Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

I am not able to reply to all posts, so I will summarize:

2011 modernised T-72B and Leopard 2A4:

Fire control system and firepower:

T-72BA
Modern FCS of T-72B2 with common elements of FCS Kalina:
+New multichannel sight Sosna-U
+Modern second generation thermal sight
+Automatic tracking system
+Guidance system of gun launched missile.
----
+With Sosna-U it operates with equal effectiveness in day/night and good operation in bad weather level

Leopard2A4:
-FCS based on old element base (80s technological level)
-Outdated first generation thermal sight with lower resolution
-Lacks the other features present on T-72BA.
---
-Outdated first generation thermal sight, significantly reduced and limited ability to perform at night and in bad weather.
---
T-72BA:
New gun (2005) 2A46-M5 of increased accuracy and max pressure, modernised autoloader
+More accurate, lower dispersion
+Increased caliber (125mm) and lenght (6m). Achieves more than 20% higher performance than RH L/44 gun in Leopard 2A4
+Ability to fire missile (guided munition).

Leopard 2A4:
-Old gun (80s) RH L/44 with 5.3m lenght and 120mm caliber
-Significantly less powerfull
-Lacks the other feature.

Mobility and reliability
T-72BA:
+Refurbished with use of modern elements developed for T-90A resulting in incresed characteristics on modern level
+New more modern and powerfull engine V-92S2 (1000hp) and improved transmission.

Leopard 2A4:
-No modernisation or refurbishement.
-Stays on old level (80s) and aging.

Conclusion:
Rather modest and inexpensive modernisation (38ml unit cost) results in valuable tank in some aspects in modern level, howewer, with old level protection.

Leopard 2A4 (majority of Western European arsenal) stock units do not undergo any modernisation, nor it is planned. Therefore will lose relevance and combat value by the period of 2015-2020.

 

[militarysta]

I continue:


So after modernisation it receives properties in level of modern tanks, since it features recent developements.

Bullshit, bullshit, and once again bullshit.
Sorry but using more modern (not modern in western meaning) and nacked W92S2 egine knows nothing in compare even to od 25 years Leo-2A4 power pack.
I give one simple example - very important factor is time from 0 to 32 km/h- it's relevant to fast oving in terain etc.
For T-72 whit V92S2 engine (1000HP) is 11-12s. (for 0-30km/s it was 10,8s)
For Leopard-2A4 it is 6s.
Twice better.
And of course You will not mentioned about time to replaced power-pack. In T-72M it was 23h, in T-90S it was 3,5h for engine only (not transmission). For whole p-p on Leopard-2 it is 25-25minutes. You will no mentioned about steer radious and transmision. In fact mobility T-72 tanks - even withW92S2 is horrible due to fatal transmission. And propably You have idea about that: engine lifetime for W92S2 is 700h (standard for most tanks) but for example AGT-1500 after TIGER have 1400h and MB873 have 3000h.
And finnaly you wiln not mentioned about that: in T-72B and T-90 suspension have 250-280mm up and 92-111mm down deflection from static equilibrium position. In Leopard-2A4 suspension have 350mm up and 170mm down deflection from static equilibrium position.

Leopard 2A4 in current service has not received any upgrade, no more than repairs, therefore in technical level it is behind T-72BA, and also in worse condition due to advanced age.

In Your wet dream may. You haven't any idea abour Leoben group about repeirs in E and F level - mandatory for all Leopard-2 user. You haven't idea about that in modern armies condition have nothing to age becouse Current tabk service is made on completely different principles then in ex soviet countries, and soviet union.

In protection, Leopard 2A4 has notable weak zone due to EMES sight placement.

But not in compare to the rest of tanks whit tinner LOS thicknes -like T-80U ore T-72B. If You want to be honest you should take all LOS thickness under 650mm as "notable weak zone" - understand now? And almoust whole turret T-80U is under this 650mm LOS for 30. So whole turret is "notable weak zone"? In T-72B more then 1/3 frontal LOS is under 650m LOS eveon for 0. angle -so it is "notable weak zone" too? Have You seen how stupid is that thinking?

And Germnas remove EMES as ansver for new and never-exist soviet APFSDS.

