Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[average american]

This is one of the most stupid things I ever read... go back to school and educate yourself again...

And this is the best part:



And what if active protection system will defeat mortar round? Do You even understand the working mechanism of active protection systems?

Mortar round can be defeated in exactly the same way as anti tank guided missile or rocket propelled granade.

Really, sometimes I just feel pity that I can't shoot at such idiots like You.

Damn even my dogs have higer IQ level...

Did you hear that the Polish government bought a thousand septic tanks?
As soon as they learn to drive them, they're going to invade Russia.

I doubt if Poland has the technology to buiild an antimissile defense for tanks, matter of fact I doubt if any one can build an antimissle defense that willl actually work for tanks unless they can defend the entire area.

 

[Damian]

There was also one more problem our designers needed to solve with tanks of soviet origin, it is their turrets design.

Cast turret is very problematic. First cast armor is from 5 to 15% less protective against projectiles than rolled armor. Second is that composite armor in such turret is integral part of turret structure.

Our designers developed 3 modern composite armors, CAWA-1, CAWA-1NA and CAWA-2. Armor was very promising, however during attempt to place it in T-72M1 turret, it become obvious that armor replacement is immposible, it allways ended with turret structural damage.

So even if Poland have a world class, very promising composite armor, we can't use it in our PT-91's, due to idiotic cast turret idea, used by soviet designers through allmost whole cold war.

I discussed this problem with a men from Kharkic Tank Repair Plant, he said that indeed, there is such problem. If Ukrainians would have money they would also replace cast turrets on T-64BM Bulat with turrets welded from rolled plates.

 

[Damian]

Did you hear that the Polish government bought a thousand septic tanks?
As soon as they learn to drive them, they're going to invade Russia.

300-500 new MBT's, and 1,000 vehicles based on medium tracked platform, program is in development yet.

I doubt if Poland has the technology to buiild an antimissile defense for tanks, matter of fact I doubt if any one can build an antimissle defense that willl actually work for tanks unless they can defend the entire area.

We can buy one of these fully working systems.

 

[Damian]

There is of course also Trophy.

There are of course many other active protection systems, like LEDS-150, Arena, Arena-E, Drozd-1, Drozd-2, Dozd (precurssor of Zaslon), Iron Fist, AN/VLQ-6, AN/VLQ-7, AN/VLQ-8, TSzU-1-7 Shtora-1, Varta (Ukrainian analog to Shtora), and more.

So saying that :

I doubt if Poland has the technology to buiild an antimissile defense for tanks, matter of fact I doubt if any one can build an antimissle defense that willl actually work for tanks unless they can defend the entire area.

Is obviously complete BS, the only reason why these system are not used en masse yet, is just because there was no reason to use them en masse. But the conceptual work on such systems beggin something around 1950's.

 

[hest]

Test on PzF-3 will be enought? I know that on btvt is many shit about ERAWA-1 adn ERAWA-2 to proof that only one trully russian made ERA are good and modern and superior then other ERA (Ukrainian-Knife;Duplet, Czech-Dyna and Polish- ERAWA-2/CERAWA ones) but it's not so true in fact Kontakt-5 have no advantage in compare to the ERAWA-2.

In fact these countries (Poland, Czech, etc) departed from Soviet developements.

ERAWA is based on Kontakt, difference is metal plate and arrangement of explosive element (Kontakt, angled, ERAWA, parallel). ERAWA-2 is same, but in double configuration.

It is not any better, and cannot be. To compare with Kontakt-V is funny...

Relikt should be better but it's diffrent story.

Then why you started to talk about ERAWA when it has no relation to "Top protection of modern tank" ??

explanation of the signs
(Объяснение знаков)

CP - capability of protection (Возможность защиты)

CP=(H-Hw)/H

H- Guaranteed penetration RHA armour with thick "H"
Hw - real depth of perforation RHA amrour (witness) after perforation ERAWA brick

ERAWA-2 CP - capability of protection (Возможность защиты) is:

1) single SC (ex:9M113) CP=95% (for 60.)
2) EFP diameter 100mm CP=94% (for 60.)
3) BK-14M HEAT CS CP=94-80% (for 60.)
4) 3BM15 APFSDS CP=57% (for 60.)
5) tandem SC (Panzerfust-3IT, PG-7VR, LAW)
CP= ~66%

As I understood in Polish, "anti-tandem property" is based on reduction of warhead performance (but not more than 0.6) in single staged test of ERAWA-2 with angle of incidence of 15 degrees from normal

In that scenario ERAWA-2 plates will affect main warhead to some degree, but not in realistic situation.

