Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[methos]

So because I believe in the European thought I am a socialist? You are obviously not having a single clue...

Oh dear. Hit a nerve has it? I stated a fact ie that C2 has only ever been 'killed' by another C2. You can hang as many fancy bells and whistles on your response that you like, it remains a fact. Much as T90 has never been destroyed in combat, but then it hasn't been used in combat. Same as Le Clerc etc.

Your portrayal of the Challenger's combat is biased. That's the point I am talking about. You said that having a 72 tonnes tank is justified because of it's combat experience, i.e. that only a single Challenger 2 was knocked out by other tanks.
But you more or less deliberately ignore the fact that the all tanks engaged by Challenger 1s in Gulf War and by Challenger 2 tanks during the invasion of Iraq were on a technological level from 1950 - 1965... it's no wonder that the Challenger 1 or 2 did not loose a single tank. The British units also engaged less tanks during GW than Challenger 1s were deployed!
Please take a look at the M60 - it's a very old design having homogenous steel armour and far less protection than the T-72. Still no single M60 was destroyed in tank-vs-tank combat during Gulf War... or more exactly: there were no proofs that a single M60 was hit by Iraqi tank rounds!
By the way you supported your argument about the weight being acceptable because of the low combat losses, we could say the "M60 is good protected, not a single one was lost during Gulf War!". The truth is that when a M60 is hit, it does have a very low survivability (as proven in 1973).
To draw a analogy back from the M60 to the Challenger 2: How many Challenger 2s have been hit by tank rounds? Do you have any data? I doubt so...
All images I have seen from damaged Challenger 2s show only hits by RPGs and machine gun fire... nothing what would verify a statement about tank-vs-tank combat.
Also: The applique armour fitted to the Challenger 2 is very likely not optimized against kinetic energy.

As far as the armour construction of Chobham (or officially Burlington armour) Damian did not provide an answer to me. I recommend you to read more posts in this threads, if you are interested in armour design.
Damian bases his statement (which is also not really correct) on a theory. He and others believe that Burlington armour is making very much use of NERA and all reports about it being layered ceramic tiles between steel plates would be failed journalism or intentional misinformation. There are some points supporting this theory (e.g. images of a damaged M1A1HA tank and a RPG which is stuck in the applique armour of a Warrior) - but then again there is an image which show san armour test, where at the points of impact a white material (which would match for Al2O3 ceramics) can be seen. I think Burlington is likely a type of NERA, but we cannot be sure.
What Damian ingnore is that NERA armour is nothing new pioneered by the workers at Chobham facility. The Germans fielded an applique-type of NERA in the 1970s, the Russians also developed a NERA-applique for the T-55 and T-62 (which was not liked by the Soviet military and abandoned in favour of the BDD armour) and later used NERA on the T-72B. Even the Iraqi's managed to manufacture NERA armour on their own, completely independent from the West and the East.
As mentioned in a research paper by Dr. Manfred Held, glass sandwiched between steel plates will have a NERA-like reaction at some angles - this would essentially be the explanation why Siliciaus Cored Armor could only be used at sloped parts of the tanks (e.g. glacis). Who knows if the original Burlington armour did use a real elastomere and not some polymere based matrix? Noone posting here can say that for sure.

Burlington armour/Chobham armour remains a mistery to us; speculation is possible but not necessarily reasonable. It could be that it was really a breakthrough in armour design, but it's performance also can be simply exaggerated. In fact the high combat weight of the Challenger 1 stands in contradiction with Burlington armour being some sort of uber-performer.
The armour protection requirements for the original M1 Abrams were also fullfilled by the T-72A and the T-64B with Combination-K.

 

[Damian]

What Damian ingnore is that NERA armour is nothing new pioneered by the workers at Chobham facility. The Germans fielded an applique-type of NERA in the 1970s, the Russians also developed a NERA-applique for the T-55 and T-62 (which was not liked by the Soviet military and abandoned in favour of the BDD armour) and later used NERA on the T-72B. Even the Iraqi's managed to manufacture NERA armour on their own, completely independent from the West and the East.

I do not ignore that. My point is that such type of armor was first used as Burlington ina form of not addon design but as integral protection of vehicle.

 

[methos]

However Burlington was used as add-on design on older tanks (Chieftain 800/900), prototypes (MBT-80, FV4211) and other vehicles (MICV Warrior).

