Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

@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...

IMHO Soviets made the same mistake as British. They used cast steel as turret structure. As Russian/Ukrainian sources claims, cast steel is by 5 to 15 % less protective than rolled steel. Besides this, it is allmost immposible to repair these turrets, When I talked with 115th Kharkiv Tank Repair Plant worker, he said that indeed, it is true, cast turrets like these in T-64 are not well suited for composite armor replacement or repair, in fact this can't be done without damaging turret structure during composite armor removal process. He said that if there would be money, they would replace cast turrets in T-64BM Bulat with welded turrets, but due to costs issues it is immposible, so old turrets are left.

As You remember, our Polish armor designer, Adam Wisniewski wrote in his book about armor development, that the same issue occured when they tried to replace old T-72M1's turret armor with our modern CAWA composite armor.

 

[militarysta]

@Damian

Yes. It's true. cast stell is 0,8-0,85 to 1 when we compare it vs RHA. So this armour in T-80U have ~290mm RHA for 30. and 420mm for 0. But here are still very big values. The question is how effective are those polymer cast cels against APFSDS and HEAT?

 

[Damian]

@Damian

Yes. It's true. cast stell is 0,8-0,85 to 1 when we compare it vs RHA. So this armour in T-80U have ~290mm RHA for 30. and 420mm for 0. But here are still very big values. The question is how effective are those polymer cast cels against APFSDS and HEAT?

It depends if that polymer elements in armor, are dynamic or passive. IMHO if they are sort of dynamic protection layer, then their efficency will rise.

 

[methos]

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

If the 350 mm is refering to composite armour, then it very likely refers to armour thickness and not to protection level. And honestly, I don't see there a 350 mm thick armour cavity if we exlclude the Duplet armour from the armour. Imo the value 350 mm refers to the ERA or to a spaced configuration, it does not mean pure steel thickness and likely also not protection level.

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

The BMPT-64 is not better protected. It may be better protected than the Puma in armour class A, but not with the full armour kit.

German's use armour made by IBD Deisenroth Engineering for their Puma. For protection against shaped charges they use AMAP-SC with a mass efficiency of 8 - 10 (meaning that if the anti-shaped-charges armour weighs at much as 100 mm RHA it will offer 800 - 1,000 mm RHAe protection). At the same time ERA has a mass efficiency of 5 - 10 (with early types like Kontakt-1 and Blazer being closer to 5 than to 10).
IBD's ceramic tiles and steel armour are made using advanced nano-technologies (changes in the structure in the area of nano-meters/micro-meters). As result their armour for achieving STANAG 4569 Level 3 has a density of about 28 kg/m², while the previous generation of ceramic armour had a density of 40 kg/m². For comparision: 25 mm RHA are needed for reaching STANAG 4569 Level 3, which would have an areal density of 200 kg/m².
The new German high-strength nitrogen steel P900-NB is 30% stronger than ARMOX 500Z HHS (which has a hardness of 480 - 540 HB). Light-metal alloys made of titanium and aluminium have a mass efficiency of 2.2 - 2.6 vs KE.

The Puma hull and turret are constructed from aluminium alloys and fitted with composite armour. This way more mass can be used for the armour than when the vehicle would be made of steel. The armour manufacturer also makes armour for more than a dozen countries. Vehicles using this armour include the Partia AMV and the Iveco LMV (which has been purchased by Russia recently).

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.

Now in literature and other files for quite a long time.

 

[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. .

The Leopard 2А4 appeared also in the middle of 80th and Т-80U excels nothing

 

[Damian]

The Leopard 2А4 appeared also in the middle of 80th and Т-80U excels nothing

Sorry, but in english, this made completely no sense. Please try to improve Your english.

If the 350 mm is refering to composite armour, then it very likely refers to armour thickness and not to protection level. And honestly, I don't see there a 350 mm thick armour cavity if we exlclude the Duplet armour from the armour. Imo the value 350 mm refers to the ERA or to a spaced configuration, it does not mean pure steel thickness and likely also not protection level.

Yeah, I also think that this is mostly spaced armor configuration.

