Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Akim]

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.

Too high lateral projection for a modern tank

 

[Bhadra]

Too high lateral projection for a modern tank

Good. If they give it to Pakistan Arjuns can bust those easily.... in all other theatres also it would an easy target.

 

[p2prada]

I think the old T-90's acceleration from 0-20mph is 12 seconds. But this came with the 950HP engine. Maybe similar to T-90A. So, I doubt the T-72B can exceed the Leo A4 at that.

The T-90A with the 1130 HP should be a better match for the Leo A4. But there is no guarantee the performance will exceed it.

 

[hest]

Enought fight. Let's change to another subject ...

 

[militarysta]

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.

You are ----ing dumb ass. I made the same graphic for M873 as was for W92S2 and W94MS engines based on very good sources.
It's not my fault that you are trying to undermine the credibility of the source because reality and hard data are shown that mobility T-72BA whit V92S2 engine is far far whorse then Leopard-2 ones.
You are idiot whithout any sources and hard dates. You even haven't smth comapre to that:



And I have better sources then that.

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

But % from unkown numbers is for idiots imagination.
What If old 2A64M was 35% worse then L-44 Rh120? Then even whit new model whit increase of 15-20% in accuracy it's till whore then L-44 Rh120. That is the piont, but you don't uderstand this. You havent hard dates and proof and try to wrote ony at the level of abstraction: "15-20% better" for unkown value.
BTW: this valueis unkown only for You But I will not spending my time again (jak in draw about MB873 and W92S2) and some idiot will wrote "interpretation of poor sources". My sources are far far better then You and 98% users of this forum. In fact I have sources - You haven't.

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

As I shown - old WNA-H22 is about twice more accurate then modernisated in ~2010 2Э42-4 «Жасмин»
repeat:
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

What stabilisation mehanism is less accurate - this whit 0,6 or this whit 0,3-0,4? This whit 0,4 or this whit 0,15-0,2?

So yes "old"Rh120 L-44 could be better then 2A46-M5 in some aspect. It full posible, and it's trully for some spects (barrel lifetime etc)

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

But it's not becouse chamber pressure is bigger in L-44 Rh120 (672MPa) then in 2A46-M5 (in all sources is 600MPa), becouse DM63 used in most countries have 740mm long penetrator (without fins) and even Sniviets have whole catrige whit penetrator 740mm max lenght, and due to all sources pentrator in Sniviets is about 680-700mm long -no longer becouse is impossible to have the same lenght penetrator whithout fins and whole catriges! And it's clear for all people who see APFSDS but only not for You. So yes - even Sniviets-1/2/3....66 will be have SHORTER penetrator lenght due to max lengh catrige 740mm! So it's imposible to have
"analogous round".

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).

They are nerly the same 2000m, 32km/h, and it's some kind of terrain.

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

This enumeration was unnecessary due to fact that You can't even see defences between mobility - even when you have very accurate and simple draw or dates.

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.

One sentence ant two bullshit - You are brillant in that thema:

about majority A4 in Europe:
Current Leopard 2 users and used versions:

Germany: 125 A5, 225 A6 (70 A6M, 20 on loan to Canada), 45 A4 (+ 387 A4 stock)
Netherlands: 82 A6 (+ 20 A4, 28 A6 reserve)
Switzerland: 134 Panzer87 WE, (+ 246 A4 reserve)
Sweden: 120 A5+ (Strv 122, 10 mineprotected 122B), 154 A4 (6 A4 rebuilt to CEV Kodiak)
Spain: 108 A4, 219 A6+ (Leopardo 2E) (2A4 during modernisation)
Denmark: 57 A5+
Greece: 196 A4, 170 A6+ (Leopard 2HEL)
Norway: 52 A4
Austria: 114 A4
Finland: 91 A4 (20 A4 rebuilt as CEV/AVLB, 12 spares, 1 loss)
Poland: 128 A4 modernisation to 2PL in progress
Turkey: 298 A4 modernisation to NG in progress
Portugal: 38 A6

Only Austria and Norway will have non-modernisated Leo-2A4. Other countres will have 2A4 upgrades or have 2A4 version and 2A5-2A6 in the same time.
So you again wrote bullshit.