James M. Warford assumed in an article of the ARMOR magazine that early Soviet composite armour with "sand rods" worked the same way as the siliceous-cored armor, e.g. by "rebounding" when hit by shaped charges. Wether this is true or not is another thing (about which I cannot say something for sure), but if it is true then the first integral form of armour based on the NERA principle (even though very rudimentary) was Soviet-made.

We don't know something about the degree of sophistication of Chobham armour (wether it used rubber, coil-springs, fluids, non-elastic polymeres) - NERA is a pretty "open" term.

 

[Scalieback]

So because I believe in the European thought I am a socialist? You are obviously not having a single clue...

You portray the flag of a socialist utopia that is a waste of money and resources and ignores the 'will of the people' who did not want what was signed in Lisbon. It speaks volumes to me.

Your portrayal of the Challenger's combat is biased. That's the point I am talking about. You said that having a 72 tonnes tank is justified because of it's combat experience, i.e. that only a single Challenger 2 was knocked out by other tanks.
But you more or less deliberately ignore the fact that the all tanks engaged by Challenger 1s in Gulf War and by Challenger 2 tanks during the invasion of Iraq were on a technological level from 1950 - 1965... it's no wonder that the Challenger 1 or 2 did not loose a single tank. The British units also engaged less tanks during GW than Challenger 1s were deployed!

Of course it's biased

Please take a look at the M60 - it's a very old design having homogenous steel armour and far less protection than the T-72. Still no single M60 was destroyed in tank-vs-tank combat during Gulf War... or more exactly: there were no proofs that a single M60 was hit by Iraqi tank rounds!
By the way you supported your argument about the weight being acceptable because of the low combat losses, we could say the "M60 is good protected, not a single one was lost during Gulf War!". The truth is that when a M60 is hit, it does have a very low survivability (as proven in 1973).

Why would I want to discuss the M60. Britain doesn't and hasn't used it. Nor has it faced it on combat tmk.

To draw a analogy back from the M60 to the Challenger 2: How many Challenger 2s have been hit by tank rounds? Do you have any data? I doubt so...

err at least one that has been quoted on here. Oh dear, your back really is up now

All images I have seen from damaged Challenger 2s show only hits by RPGs and machine gun fire... nothing what would verify a statement about tank-vs-tank combat.

As above euro boy, as above .....

Also: The applique armour fitted to the Challenger 2 is very likely not optimized against kinetic energy.

Likely not or not? I thought you were an expert?

As far as the armour construction of Chobham (or officially Burlington armour) Damian did not provide an answer to me. I recommend you to read more posts in this threads, if you are interested in armour design.

Not really, but he's knowledgeable. However, as for taking the advice of a europhile .....

Damian bases his statement (which is also not really correct) on a theory. He and others believe that Burlington armour is making very much use of NERA and all reports about it being layered ceramic tiles between steel plates would be failed journalism or intentional misinformation. There are some points supporting this theory (e.g. images of a damaged M1A1HA tank and a RPG which is stuck in the applique armour of a Warrior) - but then again there is an image which show san armour test, where at the points of impact a white material (which would match for Al2O3 ceramics) can be seen. I think Burlington is likely a type of NERA, but we cannot be sure.

So you know the composition of Brit armour then?

What Damian ingnore is that NERA armour is nothing new pioneered by the workers at Chobham facility. The Germans fielded an applique-type of NERA in the 1970s, the Russians also developed a NERA-applique for the T-55 and T-62 (which was not liked by the Soviet military and abandoned in favour of the BDD armour) and later used NERA on the T-72B. Even the Iraqi's managed to manufacture NERA armour on their own, completely independent from the West and the East.

Errr, well done Iraq? Fat lot of good it did them

As mentioned in a research paper by Dr. Manfred Held, glass sandwiched between steel plates will have a NERA-like reaction at some angles - this would essentially be the explanation why Siliciaus Cored Armor could only be used at sloped parts of the tanks (e.g. glacis). Who knows if the original Burlington armour did use a real elastomere and not some polymere based matrix? Noone posting here can say that for sure.

I thought you said you knew the composition of Brit armour? Which is it?

