Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Godless-Kafir]

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.

Really? Till couple of days back the M1A1 did not have spaced armour but now we are looking at a diffrent story. Damian insisted it was solid block Armour at the sides.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

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.

The last time you mentioned you where going to University but now you have sources Damian?

The point here is the level of confidence you always brandish an argument with even when both of us are only in a learning curve. I am more into fighter jets but i have seen Forum discussions right from 1998. In forums like BR is am sure there are people who spend a lot of time going in debt into armor but what i dont like is this arrogance in a debate that has totally ruined discussion on the net.

 

[Damian]

Really? Till couple of days back the M1A1 did not have spaced armour but now we are looking at a diffrent story. Damian insisted it was solid block Armour at the sides.

Jesus Christ... talk with someone who don't have slightest idea what You are talking about...

I never said it is a solid armor block. Do You even understand difference between LOS thickness estimations or messurements and how they are represented on a drawing? How is represented composite armor placement on drawing, and how is represented composite armor structure on drawing?

Do You even understand that composite armor is never a solid block but in it's internal structure is more similiar to spaced armor and in the same time not being a spaced armor?

With who I am talking here?

You are allways make wrong assumptions, start to think, to use brain!

The last time you mentioned you where going to University but now you have sources Damian?

The point here is the level of confidence you always brandish an argument with even when both of us are only in a learning curve. I am more into fighter jets but i have seen Forum discussions right from 1998. In forums like BR is am sure there are people who spend a lot of time going in debt into armor but what i dont like is this arrogance in a debate that has totally ruined discussion on the net.

I think You completely not understood the purpose of these drawing.

They are not 100% accurate representation of reality, but only gives a rough idea how it looks like. We allways says so. When we have for example photos or armor structure, we can be 90% sure how armor array looks like. We still do not know many things, like used materials and how each of them correspond with each other. We can only assume how this can look like.

This is what we allways say.

And if You have better idea, spend next 5 to 10 years of Your life, digging through different sources, learning about this, talking with different people also interested in this subject, and then You will have right to say we are wrong or that You know better, ok?

Look I do not teach You about fighter jets, they do not interest me, I don't know a shit about aerodynamics, so I do not participate in these discussions much, and beyond what I actually know for sure.

 

[militarysta]

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.

Damian, I don't think soo, for that resons:

1. NERA layers must be mounted to FIRST heavy layer after "special armour" - it must be first layer becouse if this amortzation "feet" go throught one layer it's possible, but if they go throught by all layers they mady big weekneses in armour. Americans are not stupid, so Im preatty sure that they are mounted to the first heavy meatal layer after "special armour cavity".

2. Smooth backplate is not in oposide to my idea - just all layers are in one big armour module and only extreme layer (paint in blue) made "box" for this armour and layers B-C-A-D-E-D made armour insert.

3. This armoul alyout A B-C-A-D-E-D A is consistent with this what we know about Burlinghton armour, and simmilar to arrangement layers in Leo2A4. Im mean: "box" for armour made from RHA plates (external with hight HB, backplate whit hight plasticy) and isnert: NERA/special armour, and RHA plate, non metalic, thin absorber (aramid? kevlar?), non metalic (ceramics??) and after that this backplate mentioned above. It's layout simmilar to the Leopard-2 ones, of course without first NERA layer.
But what is great in that picture -we can see exatly like looks "special armour". And it's look like NERA ora Burlinghton. BTW: Burlinghton may by just very close to the NERA.



ps. Damian hold on I'll answer Godless-Kafir about sources without breaking opspec O give me time.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Jesus Christ... talk with someone who don't have slightest idea what You are talking about...

I never said it is a solid armor block. Do You even understand difference between LOS thickness estimations or messurements and how they are represented on a drawing? How is represented composite armor placement on drawing, and how is represented composite armor structure on drawing?

Do You even understand that composite armor is never a solid block but in it's internal structure is more similiar to spaced armor and in the same time not being a spaced armor?

With who I am talking here?

You are allways make wrong assumptions, start to think, to use brain!



I think You completely not understood the purpose of these drawing.

They are not 100% accurate representation of reality, but only gives a rough idea how it looks like. We allways says so. When we have for example photos or armor structure, we can be 90% sure how armor array looks like. We still do not know many things, like used materials and how each of them correspond with each other. We can only assume how this can look like.

This is what we allways say.

And if You have better idea, spend next 5 to 10 years of Your life, digging through different sources, learning about this, talking with different people also interested in this subject, and then You will have right to say we are wrong or that You know better, ok?