 

[Akim]

Sorry, but in english, this made completely no sense. Please try to improve Your english.

Ok, do not write through the translator. Leopard 2A4 appeared in 1987, about the same time came the T-80U. He was an answer for modernization of tank of Leopard 2А3. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union the level of armor technology was approximately the at one level. Then of course the West left forward and received Soviet technology bought from Ukraine or from Russia via Cyprus. A modern tank is not a confrontation between the thickness of armor and competition in the Fire-control system. If the modern Ukrainian (Russian) tanks can hit a target armor 700 mm at a distance of 5 km, Leopard2A6 with a cannon 55 calibers only just caught up with them. But in the electronics domestic tanks school can not afford to catch up with the West.

 

[Damian]

Ok, do not write through the translator. Leopard 2A4 appeared in 1987, about the same time came the T-80U. He was an answer for modernization of tank of Leopard 2А3. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union the level of armor technology was approximately the at one level.

I think that eastern sources, mainly Russian and Ukrainian are greatly confused about western composite armors, and military journalists or people from Russia/Ukraine writing about NATO composite armors completely do not understand concept idea of it's design.

Main difference is composite material volume per armor thickness. If You will compare for example Burlington armor and Combination K armor You will notice that Burlington have much more composite materials array volume per whole armor thickness than Combination K. This is because Burlington have dynamic elements, while Combination K do not have. I do not know if Ukrainian or Russian sources are even aware of that, but there was at least on variant of Burlington armor tested, with internal explosive reactive armor array.

In fact there was not single Burlington armor, there were plenty of different variants and configurations, some were adopted and integrated with vehicles, some were not.

Both Leopard 2A4 and M1A1HA (Heavy Armor Package) were fielded in 1986-1988 period for a single purpose, to improve vehicles protection against future threats represented by new Soviet weapons. And this was achieved, how?

For example USA Heavy Armor Package. It is widely belived that the main boost in armor protection is achieved by using Depleted Uranium Alloy alone, well this is the main misconception of Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian sources. Depleted Uranium is only element of completely new armor package.

Western sources says that Depleted Uranium is encased in steel, here is a hint, encased in steel, what steel? We belive that the most obvious choice would be use of HHS and SHS armor steel. This means that we combine very hard steel with very dense ande more platic DU alloy. I think that for example Methos can explain potential benefits from such configuration.

The very similiar configuration is belived to be used in Leopard 2 series with improved armor, but where instead of DU alloy, there is Tungsten (probably also in form of alloy.

There is also another hing, both DU and Tungsten are probably used in alloy form, what this means? Well it can mean many things, because alloy characteristics depends on what materials are used in alloy, for example one of components of such alloy can make it harder, or other component can make it more plastic. Everything depends on combination of these avaiable and choosen materials.

And there is more, what all sources really say about these armors? In fact nothing, we do not know nothing, neither western sources says something really worth about these newer generation of NATO composite armors, neither Soviet, Russian or Ukrainian sources. Simply because the direct composition of these armors, used materials characteristics and so on, are unknown.

But let's take this further. We know that in Cold War times, all Soviet tanks had cast structure of turret armor, what this means? As Russian and Ukrainian sources say, cast armor is by 5 to 15 % weaker than it's RHA analog. This combined with a fact that composite armor array volume per total armor thickness of Soviet tanks was smaller than in NATO tanks, means that Soviet composite armor might have been weaker, and there were not known any use of special materials, like DU or Tungsten alloys encased for example in HHS, SHS or Triple Hardness Steel (THS?) plates. Take this in to consideration. Really in the 1970's and 1980's NATO designers made incredible and hard work to really improve vehicles armor protection.

Soviets have also one more problem, weight and size of vehicle restrictions. Obviously the best way to improve vehicles protection without increasing significantly weight and size was to use explosive reactive armor. So it is really hard to say if armor protection was on par, or if NATO tanks were weaker protected than Soviet tanks.

I think that Methos can say more about this issue.

If the modern Ukrainian (Russian) tanks can hit a target armor 700 mm at a distance of 5 km, Leopard2A6 with a cannon 55 calibers only just caught up with them. But in the electronics domestic tanks school can not afford to catch up with the West.

