Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

The battleship USS Missouri was active until 1992 but it was obsolete by 1942. Same for tanks, its not only that cheaper technology can defeat tanks, but that they can do it enmass.. No matter the Armour, no matter the defensive systems, there are going to be cheaper technological weapons that are cheaper and more powerful. Tanks will be with us for years to come but their day has passed.

Only someone without a knowledge can say so. In 1950-1960's there was the same talk about end of a tank, and what? And tanks survived by another technology leap forward.

Funny thing that means to defeat tank are more and more primitive and more and more obsolete, while tanks and their protection become more and more advanced.

Another century will surprise idiots and uneducated fools that perdicts tanks end, with more advanced tank designs.

It would be better, and more interesting if Leopard 2 upgrade was performed with Polish work and developements, to some extent, but seems they even do not have such capability, and they want to design and produce new future plattform... Polish will be only hull ??

We can't do any modification of Leopard 2 without permission from original manufactuers like Rhinemetall and KMW.

We can build our own platform to which we have full rights.

But I understand that primitives like You do not respect law, yes?

 

[militarysta]

The battleship USS Missouri was active until 1992 but it was obsolete by 1942. Same for tanks, its not only that cheaper technology can defeat tanks, but that they can do it enmass.. No matter the Armour, no matter the defensive systems, there are going to be cheaper technological weapons that are cheaper and more powerful. Tanks will be with us for years to come but their day has passed.

Oh, yes "so poor tank crews, so defenseless against modern ATGM's and air munitions..."
Like here:
Quick Kill -USA

AMAP-ADS - Germany


Trophy - Israeli

KAPS- South Korea

And of course Zaslon,Arena, and others...

In fact in next two decades most of the AT-weapons will have very problematic performance against Tanks with APS. Most of the SC warhed (HEAT) carriers will be easy to destroy by APS. Like now nera Gaza border when two using RPG-7/29 against Trophy on Merkava Mk.IV and one using 9M111 Fagot were totally ineffective.
In fact there are some weak counter measures against APS - but with a very dubious effectiveness like in funny RPG-30, or wery exspensive like in latest Kornet when is guided a salvo all (4) ATGM's in almoust one time in to one point (but whit appropriate time interval). But using ~97% HEAT warhead carries against MBT with APS is pointless.
And it will be big comeback to APFSDS ammo..

 

[hest]

There is no law possibilities to made Leopard-2 mod without KMW or Rheinmetall cooperation.

You could get permission to incorporate domestic elements (if you have solid base and able to do), same as getting license for production. Many Leopard 2 users have done that already.

T-90 for example, India incorporated some domestic elements (legally).

But Polish Leopard 2 modernisation is all German if I am right, nothing Polish...

 

[militarysta]

You could get permission to incorporate domestic elements (if you have solid base and able to do), same as getting license for production. Many Leopard 2 users have done that already.

Yes it's true and itn polish leo-2 case it will be exatly in that way.

But Polish Leopard 2 modernisation is all German if I am right, nothing Polish...

You are wrong But wait this 5 days and we will be able to post more about "polish mod". But first proposition for KMW was to use polish: thermal cameras, BMS, RCWS, main gun sight, polish eletrical stabilisation and stabilisation, and even NERA armour. Of course it was only proposition and of course KMW/Rheinmettal not allowed to so big part of polish components (IMHO most of them are not so good as germans ones...) but polish industry can do it themself. Like when PT-91MZ for Malysia just beat T-90S and erly T-84 during trade. When is political will and money then polish military industry can do very impresive kind of weapons or modifications. Like LOARA-PZA SPAAG or Sa-8P Sting, polish air defence radars, etc. And many many times American soilders, with they superiority syndrome, where in shock wen ex Soviet weapons, or polish mods of this weapons just beat them ;-)

 

[militarysta]

And polish clone ZASLON APS on Rosmak:
e-RAPORT MSPO 2/2007 - Rosomak ze Spike - Altair Agencja Lotnicza

And older conception:

 

[hest]

Russia planned to adopt Active protection system, "Shtandart" in T-95, now will adopt "Afganit" in future Armata and possibly other plattforms.
It is universal system, protecting against all threats, even tank fired APFSDS.

In "Burlak" was also planned to incorporate active protection system:

 

[militarysta]

Russia planned to adopt Active protection system, "Shtandart" in T-95, now will adopt "Afganit" in future Armata and possibly other plattforms.

In fact Soviet Union was precursor using in unit serial APS. Drozd was the first, Arena unfortunetly wasn't the second.