On it's time it was protected against all available weapons,

Sorry but not. Have You idea about Kontakt-5? How it was working etc?

neither of those tanks has decent protection against today's threats,

Exspecialy when base APFSDS in ex soviet republic is still 3BM26(1984) and 3BM42(1986).
And new Sniviets is still like Yeti - everybdy hears but nobody see (on photos in service).

So saying that one is better than the other, is not correct,

Is correct as hell becouse 90% Ob.184 in Russia and ex soviet republic is stil on thesame level like in 1985-1990.

 

[Damian]

The funny thing is that there are KMW, Rhinemetall and IBD upgrade proposals for Leopard 2A0/A4 tanks.

For example Polish Leopard 2A4 are schedule to be upgraded in to Leopard 2PL.

There will be new thermal sight made by PCO, and also other upgrades, like armor upgrade.

Rest of the upgrades are mentioned on these presentations for Leopard 2PL and Leopard 2PL+.

Nowe szaty polskich Leopardów - DziennikZbrojny.pl

Of course photographs in presentation shows Leopard 2A7, while Leopard 2PL/PL+ will more or less look like Leopard 2 Evolution or Leopard 2 Revolution standard.

So, it might look like this:

Or like this:

Currently KMW is working with Bumar Group, and Rhinemetall with WZM on the modernization proposals.

And hey, there are also upgraded Pz87WE:

New FCS, new sights, upgraded armor protection.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

These guys can provide better protection for Arjun..

Sad, we are not going for these Upgrades..

 

[militarysta]

Жасмин is stabilisator of T-72B. In fact there are different in operation (T-90). I did not write because of two issues
- It is not known if that is the model used on current modernisation, or something newer.
- From this alone it cannot be deduced something will be more accurate.

In all tekst about T-72 familiy Жасминis mentioned due to cast stell turret. It's propbly onl avaible stabilisator due to cast steel turret reson.

FCS of modernised T-72B is more modern ballistic computer and processes more variables than that of Leopard which is based on 80s element base.

And for what you are convinent that newer FCS parts in T-72B are better then RPP-8-1 in Leopard-2A? In fact FCS in T-72B have finnly weather sensors - something that had already Leopards-2A4 in 1984. The lead sensor using for shooting to moving targets? Leopard-2A4 had it in 1985r.

Also very important thing, T-72B has a newer and more accurate gun which gives less dispersion to projectiles (...) Leopard 2A4 with outdated gun falls behind of tanks with modern 2A46-M5 gun.

Any proofs for that stupid sentnses? Any dates?Any? Even once?
One single example (privious was two times worse stabilisator error in stabilisator Жасмин then in WNA-HA):
max pressure in 2А46М-5 is:
according to СОВЕТСКИЕ И РОССИЙСКИЕ ТАНКОВЫЕ ПУШКИ is 600MPa/b] (not even 650MPa but 600)
in L-44 this is:
maximum strength: 707MPa
working pressure: 672MPa
And used in Strv.122 slpprj95 (APFSDS clon of the israeli M338) have muzzle velocity 1705m/s.

So talking that 2A46-M5 gun is better is stupid.

 

[hest]

Bullshit, bullshit, and once again bullshit.
Sorry but using more modern (not modern in western meaning) and nacked W92S2 egine knows nothing in compare even to od 25 years Leo-2A4 power pack.
I give one simple example - very important factor is time from 0 to 32 km/h- it's relevant to fast oving in terain etc.
For T-72 whit V92S2 engine (1000HP) is 11-12s. (for 0-30km/s it was 10,8s)
For Leopard-2A4 it is 6s.
Twice better.

Sorry, but in comparison, show graphic for Leopard 2A4 acelleration, do not tell me.
Here it is for T-72B:

And of course You will not mentioned about time to replaced power-pack. In T-72M it was 23h, in T-90S it was 3,5h for engine only (not transmission). For whole p-p on Leopard-2 it is 25-25minutes.

You do not mention, that we are discussing different thing. V-92S2 is not monoblock engine, and you are comparing repair to replacement. Repair can be done by crew in any place and conditions, while it is not always possible to replace pack because it needs necessary support which is not available in all situations.

