, even though the lowermost part is designed as slat armour only.
The part of "the roof" which is covered by Duplet/Knife is only the sloped part of the vehicle side. The whole crew comparment is not covered by any specialized armour against bomblets. The rear door is also thinner than on the Puma.
And the mine-protection... it is more or less non-existent on the BMPT-64

Duplet and ERA in general might be a wonder of mass-efficiency, but the Puma (using highly mass-efficient armour from IBD) does have far more armour weight than the BMPT-64.

 

[militarysta]

Bonus - T-72B (Ob.184) turret armour.



For Indian friend it may be interesting becouse erly T-90 (Ob.188) have the same turret and propablu insert in "special armour cavity" so protection will be simmilar or even the same.

 

[Damian]

Great work! Do You plan to do similiar for other MBT's? Of course these where we have at least some idea how armor might look like.

It is ERA. It does not destroy the round, it only weakens it by reducing the size of the penetrator and deforming it. Let's say we shoot a 30 mm APFSDS at the front... how many of the linear shaped charges will hit it? Here the rule of thumb is "the shorter the penetrator, the less probable is it that it will be hit". Two layers a good reason why hitting a peneterator multiple times is more probable, but the basic steel shell behind the ERA does only protect against 14.5 mm AP rounds. So if the fragments of the penetrator are greater or faster, then the armour will be perforated.

Basic Steel armor behind Duplet in BMPT-64:
Front is Duplet + 350mm + 40mm.
Side is Duplet + 20mm + 82mm.
Rear is 40mm.

Ukrainians claim that BMPT-64 front will protect against 105mm APFSDS ammunition.



BMPT-64 Duplet ERA modules know and visible placement.

The efficiency of ERA differs by threat and the location of the hit. Duplet and Knife both use linear shaped charges and Harkonnen comes up with an efficiency of about 90% vs KE (i.e. the KE threat is reduced to 10% of it's power), but all other countries which studied the use of linear shaped charges (like e.g. the U.S. dash-dot device) have abandoned the idea of using it as part of their armour designs. Values like 90% seem to be fantasies from patriots and fanboys.

I agree that statement of 90% efficency is pure fantasy, however I do not doubt that Knife and Knife-2/Duplet have capability to efficently protect vehicle. Of course not against all threats and not with such incredible efficency.

It depends on the threat. Side base armour of the BMPT-64 is very thin and the ERA effiency should be even less because of the angle of inclation.

Side hull thickness is as thick as in all Soviet tanks, ~80mm approx.

Duplet and ERA in general might be a wonder of mass-efficiency, but the Puma (using highly mass-efficient armour from IBD) does have far more armour weight than the BMPT-64.

Yes, but that does not mean that BMPT-64 is not well protected vehicle. IMHO not protection is the main problem of Ukrainians, but rather how to design vehicles interior, this is the bigger problem. When we compare BMPT-64, BTR-4, even T-84M Oplot, they are all very primitive inside compared to western... even Russian analogs.

 

[militarysta]

Great work! Do You plan to do similiar for other MBT's? Of course these where we have at least some idea how armor might look like.

T-64A, T-64B, T-72M1 and this is end I suppose, becouse we haven't dates about rest of the tanks. But in the future...who knows? As always I need a dates about armour, without this - it's pointless.

 

[Akim]

@Akim


.



Im think that BMPT- 64 look quite pretty but SPz Puma is just on the top - it's just impossible to compare BMPT- 64 and SPz Puma.
Puma was developed after more then 20 yers of developmend and tested more then 18 prototypes, and almous in all apects it's just far far better then all IFV (BMP). It's just impossible to made smth like Puma without many years, money and testing dozens of prototypes. BMPT- 64 looks simmilar to the SPz Puma but it's still not the same level.

In Poland during making Anders IFV we have the same "it's looks like SPz Puma, or ASCOD, or Ulan/Pizzaro, etc" well it's sad to said that but when IFV is cheap and made without almoust decade developmend study it's can't be comparable. The same story was when Patria AMV was tested against polish made "Rys" (Lynx) wheeld armoured transporter. In story end just AMV won trade for polish army for next generation BTR. So (no offence against Yours opinnion) I have serious doubt if we can say that BMPT- 64 is on SPz Puma level.

@Damian:

I haven't time and wish of descripsions. Would You be so kind and write about this what I made?

