Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

MTU MB883 was also tested on M1 series, and is currently proposed as replacement for AGT-1500C.




Saved space can be used for isolated ammunition compartment, additional fuel tanks, or to reloacte fuel tanks from other parts of vehicle to change it's internal layout.

Of course there are other alternatives for MB883, like 1500HP version of AVDS-1790, and some experimental engines like XAP-1000 that was ready for production in 1990's.

So there was alot of improvement between 1990's and 2012 in terms of engine technology.

 

[hest]

As you know there are different classes of IFV, requiring tactical mobility, and heavy vehicles with increase in weight.

30mm AP will not be longer effective, against today's and future IFV Puma, Kurganets-25, Polish Anders, American amphibious vehicle it is required 40/45mm caliber to penetrate frontal armour, effectively neutralise vehicle. Hence adoption (part of decision, increased performance of AP munition) of new caliber in perspective vehicles (Russian future BMP/IFV).

Germans in Puma retained 30mm autocannon and developed limited and expensive air burst munition in such caliber...because they had no other option. Simple increase in caliber to 35mm or 40mm was not the solution, because dimensions of projectile increase significantly and therefore ammunition is notably reduced.

Howewer with telescopic munition it is different. It allows increase in caliber and outperforms 30mm in all aspects, while retaining compact dimensions thus allowing to maintain munition capacity. But Germans just had not such option at the time of Puma developement.

For fighting heavier targets than a IFV, HE or KETF ammuniton can be used to blind an enemy. Two AHEAD shots were enough to destroy all sights and the LRF of a Swiss prototype tank.

Yes, but possibility to disable vehicle, and effective neutralisation are different things... you cannot replace role of AP munition, and armour penetration is assured defeat.

40/45mm both assures pentration of AP munition against mentioned targets, and tanks' hull side from majority of angles, and fragmentary and air burst effects greatly outperform 30mm.

If Kurganets has a weight of only 25 tonnes, then it is probably not protected against 30 mm APFSDS. The K21 is weighing 25 tonnes and is only protected against 30 mm APDS ammunition, the basic Marder weighs more than 28 tonnes and is only protected against 25 mm APDS (30 mm ammunition from longer ranges) and similar things can be said about ASCOD, Warrior, CV90, etc. 25 tonnes is too less for protection against 30 mm APFSDS.

It is not correct to make such generalisation, especially when Kurganets is a generation ahead of those vehicles. Such protection is fully possible.

ROTFL
Whould You be so kind and explaint what it that???

I am talking about Bahcha-U universal module, incorporating 100mm gun in addition to 30mm, with much higher capability by use of range of munitions, 34 100mm fragmentary rounds along with 30mm munition which results in much higer performance against infantry, fortifications, than any current IFV.

Addition of 100mm fragmentary rounds, was due to limited effect (fragmentary) of 30mm rounds to deal with infantry formations.

 

[hest]

For who wants to know, Here is interview (in russian) about current situation, and developement of future BMP on Kurganets-25 plattform. Ауц interesting points:

Unmanned combat module (turret)

"In regard to making what is called beautifully" unmanned combat module ", the theme is real, and the problem we are solving is the remote operation. This raises an unexpected question that the military asks," And if we can manually operate this unmanned combat module, and fire, if necessary ? we believe the experience of combat, where we were, that, unfortunately, the last shot will be done by manned fire. Instead of using automation. everything will be decided only the person who survived, and he, having a sense of boldness and courage to assume the decision to fire at the enemy. "that's it. and here we are now looking for, because it's not easy to keep fighting module unmanned and at the same time retain the ability to carry out a fire. and I think we will solve this issue. "

Developement time

"We will develope two prototypes on this year (2012) and will show them to the military."

Protection

NII Stali "today looks at all the options that are in the world. Look at all that there is, that would be at this weight to give maximum protection"

 

[Damian]

As you know there are different classes of IFV, requiring tactical mobility, and heavy vehicles with increase in weight.

30mm AP will not be longer effective, against today's and future IFV Puma, Kurganets-25, Polish Anders, American amphibious vehicle it is required 40/45mm caliber to penetrate frontal armour (effectively neutralise vehicle). Hence adoption (part of decision, increased performance of AP munition) of new caliber in perspective vehicles (Russian future BMP/IFV).

Germans in Puma retained 30mm autocannon and developed limited and expensive air burst munition in such caliber...because they had no other option. Simple increase in caliber to 35mm or 40mm was not the solution, because dimensions of projectile increase significantly and therefore ammunition is significantly reduced.

Howewer with telescopic munition it is different It allows increase in caliber and outperforms 30mm in all aspects, while retaining compact dimensions thus allowing to maintain munition capacity. But Germans had not this at time of Puma developement.