You will no mentioned about steer radious and transmision. In fact mobility T-72 tanks - even withW92S2 is horrible due to fatal transmission. And propably You have idea about that: engine lifetime for W92S2 is 700h (standard for most tanks) but for example AGT-1500 after TIGER have 1400h and MB873 have 3000h.

Sure, you do not explain.

Why you again elude? Provide figures only for Leopard 2A4, not unrelated to subject.

And finnaly you wiln not mentioned about that: in T-72B and T-90 suspension have 250-280mm up and 92-111mm down deflection from static equilibrium position. In Leopard-2A4 suspension have 350mm up and 170mm down deflection from static equilibrium position.

Your information is for old T-72B and T-90, but not for elements of T-90A present also in T-72BA. So ??

In Your wet dream may. You haven't any idea abour Leoben group about repeirs in E and F level - mandatory for all Leopard-2 user. You haven't idea about that in modern armies condition have nothing to age becouse Current tabk service is made on completely different principles then in ex soviet countries, and soviet union.

What do you say, those repairs are for tanks in current operation, not for units in stocks which are the majority (Germany, etc).

And repair is not complete refurbishment (capital repair) with incorporation of modern elements as T-72BA.

But not in compare to the rest of tanks whit tinner LOS thicknes -like T-80U ore T-72B. If You want to be honest you should take all LOS thickness under 650mm as "notable weak zone" - understand now? And almoust whole turret T-80U is under this 650mm LOS for 30. So whole turret is "notable weak zone"? In T-72B more then 1/3 frontal LOS is under 650m LOS eveon for 0. angle -so it is "notable weak zone" too? Have You seen how stupid is that thinking?

What thickness, you do not have Kontakt-V in account, so all what you said is irrelevant. In fact with Kontakt-V it is very significant increase in protection. In 1989 it provided protection against all available weapons (but not now)

Leopard weak zone, was weak back then (even your LOS is not great protection) and weaker now.

And Germnas remove EMES as ansver for new and never-exist soviet APFSDS.

Germans aknowledged it was weak zone and tried to solve problem by changing placement, it further proves the fact that it was weak zone.

And you only focus on most irrelevant aspect, protection which no matter how you look is not modern (both tanks are from 80s). But on important differences, Sosna-U, new gun, etc, you avoid them.

Sorry but not. Have You idea about Kontakt-5? How it was working etc?

I have perfect idea. I was researching subject of ERA (dynamic protection) for some time already.

Exspecialy when base APFSDS in ex soviet republic is still 3BM26(1984) and 3BM42(1986).
And new Sniviets is still like Yeti - everybdy hears but nobody see (on photos in service).

But it is also fact that there are new developements which you cannot ignore.

Is correct as hell becouse 90% Ob.184 in Russia and ex soviet republic is stil on thesame level like in 1985-1990.

But they are being modernised and there is much higher numbers of them.

 

[Damian]

And repair is not complete refurbishment (capital repair) with incorporation of modern elements as T-72BA.

E and F levels of maintnance work on Leopard 2A0/A4 are close to refurbishment.

Several months ago 35 polish Leopard 2A4's were send for refurbishment, among many repairs, they will probably recive mounting points for additional armor.

One more information, but I think very interesting for people interested in AFV's history. I have been informed on TankNet, that there were actually more than two battalions of US Army equipped with M1A1D variant during 1990's. There were several battalions, most of them in Germany.

Also what is interesting, the M1A1D was in fact, sort of a test bed for new electronics package. It might be possible that diect ancestor to modern M1A1SA and M1A1FEP is M1A1D in terms of electronics upgrade, while M1A1AIM tanks were just refurbished ones. Later all these upgrade programs merged in to M1A1SA, but the components used were more modern, taken from M1A2SEP program (like armor, FCS, BMS, suspension, engine upgrades etc.).

This is interesting, another interesting point is that there are no avaiable interior photos of M1A1D, M1A1AIM and M1A1SA, pity I must say, their internal layout might be interesting.

 

[hest]

In all tekst about T-72 familiy Жасминis mentioned due to cast stell turret. It's propbly onl avaible stabilisator due to cast steel turret reson.