This is another misconception. Gun Launched Anti Tank Guided Missiles (GLATGM) use HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) warheads, on paer everything looks good but... we know that composite armors efficency against HEAT is higher than it's efficency against Kinetic Energy projectiles like APFSDS. This means that Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian GLATGM's are not very efficent and are in fact useless in combat because several things.

In Europe most combat ranges are around 2,000m, so GLATGM do not have any advantage over APFSDS round. Second it is striclty Line of Sight ammunition, this means You need to see Your enemy to hit that enemy, but enemy can also see You and hit You.

What this means, it means that days of such ammunition are over, it have no real advantage, future belongs to Beyond Line of Sight guided munitions like LAHAT or American XM1111 MRM-CE, both with top attack mode.
Really think about that, and really nobody needs L55 gun, to have advantage, especially in range because even ballistic computers in NATO tanks do not permitt to fire APFSDS ammunition further than 4,000m that is their max effective range.

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

Special translation in Russian for our Ukrainian friend.
Специальный перевод на русский для наших украинских друзей.

[QUOTE = Аким; 516468] Хорошо, не пишите через переводчика. Leopard 2A4 появился в 1987 году, примерно в то же время появились Т-80У. Он был ответом на модернизацию танка Leopard 2А3. До распада Советского Союза уровень брони технология была примерно на одном уровне. [/ QUOTE]

Я думаю, что восточные источники, в основном русских и украинских сильно путаются западных композитных доспехи, и военные журналисты или люди из России / Украины писал о НАТО доспехи композитных совершенно не понимают концепцию идеи ее дизайна.

Основным отличием является составной объем материала в броню толщиной. Если вы сравните, например, Burlington доспехи и оружие комбинация K Вы заметите, что Burlington гораздо больше композитных материалов, объем массива на всю толщину брони, чем комбинация К. Это происходит потому, что у Burlington динамических элементов, а комбинация К не имеют. Я не знаю, если украинский или русский язык источников, знает об этом, но было по крайней мере, вариант Burlington брони испытания, с внутренней взрывной реактивной броней массив.

На самом деле не было ни одной брони Берлингтон, было много различных вариантов и конфигураций, некоторые из них были приняты и интегрированы с транспортных средств, некоторые не были.

Оба Leopard 2A4 и M1A1HA (тяжелый пакет брони) были направлены в период 1986-1988 годов для одной цели, для улучшения средств защиты от будущих угроз представлен новый советского оружия. И это было достигнуто, то как?

Например, США тяжелый пакет брони. Он широко верили, что основной прирост в броневой защиты достигается за счет использования обедненного урана сплава только, хорошо это главное заблуждение советских, русских и украинских источников. Обедненный уран является единственным элементом, совершенно новый пакет брони.

Западные источники говорят, что обедненный уран заключен в стальной, здесь намек, заключенный в сталь, что стали? Мы верим, что наиболее очевидным выбором будет использование HHS и СВС броневой стали. Это означает, что мы объединяем очень твердой стали с очень плотной Анде более platic сплава обедненного урана. Я думаю, что, например, Methos может объяснить потенциальные выгоды от такой конфигурации.

Очень похож конфигурации верили, которые будут использоваться в Leopard 2 серии с улучшенной броней, но где вместо сплава DU, есть Вольфрам (вероятно, также в виде сплавов.

Существует также еще повесят, как DU и вольфрама, вероятно, используется в сплаве форме, что это значит? Ну, это может означать разные вещи, потому что сплав характеристик зависит от того, какие материалы используются в сплаве, например, один из компонентов такого сплава может затруднить или другой компонент может сделать его более пластичным. Все зависит от сочетания этих доклада доступен и выбранного материала.

И более того, что все источники на самом деле говорят об этих доспехов? На самом деле ничего нет, мы не знаем ничего, ни западных источников говорит что-то действительно стоит об этом новое поколение НАТО композитных доспехи, ни советского, русского или украинского источников. Просто потому, что прямые состав этих доспехов, характеристики используемых материалов и так далее, неизвестно.