It is known, that in angle of incidence close to normal, as in staged test, there is reduction in main warhead of tandem configuration and even destruction without it's initiation.

In specific situations any ERA, even old Kontakt, has "anti-tandem properties"

C-D: Destruction of main warhead without detonation

So they state highest figure of 60% reduction on only one specific test in most favorable condition (!). This is only stupid advertisement nothing to do with reality.

For reactive armour to have anti-tandem properties, it has to guarantee protection in most situations. This can be done either by increase in interaction to more than 400 microseconds (ERAWA-2 is no more than 200), this can be given by increase in elements, for example, multiple layers in Duplet, Nozh, by different working mechanism, interaction against two opposing plates, Relikt, or be given by increased surface as anti-tandem reactive armour based on 4S24 which would destroy warhead before detonation on most angles of incidence.

 

[Damian]

In fact these countries (Poland, Czech, etc) departed from Soviet developements.

ERAWA is based on Kontakt, difference is metal plate and arrangement of explosive element (Kontakt, angled, ERAWA, parallel). ERAWA-2 is same, but in double configuration.

It is not any better, and cannot be. To compare with Kontakt-V is funny...


Then why you started to talk about ERAWA when it has no relation to "Top protection of modern tank" ??


As I understood in Polish, "anti-tandem property" is based on reduction of warhead performance (but not more than 0.6) in single staged test of ERAWA-2 with angle of incidence of 15 degrees from normal

In that scenario ERAWA-2 plates will affect main warhead to some degree, but not in realistic situation.

It is known, that in angle of incidence close to normal, as in staged test, there is reduction in main warhead of tandem configuration and even destruction without it's initiation.

In specific situations any ERA, even old Kontakt, has "anti-tandem properties"

C-D: Destruction of main warhead without detonation

So they state highest figure of 60% reduction on only one specific test in most favorable condition (!). This is only stupid advertisement nothing to do with reality.

For reactive armour to have anti-tandem properties, it has to guarantee protection in most situations. This can be done either by increase in interaction to more than 400 microseconds (ERAWA-2 is no more than 200), this can be given by increase in elements, for example, multiple layers in Duplet, Nozh, by different working mechanism, interaction against two opposing plates, Relikt, or be given by increased surface as anti-tandem reactive armour based on 4S24 which would destroy warhead before detonation on most angles of incidence.

As we should expect, when some country that is not Russia or ex soviet state, develops something that work and is not worse, such ass like You will criticize it.

The best proof that ERAWA-2 is working is that there was not single test, but several of them, one with delegation from German company Dynamit Nobel that is manufacturer of PzF-3. Germans and our designers expected that PzF-3 with most powerfull warhead will defeat ERAWA-2 without problem, everyone was surprised that ERAWA-2 reduced penetration properties to such level that it was not capable to penetrate witness plate behind.

 

[hest]

There was also one more problem our designers needed to solve with tanks of soviet origin, it is their turrets design.

Cast turret is very problematic. First cast armor is from 5 to 15% less protective against projectiles than rolled armor. Second is that composite armor in such turret is integral part of turret structure.

Our designers developed 3 modern composite armors, CAWA-1, CAWA-1NA and CAWA-2. Armor was very promising, however during attempt to place it in T-72M1 turret, it become obvious that armor replacement is immposible, it allways ended with turret structural damage.

So even if Poland have a world class, very promising composite armor, we can't use it in our PT-91's, due to idiotic cast turret idea, used by soviet designers through allmost whole cold war.

I discussed this problem with a men from Kharkic Tank Repair Plant, he said that indeed, there is such problem. If Ukrainians would have money they would also replace cast turrets on T-64BM Bulat with turrets welded from rolled plates.