Burlington armour/Chobham armour remains a mistery to us; speculation is possible but not necessarily reasonable. It could be that it was really a breakthrough in armour design, but it's performance also can be simply exaggerated. In fact the high combat weight of the Challenger 1 stands in contradiction with Burlington armour being some sort of uber-performer.

So you don't know it's composition then? Oh dear ......

The armour protection requirements for the original M1 Abrams were also fullfilled by the T-72A and the T-64B with Combination-K.

Errrm, good for the Russians then?

You really do have a bee in your bonnet about this don't you? I guess we'll see but frankly I think what Damian says is far more reliable than your suppositions and inferred 'facts.'

 

[militarysta]

@methos, Damian, Scalieback

I would like to remind all of You that Canadian Leo-2A4M CAN and Leo-2A6M CAN were attacted many times by RPG-7 in A-stan -whithout any penetration. Of course pak and chineese clons RPG-7 granade have pathetic penetation level (under 350mm RHA...) but in at least three attack RPG-7 granade hit frontal hull and turret armour without any sucess.
Polish defense journal "New Military Technology" mentioned this in huge article about Canadian Leopard-2 in A-stan.

So Leo-2 had its "asymmetric" "baptism of fire". Whit rather sucess - as Dutch and Candian claims.

 

[methos]

You portray the flag of a socialist utopia that is a waste of money and resources and ignores the 'will of the people' who did not want what was signed in Lisbon. It speaks volumes to me.



Of course it's biased



Why would I want to discuss the M60. Britain doesn't and hasn't used it. Nor has it faced it on combat tmk.



err at least one that has been quoted on here. Oh dear, your back really is up now



As above euro boy, as above .....



Likely not or not? I thought you were an expert?



Not really, but he's knowledgeable. However, as for taking the advice of a europhile .....



So you know the composition of Brit armour then?



Errr, well done Iraq? Fat lot of good it did them



I thought you said you knew the composition of Brit armour? Which is it?



So you don't know it's composition then? Oh dear ......



Errrm, good for the Russians then?

I see that you have no clue of what we are talking about and that this is an senseless effort. Instead of trying to focus on the topic you present me a number of one-liners and name me "europhile" and "euro boy". All you do is making up claims and asking obvious things.

To repeat myself: If you are really interested in armour design, then read this thread. If you just want to troll and praise the weapon systems of your homecountry in an over-nationalistic manner, then do this somewhere else.

You really do have a bee in your bonnet about this don't you? I guess we'll see but frankly I think what Damian says is far more reliable than your suppositions and inferred 'facts.'

I have read books, patents and research files, I have sources for backing up any claim made by me. You have just a huge number of question marks in your post.

 

[Scalieback]

I see that you have no clue of what we are talking about and that this is an senseless effort. Instead of trying to focus on the topic you present me a number of one-liners and name me "europhile" and "euro boy". All you do is making up claims and asking obvious things.

Actually I was answering a point by Damian. You jumped onto my conversation with him Euro Boy so take your trolling dirge elsewhere.

To repeat myself: If you are really interested in armour design, then read this thread. If you just want to troll and praise the weapon systems of your homecountry in an over-nationalistic manner, then do this somewhere else.

I would do normally, but now I've got your back up I think I'll stay. What part of the euro do you hail from? One of the saviour northern or flailing southern?

I have read books, patents and research files, I have sources for backing up any claim made by me. You have just a huge number of question marks in your post.

So why say in one breath you know what Brit armour is made of and in the second and third that you don't?

Don't jump into the discussion between Damian and myself. Simple. Get it? Understand?

 

[methos]

Actually I was answering a point by Damian. You jumped onto my conversation with him Euro Boy so take your trolling dirge elsewhere.

Yes, you were answering in a biased way. No way to do this here in an "open forum" to use your terms from another thread.

So why say in one breath you know what Brit armour is made of and in the second and third that you don't?

Where did I say that I know what British armour is made of? Nowhere. I recommend you to re-read my posts.
I said that no other country except the UK and the U.S. is known to have adopted Burlington armour, after you claimed that the British did "develop the armour that's in use by our close allies" (#2875). Damian said the same thing a post later (#2876), just not specifically about the countries mentioned in my post. Damian then posted a general comment on Chobham, which you then quoted totally out of context to reply to me. Therefore I replied to you about what Damian wrote, which I then discussed with him in post #2882 and #2883.
So much about me saying I would now the composition of Burlington armour.