Но давайте этот вопрос. Мы знаем, что времена холодной войны, все советские танки бросили структуры башни броню, что это значит? В русских и украинских источниках говорится, литой брони от 5 до 15% слабее, чем это RHA аналог. В сочетании с тем, что композитный объем массива брони на общую толщину брони советских танков было меньше, чем в НАТО танки, означает, что Советский композитной брони, возможно, были слабее, а там ничего не было известно любое использование специальных материалов, например, DU или вольфрамовые сплавы заключен, например, в HHS, СВС или тройная твердость стали (THS?) пластин. Возьмите это к рассмотрению. Действительно, в 1970-х и 1980-х годов НАТО дизайнеры сделали невероятное и напряженной работы, чтобы действительно улучшить транспортные средства бронезащиты.

Советы есть еще одна проблема, веса и размеров транспортных средств ограничения. Очевидно, что лучший способ улучшить средства защиты, не увеличивая существенно вес и размер заключается в использовании встроенной динамической защитой. Так что это очень трудно сказать, броневая защита была на одном уровне, или если НАТО танки были слабее защищены, чем советские танки.

Я думаю, что Methos могу сказать больше об этой проблеме.

Если современный украинский (русский) танки могут поражать цели брони 700 мм на расстоянии 5 км, Leopard2A6 с пушкой 55 калибра только догнал их. Но в электронике отечественной школы танки не могут позволить себе, чтобы догнать Запад. [/ QUOTE]

Это еще одно заблуждение. Пистолет Запущенный борьбы управляемых ракет (GLATGM) использования HEAT (фугасными Антивирус Танк) боеголовок на Паер все выглядит хорошо, но ... Мы знаем, что композитный efficency брони от кумулятивных выше, чем его efficency от кинетической энергии снаряда, как APFSDS. Это означает, что советский, русский и украинский в GLATGM не очень эффективен и на самом деле бесполезны в бою, потому что несколько вещей.

В Европе большинство диапазонов боевых около 2000 м, так GLATGM не имеют никаких преимуществ перед APFSDS раунде. Второе это striclty прямой видимости боеприпасы, это означает, что Вам нужно, чтобы ваш враг ударил, что враг, но враг может видеть Вас и ударил вас.

Что это означает, это означает, что дни такие боеприпасы закончились, у нее нет реальных преимуществ, будущее принадлежит Помимо прямой видимости боеприпасы как Лахат или американский XM1111 MRM-CE, как с верхней режиме атаки.
На самом деле думаю об этом, и в самом деле никому не нужны пушки L55, чтобы иметь преимущество, особенно в диапазоне, потому что даже баллистические компьютеров в НАТО танки не позволяющие выполнить для стрельбы боеприпасами APFSDS дальше, чем 4000 м, что является их максимальная дальность.

 

[Damian]

@Akim

Oh, I would like to add that what I am writing about the armor of a NATO and the Russian /Ukrainian tanks, does not mean that your tanks are poorly protected, to the contrary, they are very well protected. The fact that at the present level of knowledge about the materials used, the most logical conclusions are these listed above in previous post. While more modern tanks, Ukrainian or Russian designed, such as T-90A, T-90MS and T-84M Oplot are already at a comparable level with the latest versions of 3rd generation of NATO Main Battle Tanks, such as M1A1SA, M1A1FEP, M1A2SEP, Leopard 2A5, A6 and A7 or Leclerc series 3 tranches 10 and 11. The main problem of the previous Russian and Ukrainian tanks, was the tower made by casting. When the tower started to use components made by welding rolled steel, the situation improved, and in my opinion, the protection of all mentioned above tanks against kinetic ammunition will be approx ~800-850mm (or, ideally ~900-950mm), rolled homogeneous armor equivalent, and more than ~1,300-1,600 mm, rolled homogeneous armor equivalent against HEAT rounds.