Do not look from anachronistic point of view. It is true, but was good solution at time when it was projected.

That is why in late 80s (since 1985) Soviet Union started developement and adoption of welded turret for new tanks (first was NII Stali and UKBTM for ob.187, then for KHKBTM, Omsk, etc...).

Today as variant fot modernisation was developed universal turret Burlak, now also UKBTM universal combat module as T-72 upgrade.

 

[Damian]

Do not look from anachronistic point of view. It is true, but was good solution at time when it was projected.

No, it was not good solution.

That is why in late 80s (since 1985) Soviet Union started developement and adoption of welded turret for new tanks (first was NII Stali and UKBTM for ob.187, then for KHKBTM, Omsk, etc...).

10 years after NATO, and still instead of increasing the space used for composite armor and the layers of composite armor, there is less space used for both composite armor for both turret and hull.

It could have been done better if Object 187 would have been fielded with new, western style hull front armor, but some idiot decided otherwise. Someone should have shot him, or at least should think about such hull front armor configuration for T-90A or T-90M.

Today as variant fot modernisation was developed universal turret Burlak, now also UKBTM universal combat module as T-72 upgrade.

Burlak is one of the most strange turret design ever seen. Also it seems that designers reduced thickness of front armor, and placed ERA cassettes that are big enough to obscure visibility from sights. Useless design.

 

[hest]

As we should expect, when some country that is not Russia or ex soviet state, develops something that work and is not worse, such ass like You will criticize it.

Everything is justified as long as there are strong facts and scientifical base.

Kontakt, Relikt, Nozh there are solid technical descriptions, facts, if you claim anything, provide technical explanation, figures. I am not against.

The best proof that ERAWA-2 is working is that there was not single test, but several of them, one with delegation from German company Dynamit Nobel that is manufacturer of PzF-3. Germans and our designers expected that PzF-3 with most powerfull warhead will defeat ERAWA-2 without problem, everyone was surprised that ERAWA-2 reduced penetration properties to such level that it was not capable to penetrate witness plate behind.

In article all deductions and 0.6 figure was stated only as result of one single staged test on unrealistically favorable conditions, incidence of 15 degrees from normal. Rest is not explained at all.

Of course they will stage test to achieve surprise...

 

[Damian]

Everything is justified as long as there are strong facts and scientifical base.

Kontakt, Relikt, Nozh there are solid technical descriptions, facts, if you claim anything, provide technical explanation, figures. I am not against.

The problem You don't understand, is that in some countries, there is still well working OPSEC, and nobody is willing to share some informations in such stupid way like Russians do, or one Ukrainian.

Do You know that so much share of informations just provides any possible adversary with informations that can be used to develop countermessure?

This is just like the same when Americans just come to the ex soviet republics and just purchased for some USD full documentations and even complete weapon systems for tests.

In article all deductions and 0.6 figure was stated only as result of one single staged test on unrealistically favorable conditions, incidence of 15 degrees from normal. Rest is not explained at all.

Of course they will stage test to achieve surprise...

I can say exactly the same about NII Stali or any other Russian company (private or state owned), everything You do is staged.

If Russians solutions would be so brilliant whole world would copied them, instead no, not many nations use similiar solutions, despite the fact that Americans purchased and tested, made full scientific research about both Kontakt-5 and Knife, they didn't copied them. And their scientific base fully permitts this. Well perhaps, your solutions are not that briliant or needed, maybe other countries developed better protection, and this is more than possible, knowing all facts.

 

[hest]

No, it was not good solution.

It was, and also cheaper for mass production, good design, but you will not discuss with their decision, they knew more than you pretend.

10 years after NATO, and still instead of increasing the space used for composite armor and the layers of composite armor, there is less space used for both composite armor for both turret and hull.

... Not true, you do not understand design.

It could have been done better if Object 187 would have been fielded with new, western style hull front armor, but some idiot decided otherwise. Someone should have shot him, or at least should think about such hull front armor configuration for T-90A or T-90M.

In ob 187 many changes were done, not much related to improvement, but due to different internal configuration and more modern elements, similar situation with gun 2A66.