Look I do not teach You about fighter jets, they do not interest me, I don't know a shit about aerodynamics, so I do not participate in these discussions much, and beyond what I actually know for sure.

Fuk Jesus, The point here is you probably know more than i do about Tank Armor because i see you a lot in Tank Nut dave or TankNet forum, i mostly busy these days because i have my own business to run now, so i am not claiming any better knowledge but i have seen you evolve your thoughts and learn that you had made mistakes, then why come out swinging as if you know? You have been wrong many times while discussing with me and i to have been wrong, you just make any dignified exist on mistakes impossible.

Try to have a little bit less confidence when your only still learning, i dont think you even know the exact working of Russian T-90 tank armor or Gun mechanic.

These drawings are purely putting out wrong information out there and tomorrow some nut bag will show this drawing to argue against me in some other forum.

 

[militarysta]

@Godless-Kafir

Really?

Yes, relly. In T-72B, T-72M1, T-64A, T-64B, there is no mystery. Wy know naw lmoust all about armour. LOS, material, layout, layers, resistance vs HEAT and APFSDS. This above was described many times in russian (otvaga, WiT, btvt) and in western (Jim W.) pages, magazines, articles, etc. It's only question of knowledge of the literature.
So I will not write about that obvious tanks.


In Leopard -2A4 thema I had posted here photos whit mesured LOS, and draws whit LOS. We know how many weight LEo-2A4 armour, we know how good was Buringhton against HEAT and APFSDS, we have literature about that. You want some probe? Here you have - very small part only in polish:
1.Andrzej Kiński, T-90 -ad vocem, Nowa Technika Nowa technika wojskowa, Kwiecień 2003,24-25
2. Mariusz Magier, Nowa amunicja podkalibrowa dla polskich czołgów. Nowa Technika Wojskowa, Marzec 2004, s.24-25
3. Mariusz Magier. Współczesna Amunicja czołgowa, Nowa Technika Wojskowa, Kwiecień 2002,s.21-26
4. Dariusz Użycki, Leclerck -pół generacji przed Abramsem i Leopardem, RAPORT-wto,Maj 2001s.30-37
5. Dariusz Użycki, Leopard2 -źródła sukcesu, Nowa Technika Wojskowa,Kwiecień 2000,s.8-14
6.Siergiej Suworow, T-90-pierwszy seryjny czołg Rosji, NTW, Marzec 2003, s.16-24
7.Dariusz Użycki, Leopardy 2-oferta do rozważenia?, RAPORT-wto, Luty 2001,s.39-44
8.Andrzej Kiński, Jadą Leopardy...,NTW,Marzec 2002,s.9-11
9.Paweł Przeździecki, Terminator ze Wschodu, NTW, Marzec 2008,s.14-24
10. Andrzej Kiński, Jak można zmodernizować Twardego?, NTW, Wrzesień 2007,s.14-22
11. Michał Nita, Leclerck AZUR i Leopard2PSO, czyli czołgi do działań w mieście,NTW,Marzec2007,s.44-50
I have more then 50 items in the bibliography only about armour in MBT's.
Soo sorry - You are wrong.
BTW articles about Burlinghton are avaible in internet - I posted links in that thema.

And as Damian said - but only gives a rough idea how it looks like. We allways says so. When we have for example photos or armor structure, we can be 90% sure how armor array looks like. We still do not know many things, like used materials and how each of them correspond with each other. We can only assume how this can look like.
PLEASE PRINT THIS AND READ SLOWLY - OK?
Before You don't understand this above we can't go foward in discussion.

 

[Damian]

Damian, I don't think soo, for that resons:

1. NERA layers must be mounted to FIRST heavy layer after "special armour" - it must be first layer becouse if this amortzation "feet" go throught one layer it's possible, but if they go throught by all layers they mady big weekneses in armour. Americans are not stupid, so Im preatty sure that they are mounted to the first heavy meatal layer after "special armour cavity".

2. Smooth backplate is not in oposide to my idea - just all layers are in one big armour module and only extreme layer (paint in blue) made "box" for this armour and layers B-C-A-D-E-D made armour insert.

3. This armoul alyout A B-C-A-D-E-D A is consistent with this what we know about Burlinghton armour, and simmilar to arrangement layers in Leo2A4. Im mean: "box" for armour made from RHA plates (external with hight HB, backplate whit hight plasticy) and isnert: NERA/special armour, and RHA plate, non metalic, thin absorber (aramid? kevlar?), non metalic (ceramics??) and after that this backplate mentioned above. It's layout simmilar to the Leopard-2 ones, of course without first NERA layer.
But what is great in that picture -we can see exatly like looks "special armour". And it's look like NERA ora Burlinghton. BTW: Burlinghton may by just very close to the NERA.