MPV/BMPT-64 s alteration of superfluous of tank of Т- 64. Neither the structure nor the composition of your armor is not changed. Tank produced 30! years (67-87). His armor, she even higher what at Puma. Its frontal projection i is able to resist 90-мм APFSDS. In lateral view, without the ERA, it stand up hit a 30-mm projectile. In the stern of 14.5 mm. Mine protection STANAG 4569 standard. The Germans created a new good IFV, and Ukrainians simply altered a good tank. Т- 64 in Ukraine about 2,5 thousands in troops and on the bases of storage, and it is necessary only 900. In addition, there is a T-80D and BM Oplot

 

[Damian]

T-64A, T-64B, T-72M1 and this is end I suppose, becouse we haven't dates about rest of the tanks. But in the future...who knows? As always I need a dates about armour, without this - it's pointless.

btw: Propably I can made T-80U in first variant armour becouse I have proper dates for special armour cavities, and how thick are steel layers. Of course no deeper idea about "special armour" -only misty idea .

Good. ABout T-80U, I think that on BTVT there is something about T-80U armor, try to search there.

MPV/BMPT-64 s alteration of superfluous of tank of Т- 64. Neither the structure nor the composition of your armor is not changed. Tank produced 30! years (67-87). His armor, she even higher what at Puma. Its frontal projection i is able to resist 90-мм APFSDS.

To the contrary. BMPT-64 do not have the same armor structure as T-64. I talked with a men that is working in 115th Kharkiv Tank Repair Plant, he said that there is not composite armor in BMPT-64, it can be placed on vehicle but is not present at this time.

SPz Puma is the first example of new generation of heavy armored IFV's designed in NATO, second will be new US Army IFV designed under GCV (if it will be a completely new design, be it GDLS or BAe design).

Another problem is the fact that T-64 Combination K armor was very similiar to cancelled and outdated western composite armors like Silicious Core Armor (SCA) that were never adopted, I would not consider this protection as very modern. Burlington (Chobham) was a completely different design, and there were many variations of this armor, with NERA like arrays, there was even reported variant with internal ERA array.

Т- 64 in Ukraine about 2,5 thousands in troops and on the bases of storage, and it is necessary only 900. In addition, there is a T-80D and BM Oplot

Most T-64's are not in Armed Forces inventory but are in not operational status and are only courtesy of Ukraine State. In Armed Forces will be less then 1,000 of them. T-80UD's are not used, all are in storage, some might be even not in operational status, due to the fact that Ukrainians needed spare parts for Pakistani T-80UD's and before production of Ukrainian made analogs to main guns and similiar parts of vehicles stared, canibalism was probably very probable. T-84M Oplot/BM Oplot is not manufactured for Ukrainian Armed Forces yet, there are only not many older T-84, T-84U tanks in inventory, probably around 10-15 of them only.

 

[Akim]

A very optimistic statement. Only the frontal armour (and that only because of Duplet) might be similar in performance to that of the Puma. But where is the heavy side armour resisting medium caliber APFSDS? Where is the roof armour protecting against bomblets? Where is the APS which protects against ATGMs? Does the BMPV-64/BMPT-64 have a decoupled running gear? Where are the thermals of the Ukranian vehicles? What about the ammunition, does it have ABM rounds, APFSDS rounds and F&F missiles? A specialized grenade launcher for close combat?
Puma is better protected (all-round and mine-protection are at least stronger), does have better armament (weapon and sights) and also more sophisticated running gear and transmission.

Cost of BМ Oplot for Department of defense of Ukraine 4,2 million dollars. Modernization of T-64A (B) to the level of BM Bulat is 800 thousand dollars. After modernization he becomes on the level of T-80UD and T-90, Leopard2A4, yielding to the German tank only in effectiveness of fire by night.
KMDB - BM BULAT (Modernisation of T-64B Battle Tanks)
BMPT-64 is created on the same technologies. At identical mass with infantry fighting vehicles PUMA class A, for her better defence in all projections, but she yields to the German machine in protecting from modern min
In Ukraine there is APS "Varta" (Guard) Ukrainian analogue of the "Zaslon" (Barrier) and APS Shtora and they can be if necessary set, but it substantially will influence on the cost of machine. As a BMPT-64 for the Ukrainian army this is not necessary to install. While set only 6 aerosol grenades of caliber of 81-мм and system of smoke-screen by a motor.

P.S. Damian, sorry me, while wrote.

 

[methos]

Basic Steel armor behind Duplet in BMPT-64:
Front is Duplet + 350mm + 40mm.
Side is Duplet + 20mm + 82mm.
Rear is 40mm.

390 mm steel at the front? Maybe in a very small area, but 390 mm steel for the whole surface will weigh more than 12 tonnes, together with your figure for the side armour (102 mm) the whole steel case of the vehicle would weigh more than 34 tonnes. That's not reallistic, you must misinterpret these figures.
Marder with all steel (spaced) armour has something like 50 mm LOS side armour and ~96-100 mm front armour and does weigh about the same.

Ukrainians claim that BMPT-64 front will protect against 105mm APFSDS ammunition.

Could you please provide a link to this claim or is this just made up on some forum/blog?

