Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Thanks for clarification Methos.

Something interesting from Ukraine and... USA. Andrei Tarasenko on his blog, publicized photos of Ukrainian T-80UD's sold to USA but...

These tanks don't look like T-80UD (not a standard Object 478B or 478BE at least), but more like a T-84, and what is more interesting, these T-80UD/T-84's are modernized/builded as some sort of customs for USA.

andrei_bt - Т-80УД в США

4 tanks were sold, at least two of them with Knife (Нож/Ніж) explosive reactive armor and Drozd (claimed to be some sort of modified version) active protection system. It is not known if Shtora/Varta active protection system was also sold, and if other two tanks were in the same standard.


T-84M Oplot during tests.

 

[Akim]

Thanks for clarification Methos.

Something interesting from Ukraine and... USA. Andrei Tarasenko on his blog, publicized photos of Ukrainian T-80UD's sold to USA but...

These tanks don't look like T-80UD (not a standard Object 478B or 478BE at least), but more like a T-84, and what is more interesting, these T-80UD/T-84's are modernized/builded as some sort of customs for USA.

andrei_bt - Т-80УД в США

4 tanks were sold, at least two of them with Knife (Нож/Ніж) explosive reactive armor and Drozd (claimed to be some sort of modified version) active protection system. It is not known if Shtora/Varta active protection system was also sold, and if other two tanks were in the same standard.


T-84M Oplot during tests.

Told you, disbelieve all that writes Tarasenko. In the USA – was is put Т-80BV. Outwardly for him other more than extended feed. Apparently Pentagon specially asked this tank exactly, because it is a basic tank of Russia and Ukraine (Т-64BV, Т-72BV, Т-80BV). All three types of tanks are at one level of defence armor and for them costs approximately identical FCS. Small upgrade did him, but modern developments did not put.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The IDF's future tank: Electromagnetic cannon
Imagine a tank that can drive on a hybrid engine, or one that can shoot a laser or and electromagnetic pulse.

Imagine a tank that can shoot a laser or an electromagnetic pulse. How about one that can drive on a hybrid engine – partly powered by electricity – instead of the loud diesel engines used today? These technologies and others are under consideration for integration into Israel's future tank which the IDF hopes will be operational by 2020.

Last year, the IDF Ground Forces Command set up a team of combat and technical officers – from the Armored Corps, the Weapons Development Branch in the Ground Forces Command and the Defense Ministry's Merkava Program Office – to begin planning Israel's future tank, the successor to the Merkava.

Development and construction of the Merkava began in the 1970s, and the most advanced model, the Merkava Mk 4, entered service in 2003.

Currently, two brigades are equipped with the Merkava Mk 4, purported to be one of the best-protected tanks in the world and capable of superior speeds and maneuverability.

The rest of the IDF's armored brigades operate older versions of the Merkava or M60 Pattons.

"When we look at what the future tank will look like, we need to look broadly at all technology that exists," Brig.-Gen. Yigal Slovik, outgoing commander of the Armored Corps, said this week. "There are such things as electromagnetic or laser cannons, but right now they are too big and not applicable. They might however be in the future."

For power, Slovik said that the tank could potentially operate on a hybrid engine that burns fuel to charge batteries that can then independently power the tank for extended periods.

Slovik said that the crew of the future tank would also likely be smaller than today, and as few as two soldiers could operate it.

"The future tank will ultimately be faster, better protected, more interoperable and more lethal," he said.

The decision to begin developing a new tank was sparked by the entry of active-protection systems such as the Trophy, which has been installed on an entire brigade of tanks and successfully intercepted a rocket-propelled grenade along the Gaza border last year.

The thinking in the defense establishment is that tanks no longer require thick layers of armor – which slow down the vehicle, and raise fuel and production costs – and could suffice with less armor and more systems like Trophy.

The IDF's future tank: Electromagnetic cannon - JPost - Defense

 

[Akim]

The IDF's future tank: Electromagnetic cannon
Imagine a tank that can drive on a hybrid engine, or one that can shoot a laser or and electromagnetic pulse.



The IDF's future tank: Electromagnetic cannon - JPost - Defense

I do not think, that such "thing" can be pushed in a tank. In a ship version she lasts the 20 shots only.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I do not think, that such "thing" can be pushed in a tank. In a ship version she lasts the 20 shots only.

I think the can make a smaller version of it , This has been tried before..