And the true is like here:

And only once avantages T-72BA due to "old" Leopard-2A4 is better night channel in Sosna-U sight.

to be continuated

 

[hest]

Modernised T-72B, Belarus:

In the period of 2011-2015 Belarus plans to upgrade it's tank force consisting of T-72B variants with use of domestic developements. Modernisation consists of (among other aspects):

-Improved protection, new ERA Relikt
-Modern FCS with multichannel sight Sosna-U and ability to use modern guided missile.
-Opto-electronic countermeasures system disrupting laser guided munitions as Hellfire, etc.

 

[Damian]

-Opto-electronic countermeasures system disrupting laser guided munitions as Hellfire, etc.

Waste of money... West is transitioning from laser guided munitions to passive guidance with use of thermal cameras or radars.

Your closest "enemy" Poland, is replacing all it's old ATGM's with Israeli Spike, that use passive guidance.

Germans also are procuring Spike.

USA have for infantry FGM-148 Javelin with passive guiding system, FGM-148 is also more and more popular around USA allies, and because US.Army Aviation soon will use only AH-64D Apache Longbow, there will be more radar guided AGM-114 Hellfire's.

In fact the only old ATGM that will be left, will be TOW, still it have a potent warhead. It is possible that in the end TOW and Hellfire will be replaced by JAGM if there will be need for ground based version. JAGM guidance system is uncooled/cooled imaging infrared, semi-active laser and millimetre-wave radar, no way You can jamm this.

@Militarysta, can You post in higher resolution and better quality, I'am unable to see what is there. Or could You send a copy to anyone who wish to read it?

 

[hest]

Article about modernisation

Important points:

"Mounted on tanks during the modernization of modern multi sights, equipped with television monitors will detect a target and fire at it as gunner and tank commander of the main weapons of all types of ammunition. Including a guided missile from a place and on the move, day and night, at a distance of five kilometers.

Automatic target tracking system will significantly increase the probability of hit that when shooting at moving targets.

Active protection systems, including autonomous operating units, as well as an improved passive protection will protect against anti-tank weapons with loafted (top attack) and flat (direct) trajectory of the projectile used in regardless of their type of guidance and warhead.

Automatic aerosol screen laying system creates interference ATGM having semi-active laser seeker, working from the reflected laser light from the target, as well as missiles and artillery shells correctable used with laser designators and rangefinders. It also masks the tank."

 

[hest]

Waste of money... West is transitioning from laser guided munitions to passive guidance with use of thermal cameras or radars.

Your closest "enemy" Poland, is replacing all it's old ATGM's with Israeli Spike, that use passive guidance.

Germans also are procuring Spike.

Problem of such missiles, is their limited range within engagement envelope of tank which limits it's effectiveness.

Also there is possibility of protection against such threats.

USA have for infantry FGM-148 Javelin with passive guiding system, FGM-148 is also more and more popular around USA allies, and because US.Army Aviation soon will use only AH-64D Apache Longbow, there will be more radar guided AGM-114 Hellfire's.

But today majority of such missiles are laser guided. Artillery guided munitions will also be rendered innefective.

And aviation will be facing another big problem, given availability air defense systems in regimental level.

In fact the only old ATGM that will be left, will be TOW, still it have a potent warhead. It is possible that in the end TOW and Hellfire will be replaced by JAGM if there will be need for ground based version. JAGM guidance system is uncooled/cooled imaging infrared, semi-active laser and millimetre-wave radar, no way You can jamm this.

TOW has outdated guidance method and it is hardly effective against well armoured targets, especially with Relikt ERA...

[

 

[militarysta]

Problem of such missiles, is their limited range within engagement envelope of tank which limits it's effectiveness.

Again You post somthing stupid not even close to the truth. Limited range have only GLATGM's and beam-rider ATGMS like TOW, Kornet, HOT-3 etc, becouse their fire range is limited by terrain. BLOS ATGM's like Spike or Javelin ar not limited by terrain and LOS direct fire.
How terrain limited LOS fire range in western europe and in Poland?
Well its funny becouse:

For NW Europe, K is about 950 yards.