 

[Akim]

It is ERA. It does not destroy the round, it only weakens it by reducing the size of the penetrator and deforming it. Let's say we shoot a 30 mm APFSDS at the front...

I...t depends on the threat. Side base armour of the BMPT-64 is very thin and the .

Front- 350+40 mm
Side base- 82 mm
Rear-40 mm

P.S. Damian? sorry, did not see.

 

[Damian]

Cost of BМ Oplot for Department of defense of Ukraine 4,2 million dollars. Modernization of T-64A (B) to the level of BM Bulat is 800 thousand dollars. After modernization he becomes on the level of T-80UD and T-90, Leopard2A4, yielding to the German tank only in effectiveness of fire by night.
KMDB - BM BULAT (Modernisation of T-64B Battle Tanks)

I highly doubt that T-64BM Bulat is on the level even of Leopard 2A4. There is a difference in composite armor, and efficency of ERA protection is depending on armor behind it. Combination K is a primitive protection by even 1980's standards. So I would not compare it even with Leopard 2A4. Not to mention that fire power especially against heavy armored vehicles is better in NATO design due to better APFSDS ammunition that is not limited in lenght by autoloader design.

BMPT-64 is created on the same technologies. At identical mass with infantry fighting vehicles PUMA class A, for her better defence in all projections, but she yields to the German machine in protecting from modern min

Weight is not directly coresponding with vehicle protection.

In Ukraine there is APS "Varta" (Guard) Ukrainian analogue of the "Zaslon" (Barrier) and APS Shtora and they can be if necessary set, but it substantially will influence on the cost of machine. As a BMPT-64 for the Ukrainian army this is not necessary to install. While set only 6 aerosol grenades of caliber of 81-мм and system of smoke-screen by a motor.

TSzU-1-7 Shtora-1 and it's Ukrainian analog Varta are not modern soft kill active protection systems. These are effective only against older SACLOS guided ATGM's, modern ATGM's with coded SACLOS guidance or with completely passive guidance like Javelin or Spike are completely immune to them. Zaslon is interesting APS, however I see weak points in it's design, IMHO there are better designs like AMAP-ADS or Quick Kill.

390 mm steel at the front? Maybe in a very small area, but 390 mm steel for the whole surface will weigh more than 12 tonnes, together with your figure for the side armour (102 mm) the whole steel case of the vehicle would weigh more than 34 tonnes. That's not reallistic, you must misinterpret these figures.
Marder with all steel (spaced) armour has something like 50 mm LOS side armour and ~96-100 mm front armour and does weigh about the same.

Perhaps it is spaced configuration. 40mm is a Duplet modules steel cover, then there is X mm thick outer plate + engine compartment + X mm thick inner bulkhead isolating engine compartment from crew compartment?

Could you please provide a link to this claim or is this just made up on some forum/blog?

It was on Alexei Khlopotov Blog.

Gur Khan attacks!: Новая БМПТ из Харькова.

Knowing his anti Kharkiv approach I think he is preaty good source here.

 

[militarysta]

T-64A, T-64B, T-72M1 and this is end I suppose, becouse we haven't dates about rest of the tanks. But in the future...who knows? As always I need a dates about armour, without this - it's pointless.

btw: Propably I can made T-80U in first variant armour becouse I have proper dates for special armour cavities, and how thick are steel layers. Of course no deeper idea about "special armour" -only misty idea* .

For 30. degee from the longitiudal axis this arour have (for T-80U):

98mm steel, 260mm special armour cavity, 190mm steel. This special armour cavity have two rows of cast steel cels filted by polimer, they are (this two rows of cast steel cels) separated by RHA plate, and on the end of the module tere is another RHA thick backplate. All free spaces in "special armour" module are filted by resin. All looks that:

So there is at least 290mm steel + 40-50mm backplate RHA (340mm steel) + polymer cels made by cast propably from light alloys.

 

[Damian]

btw: Propably I can made T-80U in first variant armour becouse I have proper dates for special armour cavities, and how thick are steel layers. Of course no deeper idea about "special armour" -only misty idea* .

For 30. degee from the longitiudal axis this arour have (for T-80U):

98mm steel, 260mm special armour cavity, 190mm steel. This special armour cavity have two rows of cast steel cels filted by polimer, they are (this two rows of cast steel cels) separated by RHA plate, and on the end of the module tere is another RHA thick backplate. All free spaces in "special armour" module are filted by resin. All looks that:

So there is at least 290mm steel + 40-50mm backplate RHA (340mm steel) + polymer cels made by cast propably from light alloys.

One is definetly certain. Soviet composite armors have much less composite armor volume per total armor thickness compared to NATO designs based more or less on Burlington where most of total armor thickness is occupied by composite armor array.