1) IMHO my drawing better represent how this looks like, but of course I might be wrong and You can be corect. To solve this we need to things:

A) Photo of complete armor array.
B) Knowledge what armor we actually see, Burlington or Heavy Armor Package, both might be very different.

2) Perhaps yes. As above, to solve this wee need such materials to work with.

3) I think You should try to find a connection in Paweł Przeździecki work, he made huge research of Burlington files are other sources, hey maybe You should even ask him for some sources, maybe some scans?

ps. Damian hold on I'll answer Godless-Kafir about sources without breaking opspec O give me time.

Hey, I'm deleted these... sources as You asked, none of them are on my computer. So ok and don't worry.

Fuk Jesus, The point here is you probably know more than i do about Tank Armor because i see you a lot in Tank Nut dave or TankNet forum, i mostly busy these days because i have my own business to run now, so i am not claiming any better knowledge but i have seen you evolve your thoughts and learn that you had made mistakes, then why come out swinging as if you know? You have been wrong many times while discussing with me and i to have been wrong, you just make any dignified exist on mistakes impossible.

Try to have a little bit less confidence when your only still learning, i dont think you even know the exact working of Russian T-90 tank armor or Gun mechanic.

These drawings are purely putting out wrong information out there and tomorrow some nut bag will show this drawing to argue against me in some other forum.

1) But I do not claim that these drawings are 100% correct, as I said, they are rought representation of that what we know, their only purpose is to give idea how it might look like, how it might work etc. Not that this is like "hey I know that this definetly looks that way"... what is so hard to understand here?

Yes I'am still learning, each human learn until his death, because there is no absolute knowledge. So what's the point?

And of course I do not know everything about T-90 armor neither about main gun mechanic details, but if I will have opportunity to learn more I will do it, simple as that. You think why I'am slowly learning Russian?

And these drawing don't put there any wrong information, they only shows what we know at this particular moment. This knowledge might evolve and change with time when we will know more, simple as that.

And I'am not responsible for some idiots actions and claims. Our drawings are opensource, something that everyone can see, copy somewhere to show more people, discuss. We belive that adult people will understand and use them correctly, and I and Militarysta, don't care about children that have access to internet and pretend to be gods of knowledge.

 

[militarysta]

1) IMHO my drawing better represent how this looks like, but of course I might be wrong and You can be corect.

Damian On the picture from Iraq we can see smth wery close to the Leo2A4 layers aragment (whit open and visible "special armour") and what is most important - we can see how layers are arragent whithout doubt. There is no possibilyty to layers arragment like on Your draw, becouse on the photo we can see at least 4 diffrent in thick layers after "special armour" we can see "special armour" itself. Ony question can be about NERA place. It's only doubts. We dont know proper thickness, and material (we can assume only that) but arragment layers is clearly visible. And it's difrent then on Your draw. No offense -its my opinnion.

@Godless-Kafir,

These drawings are purely putting out wrong information out there and tomorrow some nut bag will show this drawing to argue against me in some other forum.

So please bo so honor men and show me where made by me pictures "purely putting out wrong information out " Ok? In T-72B, in Leo2A4LOS, etc.
Would You by so kind and shown me that?

see you a lot in Tank Nut dave

TankNutDave page sucks. It's one of the worse sites in the whole internet about tanks. And they have "british media offcier" who take care about that forum. BTW - I was banned ther for breake OPSPEC issue. Think about this, ok?

i dont think you even know the exact working of Russian T-90 tank armor or Gun mechanic.

I have fabric manuals about gun -it's first, second - I'll posted about Ob.184 armour. In erly T-90 (ob.188) is the same. The same about Kontak-5. So sorry we rather know smth.abou that.


Btw: Godless-Kafir, - the most important. Our (me and Damian) knowledges about tanks is still improving. Till this year we made bigger progres then for last four years. And Yes, our estimatous made three years ago was offen incorect in many aspects, but we can't compare those and this. Sorry - it's diffrent quality.

 

[Damian]

Damian On the picture from Iraq we can see smth wery close to the Leo2A4 layers aragment (whit open and visible "special armour") and what is most important - we can see how layers are arragent whithout doubt. There is no possibilyty to layers arragment like on Your draw, becouse on the photo we can see at least 4 diffrent in thick layers after "special armour" we can see "special armour" itself. Ony question can be about NERA place. It's only doubts. We dont know proper thickness, and material (we can assume only that) but arragment layers is clearly visible. And it's difrent then on Your draw. No offense -its my opinnion.