There are several variants.
Besides I do not think Wna-h22 was so good... it was replaced on newer models (old element base, again).

And it is only specific part. Accuracy overall is broader, depending on calculations, round dispersion (gun) etc which is better in T-72.

And for what you are convinent that newer FCS parts in T-72B are better then RPP-8-1 in Leopard-2A? In fact FCS in T-72B have finnly weather sensors - something that had already Leopards-2A4 in 1984. The lead sensor using for shooting to moving targets? Leopard-2A4 had it in 1985r.

And it is fact that it is newer, a modern ballistic computer will be better than another with 80s element base. Plus Sosna-U modern sight, it is much better than old Leopard 2.

Any proofs for that stupid sentnses? Any dates?Any? Even once?
One single example (privious was two times worse stabilisator error in stabilisator Жасмин then in WNA-HA):

Yes, you can see all improvements (accuracy) site it features 15-20% increased accuracy and 1.7 times lower dispersion in fire from move.

max pressure in 2А46М-5 is:
according to СОВЕТСКИЕ И РОССИЙСКИЕ ТАНКОВЫЕ ПУШКИ is 600MPa/b] (not even 650MPa but 600)
in L-44 this is:
maximum strength: 707MPa
working pressure: 672MPa
And used in Strv.122 slpprj95 (APFSDS clon of the israeli M338) have muzzle velocity 1705m/s.

Those figures are for older model. And as you know, pressure is not equivalent as it is different caliber. In fact Svinets round operating in same pressure as DM-63 will have better performance due to caliber (even do not have in account additional lenght).

 

[Damian]

Besides I do not think Wna-h22 was so good... it was replaced on newer models

Turret traverse and gun elevation system was replaced from electrohydraulic to fully electric. Nowhere is said that WNA-H22 stabilization system was replaced, it could have been replaced, but as a part of the deeper modernization, or stabilization is same.

Here is data table made by use of official data.

Translation:

Układ stabilizacji - Stabilization system
KÄ…t - Angle (Inclination)
Odchyłka - Error
Pion - Vertical
Poziom - Horizontal

 

[hest]

Turret traverse and gun elevation system was replaced from electrohydraulic to fully electric. Nowhere is said that WNA-H22 stabilization system was replaced, it could have been replaced, but as a part of the deeper modernization, or stabilization is same.

Here is data table made by use of official data.

Translation:

Układ stabilizacji - Stabilization system
KÄ…t - Angle (Inclination)
Odchyłka - Error
Pion - Vertical
Poziom - Horizontal

You say official, but show amateur chart with no significance.

You should know already, that accuracy of soviet stabilisator is given by Root-mean-square error (RMS) in conditions of standart terrain, and in move with speed up to 30Km/h.

So if you want to argue, get your facts right. Show me specific figures for wa-h22.

And yes, it was replaced in newer models, Leopard 2A7, so much for an 80s element base...

 

[Damian]

You say official, but show amateur chart with no significance.

Person who did this, knows more about difficult calculations than You. Before You judge something, try to think.

And of course if something do not fit in to Your vision of reality, You call it amateur, or unreliable, and insult it's author.

When the last time You did any specific calculations, or provided any source?

You should know already, that accuracy of soviet stabilisator is given by Root-mean-square error (RMS) in conditions of standart terrain, and in move with speed up to 30Km/h.

You are provided with data with error of stabilization in mrads, this is world wide respected way to messure stabilization errors, and I do not give a damn, what You wan't.

Every source disprouvs Your revelations and lies.

So if you want to argue, get your facts right. Show me specific figures for wa-h22.

I can't You give such data because such stabilization do not exist. I know about WNA-H22 used in Leopard 2... And You can ask Militarysta, he have all manuals and documents for Leopard 2.

And yes, it was replaced in newer models, Leopard 2A7, so much for an 80s element base...

And me poor fool expected to see a source... but I could expect that from You, expecting any reliable source is a waste of time.

 

[militarysta]

Sorry, but in comparison, show graphic for Leopard 2A4 acelleration, do not tell me.
Here it is for T-72B:

Leopard 2A4 acelleration on the same table:

round dispersion (gun) etc which is better in T-72.