You are basing Your assumptions on experience with very weak Russian APDS ammunition for 30mm 2A42.

It is actually interesting sutiatuon that Russians having very good automatic cannon, never developed a good APFSDS ammunition for it. Bu making conclusions that non Russian 25mm and 30mm automatic cannons will have the same poor anti armor performance is just... silly.

West long time ago said good bye to APDS ammunition for automatic cannons and is using more potent APFSDS.

Some sources says that US 25mm APDS M791 can penatrate ~60mm of RHA, just the same armor penetration have Russian 30mm 3UBR6.

US 25mm M919 APFSDS can penetrate ~100mm RHA.

A 30mm APFSDS used in ASCOD Pizarro/Ulan is reported to be capable to penetrate ~110mm of RHA, and APFSDS for 35mm Bushmaster III can penetrate up to ~170mm RHA.

Swedish 40mm Slpprj 95LK/05 for 40mm Bofors can also penetrate up to ~170mm RHA.

So 25-30mm calliber is still efficent enough against most threats.

It is not correct to make such generalisation, especially when Kurganets is a generation ahead of those vehicles. Such protection is fully possible.

Russia did not made any significant step ahead in armor materials since the end of cold war. They are not even experimenting with nanotechnology, while definetly Germany and USA have such experience and are further working on improving nanotechnology use in armor manufacturing.

I doubt that Kuganets will have such protection with only 25 tons (WPB Anders weights more than 30 tons in current technology demonstrator, and it can increase in weight and armor in prototype phase), maybe with addon armor it will achieve such protection levels.

I am talking about Bahcha-U universal module, incorporating 100mm gun in addition to 30mm, with much higher capability by use of range of munitions, 34 100mm fragmentary rounds along with 30mm munition which results in much higer performance against infantry, fortifications, than any current IFV.

Addition of 100mm fragmentary rounds, was due to limited effect (fragmentary) of 30mm rounds to deal with infantry formations.

It was stupid decision... very stupid. Limiting calliber of ATGM to 100mm only because use of low pressure gun/launcher of 100mm calliber, reducing ammunition storage capability etc.

And the west could do exactly the same, there is enough of low pressure guns avaiable for light AFV's, nobody done that. And there can be suspicion (but only suspicion) that HE ammunition for 2A42 might be also less effective than western analogs.

 

[hest]

About future tank engines, A-85-3 originally developed for ob. 195 (T-95). Weight of MBT, around 55 tons (highest thrust/weight parameters).

Nominal power, 1500 hp. Possibility to increase (uprated) up to 2000-2200hp.

 

[Damian]

A-85-3 is a good example of good compact engine, however it is unknown if it will be inducted in to series production for "Armata" platform based MBT. Might be or might not be.

Also it would be step ahead for Russia to finally leave behind the outdated V series.

 

[hest]

In Armata it is probable that will be used, A-85-3 in 1200hp version to increase service life (in first configurations such power 1500+ hp is not essential, and engine can be uprated in case of need, gun caliber 152mm and further armour upgrade, etc).

 

[Damian]

It is a serious issue if designers need to decrease engine power to increase it's service life. Seems to be problem of all revolutionary engines developed in Soviet Union and later Russia, that they face problems during their development and initial induction in to service.

 

[hest]

You are basing Your assumptions on experience with very weak Russian APDS ammunition for 30mm 2A42.

It is actually interesting sutiatuon that Russians having very good automatic cannon, never developed a good APFSDS ammunition for it. Bu making conclusions that non Russian 25mm and 30mm automatic cannons will have the same poor anti armor performance is just... silly.

West long time ago said good bye to APDS ammunition for automatic cannons and is using more potent APFSDS.

You here show serious ignorance and certainly do not understand what the issue is.

For soviet 30mm there are available modern APFSDS rounds "Kerner" and "Trezubka".

In 30mm caliber penetration is limited and not enought, because modern requirements are no longer against old IFV as BMP-1-2, etc. Against IFV as Puma, Anders, Kurganets, to acieve penetration is not possible with 30mm but bigger caliber, 40-45mm is required.

That 30mm AP does no longer meet modern requirements is no secret.

I doubt that Kuganets will have such protection with only 25 tons (WPB Anders weights more than 30 tons in current technology demonstrator, and it can increase in weight and armor in prototype phase), maybe with addon armor it will achieve such protection levels.

Fact is that 30mm AP is of limited effectiveness against Puma, Anders, Kurganets, etc. These are not old BMP.

It was stupid decision... very stupid. Limiting calliber of ATGM to 100mm only because use of low pressure gun/launcher of 100mm calliber, reducing ammunition storage capability etc.