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

О, я хотел бы добавить, что я пишу о броню танка НАТО и Россия / Украина, не означает, что ваши танки защищены плохо, наоборот, очень хорошо защищены. Дело в том, что при современном уровне знаний об используемых материалов, наиболее логичным выводам, которые приведены выше. В то время как более современных танков или украинский русский производства, таких как Т-90А, Т-90МС и Т-84М Оплот уже находятся на сопоставимом уровне с последними версиями трех поколений танков НАТО, таких как M1A1SA, M1A1FEP, M1A2SEP, Leopard 2A5, A6 и A7 или Леклерк серии 3 транша 10 и 11 Главной проблемой предыдущих ведущих русских и украинских, была первой башни производится методом литья. Когда башни начали использовать компоненты, изготовленные с помощью сварки проката, ситуация улучшилась, и на мой взгляд, кинетические боеприпасы против этих структур составит около ~800-850мм (или, в идеале ~900-950мм), эквивалентная проката гомогенной брони, а также более чем на ~1,300-1,600 мм, что эквивалентно проката гомогенной брони от кумулятивных снарядов.

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

To moderators, please do not delete text written in Russian, our friend have problems with english, and two language posts are here to improve communication and to help him better understood.

 

[Akim]

@Akim

To moderators, please do not delete text written in Russian, our friend have problems with english, and two language posts are here to improve communication and to help him better understood.

Don't worry I read in English, but bad writing it is not necessary to translate text.

 

[militarysta]

If the modern Ukrainian (Russian) tanks can hit a target armor 700 mm at a distance of 5 km, Leopard2A6 with a cannon 55 calibers only just caught up with them.

Akim - Refleks, Invar, Refleks-M, Cobra, can't deal whit modern MBT frontal protection. For the most peimistic (bad) estimatous Leopard-2A4 turret armour had more then 800mm RHA vs HEAT. In Leopard-2A5 it's more then 1100mm RHA vs HEAT. So it will be wery difficul to destroy tank using HEAT warhed with only 700-850mm RHA perforation.

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.

You know, some months ago some guy (Andriej Tarasenko) made funny article:
Сравнение «Леопард-2А4» и Т-64Б (БМ «Булат»)
And it one big bullshit - especially in part about Leopard-2A4 armour protecion. I had wrote about this here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-128.html#post390242
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-128.html#post388457

and here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-131.html#post392046

 

[Akim]

Akim - Refleks, Invar, Refleks-M, Cobra, can't deal whit modern MBT frontal protection. For the most peimistic (bad) estimatous Leopard-2A4 turret armour had more then 800mm RHA vs HEAT. In Leopard-2A5 it's more then 1100mm RHA vs HEAT. So it will be wery difficul to destroy tank using HEAT warhed with only 700-850mm RHA perforation.



You know, some months ago some guy (Andriej Tarasenko) made funny article:
Сравнение «Леопард-2А4» и Т-64Б (БМ «Булат»)
And it one big bullshit - especially in part about Leopard-2A4 armour protecion. I had wrote about this here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-128.html#post390242
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-128.html#post388457

and here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-131.html#post392046

My the base English enough only the to fill voids in the discussion of the BMPT-64. To enter into an equivalent dispute, I do not can while. Understand, now there is not direct opposition as in Prokhorovka or on the Golan Heightsю. And all depends on preparation. Old Russian Т- 62 lined more perfect Georgian Т- 72 SIM1. And Hezbollah has destroyed many Israeli tanks, and have no no. I am well acquainted with Т-64BV. He not level - Leopard2А4. BM Bulat caught up with him Certainly not in everything. But conversation went about a tender. And there is not direct technical opposition. Politicians and economists decide there. In Thailand generals wanted Korean К1А1, and an order entered in the BM Oplot. In Peru an outsider was Chinese Type- 90, but a government wanted to purchase exactly him. PT- 91 also won a tender in Malaysia on strange circumstances. So it is a question not the military, and to the politicians.

 

[methos]

You missed something:

Outermost part of the armour insert consists of three metal plates (picture 1), which are mounted on coil springs in the armour (picture 2). You actually did include this information several times earlier in the discussions.