Any dates? Any tables? I have proper ones for L-44 but I should have values for 2А46М-5
And Im more then sure that dispersion (gun) is smaller in L-44 Rh120 -the same as stabilisation mehanism.



BTW: this all "1,7 times bette" or "20% better" is for idiots -give me hard dates in si units not "1,5 times" or "20%".
20% for "x" is still "x". Of coure I can find 2А46М dates but there are weak in compare to L-44 Rh120. So give me hard dates for 2А46М-5.
I found stabilisation meanism in T-72BA:
-72BA 2Э42-4 «Жасмин»
X axis - 0,6
Y axis - 0,4

And I have dates for Leopad-2A4
WNA:
X axis - 0,3-0,4
Y axis - 0,15-0,2

And that is hard date not bullshit like 20% better for unkown value.

BTW2: in almoust all comparable hard dates T-72BA sucks - in mobility, stabilisation meanism error, etc. Interesting -isn't it? :-D

 

[Damian]

BTW2: in almoust all comparable hard dates T-72BA sucks - in mobility, stabilisation meanism error, etc. Interesting -isn't it? :-D

It is hard to expect anything else from a "modernization" that is aimed to be economic, not to upgrade all characteristics of vehicle to a modern standard.

+ T-72B was allways inferior tank in most characteristics to most other modern MBT's of 1980's period.

 

[militarysta]

BTW: in DM53 and DM63 penetrator lenght is 740mm (without fins, but with balistic cap) it's more then is capable to insert in longer casette autoloader in modernisated Korzina-A., becouse penetratoris always shorter then whole catrige lenght. Second problem is SABOT material and construction.

btw saboth lenght in 3BM44M is ~705mm lenght whit balistic cap and without fins.

and accodingto Frontanow page:
Svinets is 635mm leght with 546mm penetrator lenght , and Lekalo is 730mm lenght with 570mm lengt penetrator.

 

[Damian]

Militarysta, his surname is Fofanov, not Frontanov.

But yeah, Vasily Fofanov is well akcnowledged with this issue.

Vasiliy Fofanov's Modern Russian Armour Page

 

[hest]

Leopard 2A4 acelleration on the same table:

I am not interested in your drawing over graphic and interpretation of poor sources. Provide detailed graphic with acceleration characteristics same as what there is for T-72B.

Any dates? Any tables? I have proper ones for L-44 but I should have values for 2А46М-5
And Im more then sure that dispersion (gun) is smaller in L-44 Rh120 -the same as stabilisation mehanism.

New gun produced with new manufacturing technologies gives an increase of 15-20% in accuracy compared to previous gun of older technological level.

If you believe old RH L/44 is equal than RH L/55 and 2A46-M5 in manufacture technology, well.

Besides we have characteristics. 125mm against 120mm and 6m against 5.3m. This is an increase of about 20% if analogous round is used.

That is why it was replaced with new L/55 of increased lenght of 6.6m.

BTW: this all "1,7 times bette" or "20% better" is for idiots -give me hard dates in si units not "1,5 times" or "20%".
20% for "x" is still "x". Of coure I can find 2А46М dates but there are weak in compare to L-44 Rh120. So give me hard dates for 2А46М-5.
I found stabilisation meanism in T-72BA:
-72BA 2Э42-4 «Жасмин»
X axis - 0,6
Y axis - 0,4

And I have dates for Leopad-2A4
WNA:
X axis - 0,3-0,4
Y axis - 0,15-0,2

And that is hard date not bullshit like 20% better for unkown value.

I said: that accuracy of soviet stabilisator is given by Root-mean-square error (RMS) in conditions of standart terrain, and in move with speed up to 30Km/h

So your comparison has no value becouse we do not now standart conditions of western stabilisator (in fact I have different numbers).