And the west could do exactly the same, there is enough of low pressure guns avaiable for light AFV's, nobody done that. And there can be suspicion (but only suspicion) that HE ammunition for 2A42 might be also less effective than western analogs.

Nobody cares about your suspicions. Fact is that such module provides way more firepower than all current IFV.

 

[hest]

It is a serious issue if designers need to decrease engine power to increase it's service life. Seems to be problem of all revolutionary engines developed in Soviet Union and later Russia, that they face problems during their development and initial induction in to service.

No, you do not understand. There is no need for...1500 hp and more for initial models. A downrated model always has lower fuel consumption and more service life.

 

[Damian]

You here show serious ignorance and certainly do not understand what the issue is.

For soviet 30mm there are available modern APFSDS rounds "Kerner" and "Trezubka".

In 30mm caliber penetration is limited and not enought, because modern requirements are no longer against old IFV as BMP-1-2, etc. Against IFV as Puma, Anders, Kurganets, to acieve penetration is not possible with 30mm but bigger caliber, 40-45mm is required.

That 30mm AP does no longer meet modern requirements is no secret.

What are official designation codes for these new 30mm Russian APFSDS, what are their performance, they were inducted in to service or not. This is important.

If they are not in service then this is insignificant.

Fact is that 30mm AP is of limited effectiveness against Puma, Anders, Kurganets, etc. These are not old BMP.

Against Puma, yes, WPB Anders is only technology demonstrator right now, promising, but it still have a lot of changes in it's design during prototype phase. Kurganets does not seem to have advantage in protection over older IFV's right now. Especially that it is still non existing vehicle, first prototypes will be scheduled for tests in nearest future, and everything can change during tests, army and designers might even go to a conclusion that weight needs to be increased in terms to provide enough protection.

Nobody cares about your suspicions. Fact is that such module provides way more firepower than all current IFV.

Neither I care about Your butthurt reactions. Such weapon configuration is completely stupid and useless, if it would be so great everyone besides Chinese would copy such design, no one cares.

No, you do not understand. There is no need for...1500 hp and more for initial models. A downrated model always has lower fuel consumption and more service life.

No, it seems that You not understand. During vehicle service life it's weight will increase. Increasing engine power during vehicle service life increase costs. It is better to have more power from the start.

Wester 3rd generation MBT's also had a initial weight of approx 54-55 metric tons, but had 1500HP engines, because designers and military were perfectly aware that during service life weight will increase. It was better to have stronger engine and not increase costs in future to upgrade vehicles powerpack, so more money could have been spent on other important upgrades, like armor protection.

 

[hest]

For public in general, Russian APFSDS (subcalibre) 30mm AP rounds:

-3UBR7 "Trezubka" for guns 2A38, 2А42, 2А72
-3UBR8 "Kerner" for guns 2А42, 2А72
-3UBR9 (?) for guns 2А38, 2А42, 2А72

 

[Damian]

And of course no penetration values are given... why this don't surprise me at all.

 

[Damian]

30 mm automatic cannon 2A42 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well Wikipedia provides some informations about 3UBR8... still inferior to any known estimations for 25mm M919 APFSDS.

 

[hest]

Latest AP round in 25mm caliber has penetration of about 75mm RHA under normal angle of incidence and distance of 1000m. 30mm caliber will penetrate little more than 100mm.

And you think it is sufficient for modern requirement ? Such armament is not enought against modern IFV Puma, Anders, Kurganets which will form important component of modern armies. In fact, the lightest modern IFV in operation will be protected against 30mm armament currently in use even at close ranges (atleast from 1000km).

To combat such IFV it is necessary an increase to 40-45mm caliber, effective also at longer ranges.

I do not understand your conservatism to old 30mm caliber when it is clear that:
-AP is outdated with the appearance of modern vehicles.
-Fragmentary and air burst effects of 30mm round (due to explosive amount) are of limited effectiveness to deal against infantry and fortifications, and significantly behind of 40-45mm munition.

And your arguments are not valid anyway... given clear determination to adopt new caliber of both West and Russia (or Russia atleast) in perspective vehicles. For me that is more than enought justification.

 

[hest]

30 mm automatic cannon 2A42 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well Wikipedia provides some informations about 3UBR8... still inferior to any known estimations for 25mm M919 APFSDS.

"Kerner" is not such new developement and was widely produced, also for export. There is newer munition.

Anyway:

"Kerner" 30mm, 25mm RHA at angle of incidence of 60 degrees and range of 1500km.
25mm M919 about 30mm RHA at same angle and range of 1000km.

 

[Damian]

Latest AP round in 25mm caliber has penetration of about 75mm RHA under normal angle of incidence and distance of 1000m. 30mm caliber will penetrate little more than 100mm.

What latest AP round, give me designation code.

