Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

Hmmm, some time ago someone posted a photo from Russian proving ground showing a petal of a new Sabot for a tested ammunition. It was a "western looking" sabot... perhaps new ammunition they developed is more a western approach than the more classic one for them.

Lenght of this sabot is ~600m, and full lenght of this APFSDS rod (with baistic cap, and fins, and tracers) should be wetween 740 and 800mm.

 

[militarysta]

In SPz Puma armour protectin thema

Protection was mentioned in two articles in Polish mlitary special press:

1) Thomas Meauter, Puma - niemiecka platwiorma bojowa przyszłości, RAPORT-wto 04/2004, s.46-48
[Thomas Meauter, Puma - germans future combat platform, RAPORT-wto 04/2004, s.46-48 ]

2) Wojciech Łuczak, Puma się ujawnia, RAORT-wto, 1/2006, s.44-47
[Wojciech Łuczak, Puma's appear, RAORT-wto, 1/2006, s.44-47]

Abstract:
In level (A) - 31,45t:
- whole IFV protected against 14,5mm ("anti armour" round - like 14,5mm BS)
- front (in +/-30.) SPz Puma protected against at least newest 30mm APFSDS, and HEAT warhead like in "RPG-7/18, SPG-9", glastic plate (upper and lower front hull have bigger protection - the same like in level "C")
- bottom hull protected against at leat 10kg exsplosive under

In level(C) - 40,7t. (with crew, ammo, etc -43,5t)
- front IFV (+/-30.) protected against APFSDS "middle caliber" (~40-60mm APFSDS) and the latest RPG warhead
- side hull protection against RPG warhead (HEAT) (for +/-30.?) and EFP and 30mm APFSDS.
- roof protected against bomblets, cluster munitions, etc.

It's look that SPz Puma have in fornt (in A and C level) protection like ~220mm RHA against APFSDS (40mm cal at leat.) and ~600mm vs HEAT.

[

 

[methos]

Not at all places. The turret for example is protected vs 14.5 mm in level A and 30 mm APDS in level C. No extra armour against shaped charges there.
In my opinion it is not much important wether the front (and in level C also the side) has 200 mm RHAe vs KE or only 150 mm RHAe - it is designed to resist current and future threats at combat ranges. More important is IMO the roof anti-bomblet armour, the mine protection and the MUSS APS - I'd really love to see the Ulan with such equipment.

Edit: At least I think that the turret is only protected vs APDS - the old brochure with the armour protection sheme was replaced by another one, so this is just something I wrote from my mind - it might be wrong.

 

[militarysta]

Yes, its true.
IMHO SPz Puma have some great solutions.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some New Pics On Russian T-72 Upgrade.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Sosna-U gunner sight

TO1-KO4DT commander combined sighting and observation system

Tank gunner night sighting and observation system TO1-KO1

Tank commander day-night sighting and observation system PNK-4S

Combined two-channel day-night air defence sight TKN-4GA

 

[Kunal Biswas]

M1 Hull:

There was a talk about Hydro-gas Suspension for MBTs..

Anyone have detailed Info on this, Please share..

 

[Damian]

Americans from the start of the M1 program, considered using hydrogas suspension system. This is why M1 have such mounting point for suspension in the hull sides. There are designed to accept both torsion bars supension system and hydrogas suspension system.

There is also at least one photo showing M1 hull with XM1 turret and hydrogas suspension system during tests.

 

[methos]

http://www.fmv.se/Global/Bilder/Pro... Leopard/Bakgrund till valet av Leopard 2.pdf (use Google Translator)

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Looking For M1A2 commander seat view from gunner location..

Anyone has it ?

 

[militarysta]

http://www.fmv.se/Global/Bilder/Pro... Leopard/Bakgrund till valet av Leopard 2.pdf (use Google Translator)

There is one BIG mistake in this pdf: In table there is change - on the top Leopard 2I table is "Leclerc" and on the top of Leclerc table is "Leopard 2I" only "M1A2" is for Abrams tank!.

In fact it should looks that , without this mistake:

.......................................................................Leopard-2..............Leclerc..............M1A2
Vehicles / mobility........ ...................................... 2...................... 1....................... .3
Weapon / Effectivnes..... .......................................3...................... 1....................... 2
Safety / Survival............. ......................................3...................... 1....................... .2
Owners / Management..........................................3....................... 2.........................1
Reliability / Availability / Maintenance..................... 3....................... 2...................... .1
Total................................................................... 14...................... 7........................9

Only in that shape all looks correct, when we including those three parts of pdfs:
(all translate by google translater)

After the tender is submitted undertook negotiations during the latter half of
years and the responses received revised draft to the order. differences between
the tanks were large, and the French were forced to conclude that their seven tonnes lighter
Leclerc main battle tank was still an immature product in comparison with its competitors.

So in fact Leclerc was the worst tank in that competition - and it jus must have the latest values in table. It's obvious that there is mistake in table names.