But UVZ will soon present for trials new tank, modernised T-90 with new hull, not only new turret, so we will see.

Burlak is one of the most strange turret design ever seen. Also it seems that designers reduced thickness of front armor, and placed ERA cassettes that are big enough to obscure visibility from sights. Useless design.

Not strange, innovative...

Ha ha

Turret had armour modules of new generation multilayered reactive armour, integrated in composite which could be easily replaced after damge, or for upgrade. Protection against all threats, level of perspective 140mm APFSDS...

Installed in T-90A

 

[Damian]

It was, and also cheaper for mass production, good design, but you will not discuss with their decision, they knew more than you pretend.

It was wrong decision... typical for socialist states, instead of more economic thingink for longer service, and service costs reduction due to easier armor modifications and replacement, they decided for such awfull design good only for homogeneus armor, not composite.

... Not true, you do not understand design.

No, the only person who does not understand design is You!

In ob 187 many changes were done, not much related to improvement, but due to different internal configuration and more modern elements, similar situation with gun 2A66.

But UVZ will soon present for trials new tank, modernised T-90 with new hull, not only new turret, so we will see.

Object 187 was in everything about improvement, at least as much the outdated concept of general design inherited from T-64 allowed to.

As for T-90, we will see if anything such will be presented, or it is only your own fantasy.

Not strange, innovative...

Ha ha

Turret had armour modules of new generation multilayered reactive armour, integrated in composite which could be easily replaced after damge, or for upgrade. Protection against all threats, level of perspective 140mm APFSDS...

Nothing innovative here. Replaceable armor modules were well known for a long time. As well as ERA integrated in to composite armor, one of variants of Burlington was tested with ERA integrated in to it's structure, although no details are known.

 

[hest]

The problem You don't understand, is that in some countries, there is still well working OPSEC, and nobody is willing to share some informations in such stupid way like Russians do, or one Ukrainian.

Do You know that so much share of informations just provides any possible adversary with informations that can be used to develop countermessure?

This is just like the same when Americans just come to the ex soviet republics and just purchased for some USD full documentations and even complete weapon systems for tests.

Nothing of what I explained is of any secret, but general knowledge. For person who has no technical education it might look like mystery, but it is not.

I can say exactly the same about NII Stali or any other Russian company (private or state owned), everything You do is staged.

Go ahead, and discuss against facts. You should know at this level difference between show or advertisement and official army and developement test.

So far, while I showed figures, schemes, you provided nothing valid at all. So how do you want to prove your emotional point, whatever it is ??

If Russians solutions would be so brilliant whole world would copied them, instead no, not many nations use similiar solutions, despite the fact that Americans purchased and tested, made full scientific research about both Kontakt-5 and Knife, they didn't copied them. And their scientific base fully permitts this. Well perhaps, your solutions are not that briliant or needed, maybe other countries developed better protection, and this is more than possible, knowing all facts.

It is matter of research, base, requirements of different organisations...

 

[Damian]

Nothing of what I explained is of any secret, but general knowledge. For person who has no technical education it might look like mystery, but it is not.

Of course it is not mystery, but provides valuable informations for any adversary that have good enough scientific base to tests such ideas. Only fool reveals such informations. Look at west, in general they do not say anything about their armor protection, and the only armor we have some current knowledge is Burlington, not used for approx 20 years anymore.

Go ahead, and discuss against facts. You should know at this level difference between show or advertisement and official army and developement test.

So far, while I showed figures, schemes, you provided nothing valid at all. So how do you want to prove your emotional point, whatever it is ??

Numbers don't say anything, especially that they are from manufacturer. In general I belive more western developers because they keep quiet about tests, and capabilities of their products, it is far better and honest approach than advertisement of Russians that are using black PR to bash with mud any competition.

It is matter of research, base, requirements of different organisations...

No, ERA was known to west for the same amount of time as for Soviets. It is just that there was better alternative, advanced composite armor, that could provide enough protection, there was no need to copy cat soviets. Especially that Americans as well as Israelis, French or British used ERA for a long time on some of their tanks, and they didn't seen any need to use it on 3rd generation MBT's, untill the recent conflicts, to improve protection where composite armor is not present, or is/was not efficent enough... so over sides, front armor is purely protected by advanced composites, so this means there is no need to adapt soviet approach to the problem.