 

[Akim]

Really? One brigade of fully staffing the T-80UD.
With the production of repair parts there are no problems
Now 10 BM Oplot in an army and 10 will act the end of year!

 

[Akim]

390 mm steel at the front? Maybe in a very small area, but 390 mm steel for the whole surface will weigh more than 12 tonnes, together with your figure for the side armour (102 mm) the whole steel case of the vehicle would weigh more than 34 tonnes. That's not reallistic, you must misinterpret these figures.
Marder with all steel (spaced) armour has something like 50 mm LOS side armour and ~96-100 mm front armour and does weigh about the same.



Could you please provide a link to this claim or is this just made up on some forum/blog?

A compo goes there. At such defence from steel she would weigh more than Tiger

 

[Damian]

Really? One brigade of fully staffing the T-80UD.

I did not seen any single photograph of T-80UD in Ukrainian Army active service.

With the production of repair parts there are no problems

Currently no, in past (1990's) there were problems.

Now 10 BM Oplot in an army and 10 will act the end of year!

No, there are around 10 older T-84 variants (T-84, T-84 Oplot, T-84U or only one type from these three), no T-84M Oplot vel Oplot-M vel BM Oplot in service right now. First 10 will be delivered soon, but are not in service right now.

 

[Akim]

I highly doubt that T-64BM Bulat is on the level even of Leopard 2A4. There is a difference in composite armor, and efficency of ERA protection is depending on armor behind it. Combination K is a primitive protection by even 1980's standards. So I would not compare it even with Leopard 2A4. Not to mention that fire power especially against heavy armored vehicles is better in NATO design due to better APFSDS ammunition that is not limited in lenght by autoloader design.



Weight is not directly coresponding with vehicle protection.



TSzU-1-7 Shtora-1 and it's Ukrainian analog Varta are not modern soft kill active protection systems. These are effective only against older SACLOS guided ATGM's, modern ATGM's with coded SACLOS guidance or with completely passive guidance like Javelin or Spike are completely immune to them. Zaslon is interesting APS, however I see weak points in it's design, IMHO there are better designs like AMAP-ADS or Quick Kill.



Perhaps it is spaced configuration. 40mm is a Duplet modules steel cover, then there is X mm thick outer plate + engine compartment + X mm thick inner bulkhead isolating engine compartment from crew compartment?



It was on Alexei Khlopotov Blog.

Gur Khan attacks!: Новая БМПТ из Харькова.

Knowing his anti Kharkiv approach I think he is preaty good source here.

Alexei Khlopotov not authority in knowing circles. And he is the Russian author and direct competitor with UVZ. He does not need to believe. And от- where you know the structure of armour of Т- 64(80). Them never nobody it was supplied to at the USSR. And Т- 72(90) not in an account.
I will write through translator, that quicker.

 

[Akim]

I did not seen any single photograph of T-80UD in Ukrainian Army active service.



Currently no, in past (1990's) there were problems.



No, there are around 10 older T-84 variants (T-84, T-84 Oplot, T-84U or only one type from these three), no T-84M Oplot vel Oplot-M vel BM Oplot in service right now. First 10 will be delivered soon, but are not in service right now.

90th a long ago passed and those Т- 84 in 2010 modernized M to the level
You are right I found not a single picture of Ukrainian Т- 80 also, but also there is not a photo of Т- 64 BV.

 

[militarysta]

@Damian - improvmend T-80U armour:


As You can see LOS for ). is like in Leo2A4, only for 30. is much thinner.

BTW: there is so many steel in soviet tanks - look about cast steel for 30. : ~290 + 40-50mm RHA backplate. for 0. it will be 400 + 80 (!).
of course cast steel is not RHA but it's still steel...

 

[Damian]

Alexei Khlopotov not authority in knowing circles. And he is the Russian author and direct competitor with UVZ. He does not need to believe.

Still he might now better. Alexei is actually more credible than his Ukrainian competitor Andrei Tarasenko.

And от- where you know the structure of armour of Т- 64(80).

Because long time ago it was widely published in internet how this armor looks like? There is a photograph and drawings.

One of Combination K variants cut out after ballistic tests, there is even visible path of penetration of projectile.

Them never nobody it was supplied to at the USSR. And Т- 72(90) not in an account.

Only modern T-90A, T-90MS and T-84 are unknown. T-64 armor was published, and T-72 series, early T-90 and T-80B, T-80U and T-80UD tanks armor is widely known for western specialists. It is known that UK and US obtained at least one T-80U in early 1990's and US also bought from Ukraine 4 T-80UD's, and at least one of these was upgraded to T-84 standard with probably prototype of Knife ERA or series production Knife ERA.

Besides this Americans have possibility to test armor of T-80U and T-80UK tanks that are in South Korean Army inventory and are used for training.

Really, Soviet Tanks armor is not mystery to western armies.