The Leopard 2А4 appeared also in the middle of 80th and Т-80U excels nothing
[...]
Ok, do not write through the translator. Leopard 2A4 appeared in 1987, about the same time came the T-80U. He was an answer for modernization of tank of Leopard 2А3. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union the level of armor technology was approximately the at one level. Then of course the West left forward and received Soviet technology bought from Ukraine or from Russia via Cyprus. A modern tank is not a confrontation between the thickness of armor and competition in the Fire-control system. If the modern Ukrainian (Russian) tanks can hit a target armor 700 mm at a distance of 5 km, Leopard2A6 with a cannon 55 calibers only just caught up with them. But in the electronics domestic tanks school can not afford to catch up with the West.

The Leopard 2 uses like most Western tanks a pretty different armour layout than the T-80U. On all Soviet tanks fielded during the Cold War the main bulk of protection against kinetic energy rounds is a result from the steel turrets (this could be the same for the steel parts of the Western tanks, we don't know). But all Soviet tanks fielded during the Cold War use cast turrets. Cast steel is already 5 - 15% less effective than rolled homogenous armour (RHA). Then NATO started to use layered steel as part of the armour. Tests have shown that if you use three different types of steel with one being very hard (HHS, high hardness steel), one being slightly harder than RHA (SHS, semi-hardened steel) and one bein RHA that this overall with offer 1.5 as much protection than RHA of the same weight.
The German Leopard 2 series seem to use this in the armour (see post #2660 with an estimated layout done by militarysta), the same can be said about the Leopard 1A3, Leopard 1A4, Challenger 1, Challenger 2, AMX-40 and has been claimed to be used on the AMX-56 Leclerc (on the Challenger 1 and 2 there are normally two thick layers of steel bolted on the outside, here is a Challenger 2 without it).

We do not know the exact armour thickness of the T-80U, militarysta estimated it to be 740 mm in post #2719, while Fofanov said that it is 800 - 815 mm (so in both cases slightly lower than the armour of the Leopard 2). If the Leopard 2 armour uses as much steel as the T-80U armour, then it will be better protected than the T-80U vs KE (while having at least the same protection vs HEAT). Otherwise if the Leopard 2 uses less steel than the T-80U, then there is more place for the HEAT optimized armour (may it be ceramic tiles or NERA).

In the 1980s the Germans and the U.S. did introduce new versions of their tanks with heavier armour and slightly increased weight (the Leopard 2A4 from batch 6) and the M1A1HA and M1A1HC). The Soviets didn't follow the same logic (because using more cast armour would be very weight inefficient), but instead they opted for using Kontakt-5 (which is very weight efficient).
That the Soviets decided to use cast turrets has been dictated by the numbers they wanted to produce. Welding (and producing steel plates of different size and hardness) does take much more time, slowing down the production. Also HHS and SHS cost far more than RHA.

The T-64BM Bulat uses the same base armour as the T-64 supplemented with a rather thin RHA layer and new Knife ERA. It might be better in regards to protection than the Leopard 2A4, but it also could be worse. It all depends on how effective the Knife ERA will work - which is depending on the ammunition used to fight it. Also note that ERA coverage is allways questionable.

Regarding the accuracy, as Damian wrote, it is not the same. You are comparing gun-launched missiles with conventional ammunition. Gun-launched missiles (GLATGM) are very accurate, but also rather slow and do not penetrate much armour (because modern armour is far more effective against shaped charge warheads than kinetic energy. If you compare Western and Soviet APFSDS rounds, then the Soviet choice of full-caliber fins leads to a lower accuracy.

 

[militarysta]

You missed something:

Outermost part of the armour insert consists of three metal plates (picture 1), which are mounted on coil springs in the armour (picture 2). You actually did include this information several times earlier in the discussions.

Indeed - thanks for checking. It was beta version. This is finnal:




After checking in some graphic programs I can tell without doubts that after C active layers there are at least 4 layers of armour.
If I have right in the side turret armour we have that layers:
A - rather thin (5mm?) RHA external plates
B - firts active layers -this tree plates (eacht made from 2-3 layers) whit this amortization and "feet" whit springs inside. All is mounted by this "feet" to the some deeper layer.
C - another active layer! it's looks like classic burlinhton plate - two thin metal plates and smthing in diffrent color beetwen them it's look simmilar to the NERA too. So "C" layer looks like one big active "special armour" layer made by 10-12 NERA/Burlinghton plates...
A - rather thick (40mm) RHA plate.
D - unkown layer looks like non metalic but I may be wrong.
E - unowny layer in light color so it can be ceramics or absorber layer, it's rather non metalic layer.
D - unkown layer looks like non metalic but I may be wrong.
A - backplate made by RHA about 30mm thick I suppose.