It is universal system, protecting against all threats, even tank fired APFSD

Well I slight doubt becuse it's other then anti-HEAT warhed task - very diffciult to achive. But for the other hand - Zaslon can protect against older APFSDS (3BM15, 3BM22, 3BM26 -generally whit semi-partial structure with tungsten slug inside) and It was in begining developed just until Soviet Union colapse.
Now only very few APS can protect against APFSDS.
In full mode AMAP-ADS in "heavy" variant (even against 2000m/s and more EFP...), Iron Fist can do that, Zaslon for older APFSDS rounds. And maybe Quick Kill. And it's all*. Drozd can't deal with APFSDS the same Arena, Trophy, LEADs, and others.

In "Burlak" was also planned to incorporate active protection system:

Yes, it's looks like deep modernisation Drozd system.



*in theory maybe KAPS can do that but there is no evidence.

 

[Damian]

Polish Leopard 2PL will have polish made thermal camera made by PCO and BMS based on Fonet and F@stnet systems, other possible polish made components are possible. However we do not have permission to make any modifications without support from KWM or Rhinemetall.

 

[hest]

In fact Soviet Union was precursor using in unit serial APS. Drozd was the first, Arena unfortunetly wasn't the second.

There were many more systems than those two. Drozd was famous because it was first in the world... Arena because it was developed to production level, not purchased but offered.

But such systems are no needed. Russian army has requirement of universal system, to protect also against APFSDS and that is what will be deployed in Armata.

Well I slight doubt becuse it's other then anti-HEAT warhed task - very diffciult to achive. But for the other hand - Zaslon can protect against older APFSDS (3BM15, 3BM22, 3BM26 -generally whit semi-partial structure with tungsten slug inside) and It was in begining developed just until Soviet Union colapse.
Now only very few APS can protect against APFSDS.
In full mode AMAP-ADS in "heavy" variant (even against 2000m/s and more EFP...), Iron Fist can do that, Zaslon for older APFSDS rounds. And maybe Quick Kill. And it's all*. Drozd can't deal with APFSDS the same Arena, Trophy, LEADs, and others.

There are in general 3 types of systems. Long range engagement (Arena) medium range (Drozd, Trophy) small range (Zaslon).

With small range engagement it is easier task to intercept high velocity targets as APFSDS.

Modern Russian systems are considered secret, but they have requirement to give universal protection. In fact when Armata will be fielded it will be the first serial tank with such system, capable to destabilise APFSDS rounds.

Yes, it's looks like deep modernisation Drozd system.

I do not see similarity with "Drozd".

Developers of "Afganit" for Armata, for the matter, have not any relation with "Drozd".

 

[hest]

Also to add, in future Russian tank Armata there is possibility that they will adopted russian thermal cameras.

Demonstrated for T-90, these are modern sights developed by KMZ (Krasnogorsk), Agat-MDT (commander's) and Irbis-K , will enter production in 2013. Matrix is probably produced by NPO Orion.

They are on very modern level.

I would like to see current Peleng sights with Russian matrixes, instead of French, on their tanks...

 

[Damian]

There were many more systems than those two. Drozd was famous because it was first in the world... Arena because it was developed to production level, not purchased but offered.

But such systems are no needed. Russian army has requirement of universal system, to protect also against APFSDS and that is what will be deployed in Armata.

One of the very first concepts of active protection system, based on linear shaped charges was US Dash-Dot system, however at that time, concept was way above technical and technological levels avaiable around the world.



Modern continuation of Dash-Dot system is Iron Curtain system, also developed in USA.

 

[Damian]

This is a concept art of M1 Abrams deep modernization. It is from official sources, perhaps soon I will get link to them.

We can see several interesting details. First front turret protection was again increased by making front turret armor thicker, now definetly it will be more than ~1,000mm thick (at least per this concept), front hull armor also seems to have thicker armor, the boxes around the turret might be VLS launchers of Quick Kill active protection system. We can see 2x RWS on turret, new sights and probably fire control system (it seems lik a derivatives from future combat systems FCS for their vehicles), and unknown modifications to the hull. Tank is also armed with a new gun, probably XM360E1.

But as I said, this is only a concept graphic, it is a far way to technology demonstrator, and even a longer way to prototype and final product.

 

[Damian]

Test bed for Object 477 Boxer/Molot.

 

[Damian]

And some more.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Has anyone have knowledge about CL 3254 ?

Between 2001 and 2003 IMI shipped 46,000 rounds of MK-1 ammunition to India. India is the only known large-scale purchaser of this round.

On tank net some one said : 300 mm/@60o/2000 m that is 600mm LOS.. ?

 

[militarysta]

Ob.477 Molot/Boxer Tank Test Bed or very erly hull prototype:

Very intersetng, but typical for IVgen.tanks hull armour layout. We can se front hull and upper glastic ERA layer (orange) and placed in two way special armour cavity (blue). One thick cavity behind front ERA layer, and second one - whit some angle under upper glastic plate ERA layer. Very interesting layout I must say.