Well I don't know. I have a strong suspicion that You are confusing something here.

BTW can we discuss this in private, on GG for example?

 

[militarysta]

......................

 

[Damian]

Ok, after a discussion, Militarysta and me got to the conclusion that his drawing of M1 tanks side turret armor array is more closer to reality, however without more sources and data, we can't say that drawing is 100% correct, this issue needs further investigation and hard work.

 

[Damian]

I have some interesting photos of Merkava tank (different versions).

Turrets seems to be made by welding cast and rolled elements.

My conclusions. Merkava Mk1 and Mk2 were not better protected than NATO and Soviet counterparts, seems that Israeli tanks were inferior protected and much more heavy (if we belive Israeli weight data).

Merkava Mk3 and Mk4 might have better side turret and hull (only Mk4) armor than other MBT's.

Merkava tanks have slightly better protected hull rear armor due to spaced armor array there.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

1) IMHO my drawing better represent how this looks like, but of course I might be wrong and You can be corect. To solve this we need to things:

A) Photo of complete armor array.
B) Knowledge what armor we actually see, Burlington or Heavy Armor Package, both might be very different.

2) Perhaps yes. As above, to solve this wee need such materials to work with.

3) I think You should try to find a connection in Paweł Przeździecki work, he made huge research of Burlington files are other sources, hey maybe You should even ask him for some sources, maybe some scans?



Hey, I'm deleted these... sources as You asked, none of them are on my computer. So ok and don't worry.



1) But I do not claim that these drawings are 100% correct, as I said, they are rought representation of that what we know, their only purpose is to give idea how it might look like, how it might work etc. Not that this is like "hey I know that this definetly looks that way"... what is so hard to understand here?

Yes I'am still learning, each human learn until his death, because there is no absolute knowledge. So what's the point?

And of course I do not know everything about T-90 armor neither about main gun mechanic details, but if I will have opportunity to learn more I will do it, simple as that. You think why I'am slowly learning Russian?

And these drawing don't put there any wrong information, they only shows what we know at this particular moment. This knowledge might evolve and change with time when we will know more, simple as that.

And I'am not responsible for some idiots actions and claims. Our drawings are opensource, something that everyone can see, copy somewhere to show more people, discuss. We belive that adult people will understand and use them correctly, and I and Militarysta, don't care about children that have access to internet and pretend to be gods of knowledge.

You dont claim drawings are 100% correct but you talk 100% correct most of the time. Thats the point, although i enjoys many of your posts, it would be better if you come with an sense of learning rather than "you dont know, only i do". I may know a 100 diffrent things you dont know in may fields or in the same thing to. Not everyone is a rage filled teenager on the net, so you dont have to bring that tone to everyone.

Either way this casting pic seems old and tanks are always on upgrades as you know, so these pics are good for assumptions but they are sending out false information.

 

[Damian]

You dont claim drawings are 100% correct but you talk 100% correct most of the time. Thats the point, although i enjoys many of your posts, it would be better if you come with an sense of learning rather than "you dont know, only i do". I may know a 100 diffrent things you dont know in may fields or in the same thing to. Not everyone is a rage filled teenager on the net, so you dont have to bring that tone to everyone.

So finally we agree.

Either way this casting pic seems old and tanks are always on upgrades as you know, so these pics are good for assumptions but they are sending out false information.

It depends on how You look at this. For men A that do not have knowledge about tanks, this might start be confusing, for men B (me) it is clear.

Of course tanks are upgraded, design of their armor protection might change.

I agree with that and can even show You an real life example of this.

You seen what Militarysta concluded about M1 tanks side turret armor. But, tank on photo he used a s a reference is old variant, most probably M1A1HA so a tank version fielded in 1988.

But this document released by official DoD channels says to us:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2012/22.pdf



What this means, well it means only that we can have idea how M1A1HA side turret armor looks like, but newer variants like M1A1SA, M1A2SEP have upgraded armor that's design might be much more different.

And some history from Soviet Union.

And something from Germany:

 

[militarysta]

Altair - 2�razy więcej Leopardów dla Arabii Saudyjskiej

It's seems that Germans will sel not ~200 but 600-800 Leopard-2A7 for Saudi Arabi. The trade should be ended befor 20 july (Ramadan in AS). As ussaly stupid "green" and socialist are against this deal, and whole german MoD and industry awant's this deal becouse Krauss-Maffei Wegman and Rheinmetall will be have 10bilions dolars for that. And what I suspected - KMW and Rhein.have still abilities to produce new tanks without Spanish help
We will see how it wil be at the end. BTW: what is funny - SA just rejected after test T-90SA.

what is interesting:

Amerykanie oferowali Saudyjczykom także swoje czołgi M1 Abrams, ale przegrały one w rywalizacji z konstrukcją niemiecką.