A rare find:

Green Farm Electric Gun Research and Development
Facility: The Final Chapter

Initially, the Green Farm Facility was intended for use
exclusively for EM Gun and EM Projectile development. The
32 MJ capacitor based pulsed power system was used to drive
the 90 mm diameter, 8 meter long, SSG Railgun. The SSG
was designed to deliver 9 MJ of projectile kinetic energy at the
muzzle, to operate over a velocity range from 2.5 to 4.0 km/s
and to provide an average of two shots per week.

In 1989 the facility was rapidly modified to provide two
additional gun positions for the Army 120 mm ETC Electrical
Enhancement Factor (EEF) Experiments. New reinforced gun
containment structures and target areas were constructed. The
gun housings were designed to fully contain a catastrophic
breech failure from a 155 mm cannon. Connections to the new
gun positions were provided from the existing pulsed power
system.

During the firing history of the Green Farm Electric Gun
R&D Facility several EM and ETC Guns were commissioned
and used for testing. The SSG, an 8 meter long, 90 mm diameter
bore, laboratory testbed provided a robust, prestressed, high current
capability for firing full-scale launch packages. Bolted construction
of the SSG provided easy disassembly, replacement
rails and insulators can be installed within a 1 to 2 week time
frame. The baseline design parameters for the SSG are shown
in Table I.

Several guns and test fixtures were used for the ETC
programs. The Army EEF ETC program incorporated the use
of two 120 mm, M256 guns for the M1A2 tank. For Maxcart
ETC testing the '' caliber Navy gun was used. SAIC's ETC
program tests were performed at 60 mm and 120 mm scale.
Additionally, numerous test fixtures were used to test propellant
ignition systems prior to integration into gun cartridges.

http://www.heshone.com/weblog/GreenFarm/GreenFarm.pdf

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

The second potential alternative is electromagnetic guns. Their main attraction is that they can launch projectiles at more than 3 000m/s, or twice the muzzle velocity of APFSD projectiles fired by current tank guns. The size, weight and other problems associated with electromagnetic guns do not make them a practical proposition for tanks. Nevertheless, there is a belief in the defence ministries of the US and the UK that, given further development, electromagnetic guns might become the main armament of tanks by the year 2015 or so.

In the late 1980s, there was also some interest in pure electrothermal (plasma-driven) weapons. However, these weapons have extremely high electrical power requirements. While ETC continues to be an area of interest, the functional goals of the technology have been scaled back substantially in recent years, again because of primary power considerations. Initially, researchers envisioned ETC as a way to increase muzzle energy by sustaining the design pressure over the full length of the barrel. However, current estimates indicate that this would require on the order of 10 MJ of electrical power.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Interesting..

 

[Akim]

Interesting..

I showed the photos of the serial American cannon, but not that that is done by amateurs in a "garage". I also saw video as in the Russian village,fellow did plasmajet by means of jar of Coca-cola.
And the experienced Russian Reliverinum, occupies by itself an enormous room from accumulators. To do his compact, clean hydrogen is necessary. I do not think that soldiers will want to sit on a "h-bomb".

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I showed the photos of the serial American cannon, but not that that is done by amateurs in a "garage". I also saw video as in the Russian village,fellow did plasmajet by means of jar of Coca-cola. And the experienced Russian Reliverinum, occupies by itself an enormous room from accumulators. To do his compact, clean hydrogen is necessary. I do not think that soldiers will want to sit on a "h-bomb".

That vid is for the Idea..


I think the can make a smaller version of it , This has been tried before..

A rare find:

Green Farm Electric Gun Research and Development
Facility: The Final Chapter

Initially, the Green Farm Facility was intended for use
exclusively for EM Gun and EM Projectile development. The
32 MJ capacitor based pulsed power system was used to drive
the 90 mm diameter, 8 meter long, SSG Railgun. The SSG
was designed to deliver 9 MJ of projectile kinetic energy at the
muzzle, to operate over a velocity range from 2.5 to 4.0 km/s
and to provide an average of two shots per week.

In 1989 the facility was rapidly modified to provide two
additional gun positions for the Army 120 mm ETC Electrical
Enhancement Factor (EEF) Experiments. New reinforced gun
containment structures and target areas were constructed. The
gun housings were designed to fully contain a catastrophic
breech failure from a 155 mm cannon. Connections to the new
gun positions were provided from the existing pulsed power
system.