90% of engagements occur at less than 2200 yards;
80% of engagements occur at less than 1500 yards;
50% of engagements occur at less than 650 yards.

2011m in 90% cases
1370m in 80% cases
~600m in 50% cases
In Poland terrain limited LOS fire range to 1500m in 96% cases. So using clasic ATGM's is not very good idea. Becouse this all HOT-3, TOW, Fagot, or tank GLATGM's Swir, Refleks, Invar, Cobra have the same range in Polish terrain - in 96% cases it will be only 1500m range.

BLOS ATGM's haven't that restrictions - like on this video:
Spike ER - YouTube
Pocisk Spike uderza w cel - YouTube

So in typical western europe and polish terrain conditions Spike have 2500m fire range, and this whole HOT-3, TOW, Fagot, or tank GLATGM's Swir, Refleks, Invar, Cobra only 1500m in 96% cases and in 50% only 600m.

In fact purchase of licenses and production of more than 90% Polonized Spike ATGM for polish army (264 launchers and 2794 ATGM's) was very good idea. Soon about 25% of Wolvervine AMV wheeld IFV will be have Spike too.

 

[militarysta]

Enought fight. Let's change to another subject ...

Im in half way to answer using sourses for this all bullshit about T-72BA and Leopad-2A4 theama, so sorry but not, and I will continue this topic because it's not end yet.

But for the other hand - You can't ansver using sources and hard data so there is no reson to doing more.

 

[p2prada]

But today majority of such missiles are laser guided.

I don't know what most other countries are doing, but Nag currently has CCD/IIR seeker like the Spike. Javelin has only IIR. Nag Mk2 being tested now has a mmW seeker and they are testing out Lock on before launch. Later they will upgrade it to have lock on after launch. Beyond that there will be a dual mmW/IIR seeker. So, an active and a passive seeker combination. In effect Nag will soon be a 4th generation missile.

For those who don't know what I am talking about, mmW is millimetre wave and is a Radio Frequency seeker like on air to air BVR missiles. So, CCD/IIR and regular IR seekers are passive guidance while mmW is active guidance.

There are no current defence systems built against radar guided weapons on tanks except for a decent APS. Or you can say there are no defences against such a seeker.

 

[hest]

Im in half way to answer using sourses for this all bullshit about T-72BA and Leopad-2A4 theama, so sorry but not, and I will continue this topic because it's not end yet.

But for the other hand - You can't ansver using sources and hard data so there is no reson to doing more.

You can continue, or can stop fight, for me it is indifferent...

 

[militarysta]

http://www.bumar.com/dywizje_flash/admin/store/images/image-1332364463-link.pdf from Wolvervine AMV whit ppk Spike

polonizated Spike ATGM:
http://www.bumar.com/dywizje_flash/admin/store/images/image-1317726331-link.pdf
(4000m BLOS range)



Methos -it may be ussefull for You - there is MPa and perforation values -whole pdf in english:
Polish 125mm munitions:
http://www.bumar.com/dywizje_flash/admin/store/images/image-1317723858-link.pdf


and from other factory:
http://www.bumar.com/dywizje_flash/admin/store/images/image-1317723969-link.pdf

 

[hest]

Problem is that for IFV 30mm caliber is getting outdated. In West they shift for 40mm with telescopic munition, as well as in Russia (future IFV on Kurganets and Bumerang plattforms, 45mm telescopic and 57mm) in Ukraine also works in 40mm caliber. But poles will remain in innefective 30mm.

 

[hest]

bmpd

Centauro with 120mm gun arriving to Russia:

But it is only for testing.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Is there any detail information on its gun ??

 

[Damian]

Problem is that for IFV 30mm caliber is getting outdated. In West they shift for 40mm with telescopic munition, as well as in Russia (future IFV on Kurganets and Bumerang plattforms, 45mm telescopic and 57mm) in Ukraine also works in 40mm caliber. But poles will remain in innefective 30mm.