 

[Damian]

This is only mobility test rig, I suppose that real prototypes had a bit different configuration. And I have a strong suspicion that this one was used for ballistic tests.

Oh and interesting information, but non official, about one of concept about new Polish main battle tank.

The idea is based around a ~50 metric tons tank, designed most probably as dedicated platform, but with as many common components with light/medium universal combat platform/IFV (most probably something that will evolve from WPB Anders).

This is one of several concepts, other are not known to wide public, yet.

 

[hest]

New generation reactive armour is the only way to proportionate top hull (crew) protection, as seen in Molot, also in Armata. Also in turret, "Kaktus" in ob.640 and "Relikt" in modernised T-90, on these it is not as great due to manned turret configuration, and protection was based on weapons attack profiles (Tow-2B, Javelin, etc) which normally hit close to front of turret.

Americans had not such ability. Their only way to provide top protection, is by turret's frontal armour thickness increase (lower efficiency per volume, less weight) to make it cover hull... But that does not seems as great solution.

Method of providing top protection with "Kaktus" reactive armour

In new T-90 "Relikt" has a similar placement

 

[Damian]

New generation reactive armour is the only way to proportionate top hull (crew) protection, as seen in Molot, also in Armata. Also in turret, "Kaktus" in ob.640 and "Relikt" in modernised T-90, on these it is not as great due to manned turret configuration, and protection was based on weapons attack profiles (Tow-2B, Javelin, etc) which normally hit close to front of turret.

Americans had not such ability. Their only way to provide top protection, is by turret's frontal armour thickness increase (lower efficiency per volume, less weight) to make it cover hull... But that does not seems as great solution.

It is useless way to protect vehicle top. Simply because ERA itself won't stop shaped charge jet or EFP. What matters is what behind ERA, and it is not impressive.

So the question is, if there is any sense in providing top protection by conventional means. IMHO no, and hard kill active protection system will be more efficent.

No to mention that Americans contrary to Your poor knowledge about their developments, tested several reinforced turret roof configurations during M1A2SEP R&D phase. Conclusion was that it is not worth the effort because turret top can't be protected enough without significant weight increase.

Also we should remember that the only types of ERA that can protect against tandem warheads, are these ones that are bulky, multilayered designs, like Ukrainian Dublet, it is just impractical to place such cassettes on turret roof. And more and more top attack ATGM's have tandem warheads.

No to mention improvement in missiles guidance, some variants of Spike ATGM can be guided all the way by operator in to one precisely choosen weak spot, like hatch or even sight port. No way You can protect this by such means like ERA or other types of armor.

 

[hest]

It is useless way to protect vehicle top. Simply because ERA itself won't stop shaped charge jet or EFP. What matters is what behind ERA, and it is not impressive.

You first should forget about ERA because that term originated to define old reactive protection, and it is not correct to refer to modern elements.

Today it is much more complex.

Modern reactive blocks placed on top can perfectly protect against threats, Tow-2B (EFP with limited perforeation) and disrupt HEAT jet of tandem warhead of missile up to 120mm diameter.

So the question is, if there is any sense in providing top protection by conventional means. IMHO no, and hard kill active protection system will be more efficent.

It can be provided, and was actually provided.

APS can never be treated as fisrt and only protection due to important reasons.

No to mention that Americans contrary to Your poor knowledge about their developments, tested several reinforced turret roof configurations during M1A2SEP R&D phase. Conclusion was that it is not worth the effort because turret top can't be protected enough without significant weight increase.

This is not in subject.

It is not efficient to increment armour thickness, it will lead to nowhere, weight, protection level increase would not be acceptable. Point is use of efficient reactive armour.

Americans in early 90s looked at solution, to adopt turret armour of great dimensions (about 1300mm), low efficiency, lower weight, to cover hull from top, but this was only a partial solution.

Also we should remember that the only types of ERA that can protect against tandem warheads, are these ones that are bulky, multilayered designs, like Ukrainian Dublet, it is just impractical to place such cassettes on turret roof. And more and more top attack ATGM's have tandem warheads.

This is very wrong. In fact you have no understanding of basic working principles of all mentioned reactive armour arrangements.

No to mention improvement in missiles guidance, some variants of Spike ATGM can be guided all the way by operator in to one precisely choosen weak spot, like hatch or even sight port. No way You can protect this by such means like ERA or other types of armor.

Automatic Tow-2B, Javelin, Spike seekers, their operanting principle, attack profiles are well understood, as I said.

You could do anything manually, but not in practice.