We do not know the exact armour thickness of the T-80U, militarysta estimated it to be 740 mm in post #2719, while Fofanov said that it is 800 - 815 mm (so in both cases slightly lower than the armour of the Leopard 2).

Yes- in T-80U for 0.angle and part closer to the turret edges it is slighty more then 800mm LOS, but in place when "internal" X distance ended when we made 0. angle then it's 740mm thick. So both of us have right I suppose.

 

[Damian]

I have some doubts that it looks that way. Composite armor protecting turret bustle is different than that protecting crew compartment.

That NERA like thing on coil springs is from crew compartment protection part, and is only element of bigger armor array. While turret bustle protection part, is without this NERA like part.

But of course this is my opinion only. It can look like on Militarysta drawing, because We do not see if in turret bustle armor array are opening for these bolts connceted via coil spring with these NERA like plates.

 

[militarysta]

It's simple - just chec on photos from factory if LOS in 90. is the same on whole turret sides. As I know it is.
I had some doubts about this NERA layers too, but if methos hae right it's look that. Without andy doubts NERA layers are nex to thin 5mm external plate on hight crew sides comparment. If the same is on turret bustle hight - well I have slighty doubts, but I traied to draw what I see on photos and what ic can looks like.

 

[Damian]

It's simple - just chec on photos from factory if LOS in 90. is the same on whole turret sides. As I know it is.
I had some doubts about this NERA layers too, but if methos hae right it's look that. Without andy doubts NERA layers are nex to thin 5mm external plate on hight crew sides comparment. If the same is on turret bustle hight - well I have slighty doubts, but I traied to draw what I see on photos and what ic can looks like.

That NERA like element on crew compartment level, need these steel bolts to be placed inside armor array to be hold in place, simply because turret side backplate is smooth and there are no places where these bolts can be mounted, and there are also no welding marks.



It is a rough drawing, but hopefully shows the over all idea.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

The problem here is YOU people make the drawings as if you really took a scale out there and measured the armor and its various components. This fan boy drawings are getting ahead of the real facts, all armor is classified.

 

[militarysta]

The problem here is YOU people make the drawings as if you really took a scale out there and measured the armor and its various components. This fan boy drawings are getting ahead of the real facts, all armor is classified.

Yeah, sure. We know exatly T-72M1, T-72B, T-64A and T-64B armour. Layers, thickness, resistance vs ammo, etc.
About Leo-2A4 we have very very strong dates about known test, material, and how layers are placed in armour.
Soo sorry but it have sense.

 

[Damian]

The problem here is YOU people make the drawings as if you really took a scale out there and measured the armor and its various components. This fan boy drawings are getting ahead of the real facts, all armor is classified.

These drawings are not like we would say "hey this is how it looks in reality, for certain). It gives only rough idea how it looks like. All these drawings are based on:

1) Messurements done on real tanks.
2) Estimations.
3) Declassified sources.
4) Photographs.
5) Literature dedicated to show armor research and development history.

This is not some fantasy as You might think, You don't even imagine how many hours of hard work with all these sources is need to be done to even have slightest idea how composite armor might look like.

I don't know how it looks in India, but in Europe and USA, many people spend years to only learn the basics of that whole thing, and later even more years of their own research, digging through tons of sources, filtraing them from useless informations or desinformation.

There is one guy, Paul Lakowski, he made incredibly hard work trying to calculate armor protection of various tanks by using scientific methods, I do not agree with all of his work effects, some seems not be correct, yet he tried, and IMHO he succeed enough to give at least rough idea.

Think about that.

BTW GK, if Militarysta would show You some of sources he works with, You would be very impressed. Unfortunetly he can't neither I can because of obvious reasons.