And you think it is sufficient for modern requirement ? Such armament is not enought against modern IFV Puma, Anders, Kurganets which will form important component of modern armies. In fact, the lightest modern IFV in operation will be protected against 30mm armament currently in use even at close ranges (atleast from 1000km).

Even 40mm is insufficent against SPz Puma or other modern AFV's, like GCV with their modular scalable armor. The best way to kill them is use a tank gun, or big calliber ATGM. Not to mention that 30mm can have more ammo stored even compared to 40mm CTA.

I do not understand your conservatism to old 30mm caliber when it is clear that:
-AP is outdated
-Fragmentary and air burst effects of 30mm round (due to explosive amount) are of limited effectiveness to deal against infantry and fortifications, and significantly behind of 40-45mm munition.

Indeed, You understand very little.

30mm is still efficent calliber, and automatic cannon is not there to kill heavy armored targets like for example future heavy IFV's, it is designed to eliminate non armored, light armored, troops and structure like targets, smaller calliber can do this perfectly, and if it is not capable to do this, there is allways ATGM, tank gun or infantry hand held RPG's and ATGM's to engage such targets.

So there is a valid question, if there is real nececity to increase calliber of IFV's automatic cannons.

Did You ever seen how many problems are with loading such automatic cannons with ammunition during combat? Look at CV9035 that have a 35mm chain gun, even there ready to use ammunition quantity is rather low, and can be problematic, 40mm Bofors is even more difficult to operate son of a ....

And your arguments are not valid anyway... given clear determination to adopt new caliber of both West and Russia (or Russia atleast) in perspective vehicles. For me that is more than enought justification.

There is not determination in west, only UK is adopting 40mm CTA, but this is just a part of bigger modernization of FV510 Warrior.

And Russia is hardly a country that is creating any trends in military development.

"Kerner" is not such new developement and was widely produced, also for export. There is newer munition.

Correction: 25mm penetration at 1500km and incidence of 60 degrees is Trezbuka, Kerner is more capable, but still...

But still inferior to their western analogs... hey we know that.

 

[hest]

You commit many mistakes in your response because you do not focus on subject.

What latest AP round, give me designation code.

M919

Even 40mm is insufficent against SPz Puma or other modern AFV's, like GCV with their modular scalable armor. The best way to kill them is use a tank gun, or big calliber ATGM. Not to mention that 30mm can have more ammo stored even compared to 40mm CTA.

In these vehicles, Puma, Anders (30-35 tons) it is not possible to provide better protection than against 30mm without addition of armour.

But they are effectively neutralised with 40mm gun from increased distance.

Indeed, You understand very little.

30mm is still efficent calliber, and automatic cannon is not there to kill heavy armored targets like for example future heavy IFV's, it is designed to eliminate non armored, light armored, troops and structure like targets, smaller calliber can do this perfectly, and if it is not capable to do this, there is allways ATGM, tank gun or infantry hand held RPG's and ATGM's to engage such targets.

So there is a valid question, if there is real nececity to increase calliber of IFV's automatic cannons.

This is a mistake. Automatic cannon is intended to deal against enemy armour, IFV, possibly tanks (especially side hull), etc, with use of AP munition, and against infantry and fortifications, in function of infantry support.

As 30mm AP is no longer effective and useful for it's intended role (as you also aknowledged), being no more than practical waste of ammunition capacity, and 30mm rounds have limited amount of explosive, therefore not effective to deal with infantry formations and fortifications, shift to increased caliber and telescopic munition is more than justified as it will overcome these problems.

Another mistake you made, ATGM has function of auxiliary armament and cannot serve as replacement in any way (none will agree with you).

Did You ever seen how many problems are with loading such automatic cannons with ammunition during combat? Look at CV9035 that have a 35mm chain gun, even there ready to use ammunition quantity is rather low, and can be problematic, 40mm Bofors is even more difficult to operate son of a ....

And this is another serious mistake. Experience with conventional ammunition of 40mm caliber does not serve as an argument against CTA.

Developement of telescopic ammunition was driven to solve problem of increase of munition dimensions related to increase of caliber, being compact ammunition with similar gun dimensions and at same time outperforming previous 30mm munition in all parameters while preserving ammunition capacity.

There is not determination in west, only UK is adopting 40mm CTA, but this is just a part of bigger modernization of FV510 Warrior.

And Russia is hardly a country that is creating any trends in military development.

It is fact that such developement was carried out in West due to known reasons.

Yes, I agree. Russia is modernising armed forces and spends effort, while Western European countries have no such motivation, but of course there are different needs.

But it is unrelated to path of weapon developement.

But still inferior to their western analogs... hey we know that.

In fact, not.

 

[hest]

Question, what is the configuration of Anders 120mm turret, is it unmanned ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Ander turret is unmanned..