During the firing history of the Green Farm Electric Gun
R&D Facility several EM and ETC Guns were commissioned
and used for testing. The SSG, an 8 meter long, 90 mm diameter
bore, laboratory testbed provided a robust, prestressed, high current
capability for firing full-scale launch packages. Bolted construction
of the SSG provided easy disassembly, replacement
rails and insulators can be installed within a 1 to 2 week time
frame. The baseline design parameters for the SSG are shown
in Table I.

Several guns and test fixtures were used for the ETC
programs. The Army EEF ETC program incorporated the use
of two 120 mm, M256 guns for the M1A2 tank. For Maxcart
ETC testing the '' caliber Navy gun was used. SAIC's ETC
program tests were performed at 60 mm and 120 mm scale.
Additionally, numerous test fixtures were used to test propellant
ignition systems prior to integration into gun cartridges.

http://www.heshone.com/weblog/GreenFarm/GreenFarm.pdf

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


The second potential alternative is electromagnetic guns. Their main attraction is that they can launch projectiles at more than 3 000m/s, or twice the muzzle velocity of APFSD projectiles fired by current tank guns. The size, weight and other problems associated with electromagnetic guns do not make them a practical proposition for tanks. Nevertheless, there is a belief in the defence ministries of the US and the UK that, given further development, electromagnetic guns might become the main armament of tanks by the year 2015 or so.

In the late 1980s, there was also some interest in pure electrothermal (plasma-driven) weapons. However, these weapons have extremely high electrical power requirements. While ETC continues to be an area of interest, the functional goals of the technology have been scaled back substantially in recent years, again because of primary power considerations. Initially, researchers envisioned ETC as a way to increase muzzle energy by sustaining the design pressure over the full length of the barrel. However, current estimates indicate that this would require on the order of 10 MJ of electrical power.

 

[Damian]

That vid is for the Idea..


I think the can make a smaller version of it , This has been tried before..

A rare find:

Green Farm Electric Gun Research and Development
Facility: The Final Chapter

Initially, the Green Farm Facility was intended for use
exclusively for EM Gun and EM Projectile development. The
32 MJ capacitor based pulsed power system was used to drive
the 90 mm diameter, 8 meter long, SSG Railgun. The SSG
was designed to deliver 9 MJ of projectile kinetic energy at the
muzzle, to operate over a velocity range from 2.5 to 4.0 km/s
and to provide an average of two shots per week.

In 1989 the facility was rapidly modified to provide two
additional gun positions for the Army 120 mm ETC Electrical
Enhancement Factor (EEF) Experiments. New reinforced gun
containment structures and target areas were constructed. The
gun housings were designed to fully contain a catastrophic
breech failure from a 155 mm cannon. Connections to the new
gun positions were provided from the existing pulsed power
system.

During the firing history of the Green Farm Electric Gun
R&D Facility several EM and ETC Guns were commissioned
and used for testing. The SSG, an 8 meter long, 90 mm diameter
bore, laboratory testbed provided a robust, prestressed, high current
capability for firing full-scale launch packages. Bolted construction
of the SSG provided easy disassembly, replacement
rails and insulators can be installed within a 1 to 2 week time
frame. The baseline design parameters for the SSG are shown
in Table I.

Several guns and test fixtures were used for the ETC
programs. The Army EEF ETC program incorporated the use
of two 120 mm, M256 guns for the M1A2 tank. For Maxcart
ETC testing the '' caliber Navy gun was used. SAIC's ETC
program tests were performed at 60 mm and 120 mm scale.
Additionally, numerous test fixtures were used to test propellant
ignition systems prior to integration into gun cartridges.

http://www.heshone.com/weblog/GreenFarm/GreenFarm.pdf

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


The second potential alternative is electromagnetic guns. Their main attraction is that they can launch projectiles at more than 3 000m/s, or twice the muzzle velocity of APFSD projectiles fired by current tank guns. The size, weight and other problems associated with electromagnetic guns do not make them a practical proposition for tanks. Nevertheless, there is a belief in the defence ministries of the US and the UK that, given further development, electromagnetic guns might become the main armament of tanks by the year 2015 or so.

In the late 1980s, there was also some interest in pure electrothermal (plasma-driven) weapons. However, these weapons have extremely high electrical power requirements. While ETC continues to be an area of interest, the functional goals of the technology have been scaled back substantially in recent years, again because of primary power considerations. Initially, researchers envisioned ETC as a way to increase muzzle energy by sustaining the design pressure over the full length of the barrel. However, current estimates indicate that this would require on the order of 10 MJ of electrical power.