Oh really, 30mm ineffective? Well the only problem with You, is that You seems to completely not understand several things.

First we use Mk44, this is a Bushmaster family of automatic cannons. So, if we wish, we can upgrade our IFV's and APC's to 35mm calliber, it use common components with smaller calliber versions, only change is in calliber and ammunition.

Not to mention that we actually also can purchase 40mm CTA from our allies.

Besides this 30mm is still very potent against light armor, and can even harm MBT's... well even 25mm can do that. M919 APFSDS for 25mm M242 can penetrate (depending on source) even up to ~60-100mm (closer to 60mm) RHA from ~2,000m... preatty potent for such little guy.

Problem of such missiles, is their limited range within engagement envelope of tank which limits it's effectiveness.

Also there is possibility of protection against such threats.

Oh really? The only short range here is FGM-148 Javelin, because it was designd as very lightweight, handheld ATGM.

Spike range depends on variant. It is from 800 to 25,000 m depending on variant... this is small for You?

And of course that there are ways to protect vehicles against such threats... but the best thing is Russia do not have such things, and turret roof mounted ERA won't help much against tandem HEAT warhead.

But today majority of such missiles are laser guided. Artillery guided munitions will also be rendered innefective.

And aviation will be facing another big problem, given availability air defense systems in regimental level.

Today, think about tommorow.

And aviation does not need to fear. It seems that Russians completely not understand the idea of BLOS munitions. Why the need to even risk that platform can be attacked by enemy?

Great example here is evolution of AH-64, from early variants that needed to see targets, to the AH-64D Apache Longbow, where thanks to radar, crew does not even need to see targets... not to mention that observation can be provided by drones or forward observers. Same can be done with any platform, for example MBT's with munitions like LAHAT or XM1111.

This is the power of digitalized army. Why to risk that tanks will be hit, let them fire BLOS munitions, when most dangerous threats will be eliminated, command can send tanks to attack.

It gives flexibility, new options for commanders.

 

[Akim]

Oh really, 30mm ineffective? Well the only problem with You, is that You seems to completely not understand several things.

First we use Mk44, this is a Bushmaster family of automatic cannons. So, if we wish, we can upgrade our IFV's and APC's to 35mm calliber, it use common components with smaller calliber versions, only change is in calliber and ammunition.

Not to mention that we actually also can purchase 40mm CTA from our allies.

Besides this 30mm is still very potent against light armor, and can even harm MBT's... well even 25mm can do that. M919 APFSDS for 25mm M242 can penetrate even up to ~100mm RHA from ~2,000m... preatty potent for such little guy.



Oh really? The only short range here is FGM-148 Javelin, because it was designd as very lightweight, handheld ATGM.

Spike range depends on variant. It is from 800 to 25,000 m depending on variant... this is small for You?

And of course that there are ways to protect vehicles against such threats... but the best thing is Russia do not have such things, and turret roof mounted ERA won't help much against tandem HEAT warhead.



Today, think about tommorow.

And aviation does not need to fear. It seems that Russians completely not understand the idea of BLOS munitions. Why the need to even risk that platform can be attacked by enemy?

Great example here is evolution of AH-64, from early variants that needed to see targets, to the AH-64D Apache Longbow, where thanks to radar, crew does not even need to see targets... not to mention that observation can be provided by drones or forward observers. Same can be done with any platform, for example MBT's with munitions like LAHAT or XM1111.

This is the power of digitalized army. Why to risk that tanks will be hit, let them fire BLOS munitions, when most dangerous threats will be eliminated, command can send tanks to attack.

It gives flexibility, new options for commanders.

I agree with Damian . And I already wrote in what formula of calculation of avtomat guns - other
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/38365-russia-france-jointly-build-armored-vehicle-2.html

 

[hest]

30mm kinetic rounds perforation is not sufficient, modern IFV as BMP-3, Puma have decent frontal protection. Also due small amount of explosive in that caliber, fragmentary power against infantry, etc is limited.

Now trend is to shift to telescopic munition:
Anglo-French munition for 40mm gun.