Don't jump into the discussion between Damian and myself. Simple. Get it? Understand?

Dream on!

 

[Scalieback]

Yes, you were answering in a biased way. No way to do this here in an "open forum" to use your terms from another thread.

I thought you were ignoring me? changing your mind again?

Where did I say that I know what British armour is made of? Nowhere. I recommend you to re-read my posts.
I said that no other country except the UK and the U.S. is known to have adopted Burlington armour, after you claimed that the British did "develop the armour that's in use by our close allies" (#2875). Damian said the same thing a post later (#2876), just not specifically about the countries mentioned in my post. Damian then posted a general comment on Chobham, which you then quoted totally out of context to reply to me. Therefore I replied to you about what Damian wrote, which I then discussed with him in post #2882 and #2883.
So much about me saying I would now the composition of Burlington armour.

Err you said;

Damian bases his statement (which is also not really correct) on a theory. He and others believe that Burlington armour is making very much use of NERA and all reports about it being layered ceramic tiles between steel plates would be failed journalism or intentional misinformation. There are some points supporting this theory (e.g. images of a damaged M1A1HA tank and a RPG which is stuck in the applique armour of a Warrior) - but then again there is an image which show san armour test, where at the points of impact a white material (which would match for Al2O3 ceramics) can be seen. I think Burlington is likely a type of NERA, but we cannot be sure.

Dream on!

Hmm, I wish. Get back to your PS3 little boy

 

[methos]

Err you said;

Damian bases his statement (which is also not really correct) on a theory. He and others believe that Burlington armour is making very much use of NERA and all reports about it being layered ceramic tiles between steel plates would be failed journalism or intentional misinformation. There are some points supporting this theory (e.g. images of a damaged M1A1HA tank and a RPG which is stuck in the applique armour of a Warrior) - but then again there is an image which show san armour test, where at the points of impact a white material (which would match for Al2O3 ceramics) can be seen. I think Burlington is likely a type of NERA, but we cannot be sure.

His statement I was refering to: "... mr. Harvey that he was first person in west that in fact successfully developed a modern like composite armor with a NERA like structure."

You can see that this is nothing about Burlington armour, but other (known) armour. I mentioned various examples of other NERA-like armour of which most were developed prior Burlingon was produced the first time.

 

[Scalieback]

His statement I was refering to: "... mr. Harvey that he was first person in west that in fact successfully developed a modern like composite armor with a NERA like structure."

You can see that this is nothing about Burlington armour, but other (known) armour. I mentioned various examples of other NERA-like armour of which most were developed prior Burlingon was produced the first time.

Justify these two statements then:

Damian bases his statement (which is also not really correct) on a theory. He and others believe that Burlington armour is making very much use of NERA....

I think Burlington is likely a type of NERA, but we cannot be sure.

Seems to me you think you know what it is and on closer examination say you're not really sure.

 

[methos]

Justify these two statements then:

Damian bases his statement (which is also not really correct) on a theory. He and others believe that Burlington armour is making very much use of NERA....

I think Burlington is likely a type of NERA, but we cannot be sure.

1. Damian says that Burlington armour is NERA and it is the first NERA-type armour. ( <- I agreed with the first part, but disagreed with the second)
2. I say:
(a) It is only a theory that it is NERA. Some points support this (images from damaged M1A1HA and Warrior IFV), other speak against this (literature and one image from test-firing on some armour module, which is claimed to be Burlington).
(b) Burlington is not the first NERA, e.g. other types of NERA were already existent when the first Burlington-equipped prototype vehicles were made.
3. Damian says that he meant integral NERA only, not NERA in general.
4. But speaking against this is the fact that Burlington was also used in a non-integral layout.


I might have formulated this in a too complicated manner, but it seems like Damian understood me.

Seems to me you think you know what it is and on closer examination say you're not really sure.

Noone knows how it really looks. Some shematic images from official files are available and drawings from the patent of the armoured fuel-tank, which has been claimed by literature to be the original basis of the development of Burlington armour. As I said some images from real vehicles support the theory that the armour is from the NERA-type, but there are very much ways how it could be NERA. The M1A1HA as example featured both a bulging-plates array and a coil-mounted shock-absorbing spaced armour array. The images from the Warriors do not show any inserts.