This is a long dead project of the original FCS - Future Combat System (not Future Combat Systems that was evolution of the original FCS program).

The best alternative for a conventional tank cannon is ETC cannon, there were some successfull tests of such weapon in the USA, and such weapon was originally choose as one of the most possible armament of all future tank projects, like ASM program, M1 Block III etc.

Electromagnetic rail gun will probably never in nearest future, be small enough, efficent enough and had enough service life to be good weapon for land vehicle.


@Akim

USA bought as far as I know:

1x T-80U from Russia via UK.
4x T-80UD/T-84 from Ukraine
unknown numbers of older tanks from Ukraine and several other countries using such equipment (T-72's, maybe older T-80's, perhaps T-64's).

 

[Akim]

@Akim

USA bought as far as I know:

1x T-80U from Russia via UK.
4x T-80UD/T-84 from Ukraine
unknown numbers of older tanks from Ukraine and several other countries using such equipment (T-72's, maybe older T-80's, perhaps T-64's).

On a photo that You laid out Т-80BV, which the USA purchased in Ukraine last year. There stern under GTE. And then that purchased the heap of tanks before - it I know. Simply all Russian (Ukrainian) tanks go to the export with considerable simplifications, And Т-80BV sold in an original. The series of BV never on an export were supplied.

 

[Damian]

On a photo that You laid out Т-80BV, which the USA purchased in Ukraine last year. There stern under GTE. And then that purchased the heap of tanks before - it I know. Simply all Russian (Ukrainian) tanks go to the export with considerable simplifications, And Т-80BV sold in an original. The series of BV never on an export were supplied.

I do not understand.

Tanks on these photos are modified T-80UD or T-84, not T-80BV.

andrei_bt - Т-80УД в США

4 such tanks were ordered by USA in Ukraine. As we can see, there is at least one tank with Drozd active protection system. These tanks also have newer welded turrets, Knife ERA and other upgrades.

There is no reason to not belive Tarasenko in this case, especially that American sources claim the same thing.

Americans bought and tested older and newer tanks designed in Soviet Union.

As I said, in early 1990's, UK bought 1x T-80U from Russia. Americans then recive that tank from UK, and also were able to test T-80U's bought by South Korea and Cyprus (Greece), tanks bouth by these countries were not downgraded, because initially were manufactured for Russian Armed Forces not for export.

Americans also bought or obtained by other means, significant numbers of T-64's, T-72's and older T-80's (T-80B, T-80BV) for tests and training.

You should search in UN arms exports registration, in previous years there were some numbers of tanks sold from Ukraine to USA.

Facts are that US had opportunity to test both older and newer tanks from Russia and Ukraine, besides of cource newest examples like T-84M Oplot, T-84-120 Yatagan, T-90A or T-90MS and some prototypes.

 

[militarysta]

 

[Damian]

BM Oplot is Object 478DU10 not 478DU9.

 

[Damian]

New Chinese light tank and ZTZ-99A2.

 

[asianobserve]

It has active suspension...

 

[Damian]

No, just hydropneumatic suspension system with controlled variable height. Active suspension is something different when it comes to AFV's.

 

[Damian]

Projects of Future Main Battle Tank for USA, made by DARPA, 4 different configurations were studied.

1) 2 man crew, unmanned turret, weight 50,340 kg's.

2) 3 men crew, unmanned turret, weight 55,330 kg's.

Side note, vehicle weight could be reduced by using less armored unmanned turret, in this project, even unmanned turret have good ballistic protection.

To be continued.

 

[Damian]

Continuation...

3) 3 man crew, manned turret, weight 67,460 kg's.

4) 3 man crew, 1 crew member in turret, weight 67,700 kg's.

More in this article перспективный танк США (in Russian, translation required).

 

[militarysta]

BM Oplot is Object 478DU10 not 478DU9.

In fact:
478ДУ9 - Т-84 "Оплот"
478ДУ9-1 - "Оплот-М"
478ДУ10 - "Оплот-М"

 

[Damian]

In fact:
478ДУ9 - Т-84 "Оплот"
478ДУ9-1 - "Оплот-М"
478ДУ10 - "Оплот-М"

What are known differences between 478DU9-1 and 478DU10?

We know that 478DU series are from 478DU1 to 478DU10, but I heard that differences between most of them are not known or minor.