USA had offered Sudi Arabi M1 tanks, but they lost in the competition with german constructions (Leo2A7).

Well IMHO it was about cost of using tanks, or Germans want to sell not downgraded version (A7) while USA have M1 whit "export armour packed" or smth.like this. But is very significant that Saudi Arabi wants to diversify tank park.I do not put forward proposals that M1 was rejected after some bad expiriences - IMHO it was rather to diversify tank park against possibility of the US embargo on spare parts, or Sudi Arabi don't want downgraded tanks, and Germans are able to sell Leo2A7 on really top level.

We should wait for more dates.

 

[Damian]

Seems that everyone will be happy. Americans (GDLS) will upgrade ~373 Saudi M1A2's to M1A2S standard (it appears that this modernization is bigger than I thought, later I will wrote something about it), and Germans will sell ~600-800 Leo2's.

Saudis probably want to replace they older tanks like AMX-30's and M60A3's, and to not be so dependant on USA, they just choose something that will be close to M1A2S in capabilities.

BTW did You know Militarysta that M1A2S will have upgraded armor? This is something new to me.

Ok something about M1A2S, but something is not right here. It appears that Saudi Arabia bouth 58 M1A1's from US and before these tanks were send to SA, GDLS rebuilded them to M1A2S configuration, these tanks were probably evaluation batch for the whole brigade.

But:

April 12/12: US Army sheds light. The US Army throws a bit of light on a program that has been short of details, as it announces that Anniston Army Depot had contracted to overhaul 143 Saudi M1 Abrams tanks to M1A2S standard, through a partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems. It extends a previous GDLS partnership that began in early 2011, when the depot assisted in upgrading 57 M1A1 and M1A2 tanks to the M1A2S variant.

Once structural repairs are complete, the hulls, turrets and components will be shipped from Alabama to Lima, OH, where the tanks will be assembled by General Dynamics Land Systems.

That brings the total number of M1A2S tanks under the agreement to 200, and an additional 129 tanks are awaiting funding. Work will take place at Lima Army Tank Plant, OH, where 326,000 direct labor hours are expected for the installation through this program. Anniston Army Depot employees will disassemble and sandblast the vehicles, then perform needed repairs to the hulls and turrets. They'll also play a key role in refurbishing components for the vehicles by rebuilding the Gunner's Primary Sight assembly, computer control panel, elevating mechanism assembly, gunner's control assembly, and other parts for each tank. US Army.

Defence Industry Daily reports this. We can see here that there is allready 200 tanks in upgrade program, and 129 more waits for funding. This means 58 + 200 + 129 = 387 tanks total for Saudi Arabia, not 373 reported earlier.

There are also rumors that M1A2S upgrade contains:

LV100-5 gas Turbine engine instead of AGT-1500C TIGER gas Turbine engine.
TUSK Kit.
Rear Slat Armor(!).
Besides new FCS and sights for Gunner and TC, also new Thermal sights for driver and loader.
Remote Controlled Weapon Station CROWS for TC.
Front armor upgrades.

That might be an attempt to make export equivalent for US Army M1A2SEP v2.

 

[militarysta]

BTW did You know Militarysta that M1A2S will have upgraded armor? This is something new to me.

Look about Israeli 120mm ammo and its generations. Im thinking that it may be answer.

 

[Damian]

Look about Israeli 120mm ammo and its generations. Im thinking that it may be answer.

Might be that way. IMHO the whole deal looks like this.

Saudis like all Arabs don't like Israel, so they are thinking, Israel is too close to US, US never allow us to have edge over them. Saudis seek alternatives, they find it in Europe. Negotations starts. Meanwhile in US we have shift in power with Obama as POTUS. Obama's relations with Israels get's cold. US needs more money, deals with Israel don't generate money because Israelis mostly use FMF. New administration forces to sold Saudis some better technology, and this is how M1A2S born. Saudis are happy but being catious, they keep deal negotations with Germany.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Damian]

Unusual M1A2SEP with TUSK kit, seems to be one of test vehicles, we can see RWS mounts for both tank commander and loader.

 

[Damian]

M1A2SEP use as a training aid in Fort Dix.

Universal Combat Platform MGV (Manned Ground Vehicle) prototype during welding process.