Parallel conducted FMV technical tests and analyzes. In particular, contrary to the carriages
survivability came to be subject to rigorous review. Push the test was conducted in
each country against delskrov of the various battle wagons protection modules in the chassis and towers.
Corresponding shooting tests were also made with relevant hot ammunition on FFK Karlsborg against
all tanks or fitted with a Swedish designed protection from Akers Krutbruk
and the German partner of IBD (Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth). This was a ballistic
protection in many attitudes increased level of protection afforded by 50-100%, primarily on the French but
even the U.S. battle tank (something that a four-star U.S. general in surprise
became evident from a review). Battle wagons signatures within different
wavelength regions were also identified - which is something that FOA was able to help with.

This is very suprising part of the tekst. It's possible (and pdf mentioned that) that armour protection gives from Akers&IBD Armour gives better protection then prototye Leclerc armour, and M1A2 export armour packed-it's next point why Leopard-2I cant be on the middle of the table - there is the lowest value for armour protection, and again it's becamt to the frencht tank

The last question is this:

When it became clear to Americans that M1-ball probably would not get elected, they made a last
thrust with an unsolicited offer where the price has been reduced by one billion dollars. They offered to and
with the U.S. president, on his way home from a visit to Moscow, could stop over
for further discussion with the Swedish Prime Minister in the tank issue. FMV received
the offer but declined to Clinton. Instead, filed a petition to the government days
before Christmas in December 1993 where the German Leopard 2 was recommended. After a
sensitivity analysis in the days, where the American M1-ball was considered a last time,
Government decided January 20, 1994 decision to procure 120 pieces of freshly
Leopard 2 S - a development of the Leopard 2 A5.

For other sources we can know that first US price and "Reliability / Availability / Maintenance" whas traditional worst for M1 tank due to gas turbine - so propably two "1" for M1A2 are possible here. Leopard-2I can't be placed here becouse most of the sources claim that M1A2 and Leopard-2I was on the same level but Germans offer was far better due to lower life cost (fuel, spare parts, etc) and lower price. So M1A2 place in table is possibly correct, and lower "Safety / Survival" valuice can be explain only by using export armour in M1.

Well IMHO there is big (and very simple) mistake in table whit tank test resule and till now this pdf will be exist on many forums, but without deeper think how to hell the whorst tank in that table (Leopard 2I) won and "the best" leclerc loose. In fact all is crelly visible and consistent to the rest of the pdf. when we realize that the table names for Leclerc and Leopard 2I was mistakenly swapped.

 

[militarysta]

http://www.ointres.se/2011-03-18_pansar_strv122b.pdf

http://www.ointres.se/2010-11-23_Lindstrom_at_Armoured_Vehicles_India_Conference.pdf

 

[methos]

There is one BIG mistake in this pdf: In table there is change - on the top Leopard 2I table is "Leclerc" and on the top of Leclerc table is "Leopard 2I" only "M1A2" is for Abrams tank!.

No! 1 is the best (meaning first place), 2 means second place and 3 means third place. The Leopard 2 is best in 3 categories and second in 2.

 

[methos]

double post

 

[militarysta]

Methos - it haven't sense...
So why is there "tottal" ? Those numers are not places but pioints, and therea are in "Summa"

 

[militarysta]

Militära markfarkoster for militärteknik5

 

[methos]

So why is there "tottal" ? Those numers are not places but pioints, and therea are in "Summa"

The lower the number, the better. It is like the average, the results just weren't divided by the number of categories - probably because this is not necessary (all three tanks have the same number of categories, dividing them will therefore not change anything).

 

[methos]

Thinking bout the maintenance part you might be right. Maybe they just switch Leclerc and Leopard 2 because of some mistake.

 

[Austin]

Ok here is some official information from Indian Army on the planned upgrade for T-90 Bhishma and T-72 , you can read the entire interview SP's Land Forces - Lt General D.S. Siddhu, Director General, Mechanised Forces, Indian Army
quoting the relevant part.

T-90

As the mainstay of the armoured fleet, the T-90 Tank is slated to receive state-of-the-art upgrades to maintain its dominance on any future battlefield. These modernisation schemes include an active protection system, improved Commander's thermal imaging sights providing true 'hunter-killer' capability, an advanced muzzle reference system for retention of zeroing both by day and night and necessary software upgrades to optimise the capabilities of the fire control system. In addition to a modernised digital fire detection and suppression system, the tank will also be fitted with an environmental control system to ensure longevity of sensitive opto-electronic sub-systems. A project for fitment of an auxiliary power unit to enhance 'silent watch' capability and conserve engine life is also under way. As regards digitisation of the future battlefield, we plan to fit the digital control harness. In addition, the Army is considering introduction of a software defined radio (SDR) which will ensure real time data, voice and image transfer. The SDR hierarchy will also support the battlefield management system (BMS) being developed indigenously.

T-72

Tank T-72 comprises the majority of our tank fleet today. These are of 1972 vintage and need to be modernised to enhance their mission reliability. With this in view, we are in the process of replacing the existing engine with a more powerful engine, incorporating an auxiliary power unit, fitting a thermal imaging fire control system for the gunner with suitable night enablement for the driver and commander also. Other upgrades include the digital control harness and modernisation of the fire suppression system. To provide necessary realism to training; simulators for drivers, gunners and an integrated crew simulator for the crew are in various stages of introduction.

 

[Damian]

Looking For M1A2 commander seat view from gunner location..

Anyone has it ?

Something like this?