BTW2: in almoust all comparable hard dates T-72BA sucks - in mobility, stabilisation meanism error, etc. Interesting -isn't it? :-D

You tell me:
2011 modernised T-72B and Leopard 2A4:

Fire control system and firepower:

T-72BA
Modern FCS of T-72B2 with common elements of FCS Kalina:
+New multichannel sight Sosna-U
+Modern second generation thermal sight
+Automatic tracking system
+Guidance system of gun launched missile.
----
+With Sosna-U it operates with equal effectiveness in day/night and good operation in bad weather level

Leopard2A4:
-FCS based on old element base (80s technological level)
-Outdated first generation thermal sight with lower resolution
-Lacks the other features present on T-72BA.
---
-Outdated first generation thermal sight, significantly reduced and limited ability to perform at night and in bad weather.
---
T-72BA:
New gun (2005) 2A46-M5 of increased accuracy and max pressure, modernised autoloader
+More accurate, lower dispersion
+Increased caliber (125mm) and lenght (6m). Achieves more than 20% higher performance than RH L/44 gun in Leopard 2A4
+Ability to fire missile (guided munition).

Leopard 2A4:
-Old gun (80s) RH L/44 with 5.3m lenght and 120mm caliber
-Significantly less powerfull
-Lacks the other feature.

Mobility and reliability
T-72BA:
+Refurbished with use of modern elements developed for T-90A resulting in incresed characteristics on modern level
+New more modern and powerfull engine V-92S2 (1000hp) and improved transmission.

Leopard 2A4:
-No modernisation or refurbishement.
-Stays on old level (80s) and aging.

Conclusion:
Rather modest and inexpensive modernisation (38ml unit cost) results in valuable tank in some aspects in modern level, howewer, with old level protection.

Leopard 2A4 (majority of Western European arsenal) stock units do not undergo any modernisation, nor it is planned. Therefore will lose relevance and combat value by the period of 2015-2020.

 

[hest]

BTW: in DM53 and DM63 penetrator lenght is 740mm (without fins, but with balistic cap) it's more then is capable to insert in longer casette autoloader in modernisated Korzina-A., becouse penetratoris always shorter then whole catrige lenght. Second problem is SABOT material and construction.

btw saboth lenght in 3BM44M is ~705mm lenght whit balistic cap and without fins.

and accodingto Frontanow page:
Svinets is 635mm leght with 546mm penetrator lenght , and Lekalo is 730mm lenght with 570mm lengt penetrator.

You know, that soviet Svinets has no relation with Svinets-1 and Svinets-2 do you ?? How can someone discuss with such ignorance.

 

[Damian]

Leopard 2A4:
-No modernisation or refurbishement.
-Stays on old level (80s) and aging.

This is some big BS.

Polish Leopard 2A4's are scheduled for modernization, I showed photos of proposed changes by KMW, and other proposals like Revolution upgrade package by Rhinemetall.

There are also Austrian Pz87WE upgrade.

Can a moderator or administrator ban this fool and lier?

Lidsky, maybe start to provide sources... ----in troll.

You know, that soviet Svinets has no relation with Svinets-1 and Svinets-2 do you ?? How can someone discuss with such ignorance.

I'am surprised that we discuss with such troll like You.

You are not prividing any sources, only demands a complete belive in your bald statements.

About tank accelaration, in a book Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-1998 written by Michael Jerchel and Uwe Shnellbacher it is wrote.



And here books full index of sources.



So contrary to Lidsky, we have a backup in solid sources.

So it does not really matters that T-72BA might recive a more powerfull engine, when they are still using outdated transmission uncapable to properly use more power.

 

[Damian]

PS. Sorry, small correction, it is not book sources index, just index. The sources are mainly from KMW and Bundeswehr units where authours were collecting informations and photos.

As for other MBT's. Global Security for M1 series provides such informations about accelaration.

M1, M1IP and older M1A1 variants (the lighter ones) have accelearation of 7 second to 20mph/32kmh, heavier M1A1's and M1A2 have acceleration of 7.2 seconds to 20mph/32kmh. Not bad for something that from 54,5 metric tons, growth in weight to 63,1 metric tons (weight increase by ~8-9 metric tons, most weight increase was from armor upgrades).

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

A document from DTIC provides similiar data.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476340.pdf

 

[Damian]

Higher resolution photo of new Turkish MBT Altay. This is a mobility test rig, so most of the tanks is probably still an empty shell.