 

[militarysta]

In fact these countries (Poland, Czech, etc) departed from Soviet developements.

In fact not, ant not ony.

ERAWA is based on Kontakt,

Now, it's not and that statment is bullshit. ERAWA-1 have nothing common with Kontakt-1 becouse K-1 have serious disadvantages, in ERAWA-1 polish developers don't made this mistakes conected with K-1 build.
Again: ERAWA-1 have nothing common with Kontakt-1 its obvious bullshit and stupid nonsense taken from no ide where.

difference is metal plate and arrangement of explosive element (Kontakt, angled, ERAWA, parallel). ERAWA-2 is same, but in double configuration.
It is not any better, and cannot be. To compare with Kontakt-V is funny...

You haven't idea about ERAWA (the best example lack of any knowleges is writing that "ERAWA is based on Kontakt" what is nonsense) so that staytment without knowledges is pointless.

Then why you started to talk about ERAWA when it has no relation to "Top protection of modern tank" ??

Becouse it has relatio.

As I understood in Polish, "anti-tandem property" is based on reduction of warhead performance (but not more than 0.6) in single staged test of ERAWA-2 with angle of incidence of 15 degrees from normal
In that scenario ERAWA-2 plates will affect main warhead to some degree, but not in realistic situation.

No, You don't understand!
Polish anti-tandem property is based not on "single staged test with angle of incidence of 15 degrees" -it's bullshit, (or Your imagination, or another sick idea taken from space), but based on many tests made whit using warhed taken from:
1. Pzf-3IT
2. RPG-7 PG-7VR
3. LAW
All of them have tandem warhed (precursor + main SC). Each test was done for three angle of incidence:
a) 15 degrees
b) 30 degrees
c) 60 degrees
Values CP - capability of protection:
5) tandem SC (Panzerfust-3IT, PG-7VR, LAW) CP= ~66%
are given for angle of incidence equal to 30 degrees.
So Your premise (about one static test and lowest angle) is false and ridiculous. It's even funny in some way ;-)

And all this above is written in in tekst - I give proofs whit some reson - whole tekst is one big evidence about ERAWA capabilities. All is in the text.

Apart static test where made mobile test in WITU.

So they state highest figure of 60% reduction on only one specific test in most favorable condition (!). This is only stupid advertisement nothing to do with reality.

It's not true, and bullshit and the result of your sick imagination.
Value CP=66% is given for angle of incidence equal to 30 degrees. Many teste ERAWA-2 where done - including the use of Panzerfaust-3IT, LAW, PG-7VR whit double SC warhead.

This can be done either by increase in interaction to more than 400 microseconds (ERAWA-2 is no more than 200),

And this value is taken from where? Any sources or your imagination again? I gave sources, books, artices, and You? You can wrote only bullshit without evidences like fake statments about ERAWA test, or this 200 microseconds. Where are yours proofs, evidence?


BTW:
relatio taken from western military journals about completely different ERAWA test:

 

[Damian]

Calm down, he is just here to post advertisement of Russian military industry, and to bash with mud, everything that is or can be potential competition. It's typical PR stunt made by Russian fanboys on many forums. Tarasenko was doing exactly the same... it is a pity that such people are making bad impression of Russian people. Well I allways liked to talk with Vasily Fofanov, he is very open minded and not "strong against west" type.

 

[Damian]

Turkish M60T Sarba interior.

 

[Damian]

Turkish Leopard 2A4, it seems that subtitles inside are still in German.

All photos made by DENO from MP.net.

 

[Damian]

M2A3 from dismounts perspective towards turret compartment.

M1A2SEP v2's on the firing range...

 

[HRF]

Tanks, as you know them will be useless.

newer faster, more mobile, more target driven logic target end game tactic warfare will change and by pass all the current things you know.

How do I know, because I practice the warfare and start to make the weapons for market

If you wish to debate the merits, I will be back!!!