 

[Damian]

Gentlemen please, no political belifes discussion is neaded here, neither insults.

What I can say is that Burlington armor, as a whole is actually not a single type of armor. UK was experimenting with different types of armor design. Even under the Burlington program there were multiple armor variants, for example one very interesting with integral explosive reactive armor was also reported.

I suggest to read articles written by Polish historian that is researching AFV's history, Paweł Przeździecki (known as Przezdzieblo on some forums, like TankNet for example), here are two articles.

PAWEŁ PRZEŹDZIECKI - ZARYS HISTORII BRYTYJSKICH CZOŁGOWYCH PANCERZY SPECJALNYCH: OD PROSTYCH EKRANÓW DO UKŁADU GRODZIOWEGO (1942–1964) (Page 112 in Acrobat Reader)

PAWEŁ PRZEŹDZIECKI - ZARYS HISTORII BRYTYJSKICH PANCERZY SPECJALNYCH: OPRACOWANIE I ROZWÓJ "žPANCERZA CHOBHAM" W LATACH 1964–1976 (Page 106 in Acrobat Reader)

Both are unfortunetly in Polish, so translation is needed, google translator should handle this rather well.

The fact is that Burlington is not a codename for a one armor but should be treated as a codename for a program that ended with succesfull development of several different armor configurations, and from this several developed armors, US choose one and use it as a basis for their own development, UK choose their own and upgraded it further.

And what is important hint in the second article is that, perhaps Germans and French did not use Burlington, but UK shared informations with both and many more countries, and it is not impossible that these countries used this knowledge to improve or change their own developments if informations about Burlington were usefull.

So in fact, composite armors used by many countries, be it NATO ones, or these ones close to NATO, US, UK, France or Germany, like Israel for example, might have been also alowed to have some insight in to Burlington program, and used gathered knowledge to design their new composite armors or improve existing ones, or to induct that knowledge in to their own still ongoing programs to develop such protection for vehicles.

Of course it is difficult to say how these armors looks like, we seen only fragments, we have some literature, some documents etc. But not everything is certain.

So many possible options here for discussion, but of course in barriers of realism, if You know what I mean.

 

[Scalieback]

1. Damian says that Burlington armour is NERA and it is the first NERA-type armour. ( <- I agreed with the first part, but disagreed with the second)
2. I say:
(a) It is only a theory that it is NERA. Some points support this (images from damaged M1A1HA and Warrior IFV), other speak against this (literature and one image from test-firing on some armour module, which is claimed to be Burlington).
(b) Burlington is not the first NERA, e.g. other types of NERA were already existent when the first Burlington-equipped prototype vehicles were made.
3. Damian says that he meant integral NERA only, not NERA in general.
4. But speaking against this is the fact that Burlington was also used in a non-integral layout.

I might have formulated this in a too complicated manner, but it seems like Damian understood me.

Noone knows how it really looks. Some shematic images from official files are available and drawings from the patent of the armoured fuel-tank, which has been claimed by literature to be the original basis of the development of Burlington armour. As I said some images from real vehicles support the theory that the armour is from the NERA-type, but there are very much ways how it could be NERA. The M1A1HA as example featured both a bulging-plates array and a coil-mounted shock-absorbing spaced armour array. The images from the Warriors do not show any inserts.

In a nutshell then you don't know what it's made of and supposing (I'll give you educated) what it is made of, but you're unsure.

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

 

[methos]

I thought this was clear.

I did not mention the aspects "type of armour" (introduced by you to this discussion) or "composition of armour" (introduced by Damian to this discussion).

 

[Scalieback]

I thought this was clear.

I did not mention the aspects "type of armour" (introduced by you to this discussion) or "composition of armour" (introduced by Damian to this discussion).

If it was clear we'd both have about five lower post counts.

Actually, I was talking on your MBT thread and a Mod moved it here.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some good Update of BMP..

From Czech..

 

[Damian]

Models of new Russian Universal Combat Platforms.

UCP "Boomerang" and tracked UCP "Kurganets".

New MBT based on UCP "Armata"?


Вице премьер РФ Рагозин осматривает модельки перспективных платформ

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That turret is possible unmanned..

Gun is also different..

 

[Damian]

Turret will be probably unmanned, there are no visible hatches for crew on that plastic model.