Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Methos, I do not need to feed this troll.

Besides this Lidsky M.D. is just the same person under nickname Pythp3 that was trolling on MilitaryPhotos.net, so I know how he can manipulate discussion.

 

[hest]

1. "limted protection" becuse of what? Any evidence that for 30. thicker (660mm in Leopard-2 and 800mm in M1A2) turret side then in russain tanks (540mm T-80U, 650mm in T-90A...) will be whorse?

2. this "200-240 mm (maximum)" is taken wfrom what? It's bullshit of the decade. Any sources, andy evidence?

Because from angle of 35 degrees in Soviet turret whole thickness is frontal armour which consists in steel and composite cavity.

From same angle turret side of Western tanks is exposed. Your thickness is based on side armour (thought in Leopard not all projection is covered) and it is error to assume that such thickness will be of same effectiveness as just frontal armour.

Side armour is different in composition than frontal, having less steel (relative to thickness) and having lower volume effectiveness.

 

[militarysta]

It is an error to equiparate hull thickness to frontal armour as I explained on my other post.

From 30-35 degrees Soviet turrets are protected by frontal armour. In case of Leopard 2, it has exposed sides. From 30-35 degrees side armour will not provide enought protection,

Becouse of what? Explain why side turret armour in Westran tanks whit LOS 660 and 800mm will not provide enought protection when its bigger value then LOS for 30. in Soviet/Russian tanks. Just explain why in you mind thicker armour will not give at least the same protection then thinner (for the same angle) armour in Soviet/Rusian tanks.

T-72B and T-80U/UD had side armour of 70-80 mm of RHA and reactive armour panels which gave significant lateral impulse against projectles allowing combined protection against APFSDS from 15 degrees (front).
In all Western tanks it was (still is) simple RHA and panel which allowed more limited protection, less than 10 degrees.

BUHAHAHAHAHAH Have You seen M1 hull or Leopard-2 designe? No? Internal structure? Placed fuel tanks, ammunition, side skirts? No? You haven't idea about that:

aren't you?

And ammo placed (without M1 becouse it's the best):

It will be lower due to exposure of lateral part of turret. 20-25 degrees vs 30-35 degrees (frontal armour).

You don't understand simple qestion: why in your mind lower value (540-650mm LOS) give better protectio then bigger value (660-800mm LOS)
Any reson able to explain?

 

[Damian]

Because from angle of 35 degrees in Soviet turret whole thickness is frontal armour which consists in steel and composite cavity.

From same angle turret side of Western tanks is exposed. Your thickness is based on side armour (thought in Leopard not all projection is covered) and it is error to assume that such thickness will be of same effectiveness as just frontal armour.

Side armour is different in composition than frontal, having less steel (relative to thickness) and having lower volume effectiveness.

It is against another lack of understanding of our homosovieticus here.

1) Steel itself is less effective.
2) Side turret armor in western tanks have the same composite armor as front turret armor.
3) Soviets do not understood the concept of such armor, all claims that were made about NATO composite armors during Soviet times are completely false, based on western disinformation.
4) NATO composite armors use multiple (many more) layers of different types of steel (from SHS, HHS to THS) that are in form of rolled plates, much more efficent (from 5% to even 15%) than cast turrets of Soviet tanks.
5) Side turret armor of NATO tanks range in thickness from ~300-400mm at 90 degrees to ~600-800mm at 30 degrees, so protection for turret at 60 degrees frontal arc is completely uniformed.

 

[militarysta]

M1A2 turret sides internal structure:



But of course You haven't idea that Burlinghton work in other metod then stupid cast steel and simple cermics or reflecting plates inside?

 

[hest]

Methos, I do not need to feed this troll. If I would have opprotunity I would just hit this idiot (yes You Lidsky) in his stupid face. How I hate such idiots...

It is you who cannot follow civilised discussion (since my first post on forum) and proceeds to unmature personnal offences.

So I will not reply to such childish behaviour.

Besides this Lidsky M.D. is just the same person under nickname Pythp3 that was trolling on MilitaryPhotos.net, so I know how he can manipulate discussion. And he was called moron there as well.

I just will say, that you confused me with someone else, I am not even present in that forum. This is the only english speaking forum on which I post.

 

[Damian]

Well Burlington armor was allways underestimated by fanboys of soviet designs... it is understandable, afterall it was far more advanced than protection of soviet tanks.

It is good to read articles written by Pawel Przezdziecki, who took all unclassified documentation + independen sources about Burlington and made a very descent description of the whole program and it's effects.

Also works of Paul Lakowski should be taken in to consideration. The simple amount of different materials used in western composite armors based on overall Burlington design, are impressive. Yet of course for obvious reasons such informations in form of precise data are classified, however me and Militarysta, seen for example Leopard 2 composite armor array, far more impressive, even in pure size and number of layers, compared to soviet designs.

It is you who cannot follow civilised discussion (since my first post on forum) and proceeds to unmature personnal offences.

So I will not reply to such childish behaviour.

And You are not capable to do anything else than to bash with mud all non soviet designs, You are not capable to do any constructive and interesting discussion, without this typical for You, agressive advertisement of all soviet and russian products as some super weapons.

Anyone on this forum who is childish is You.

I just will say, that you confused me with someone else, I am not even present in that forum. This is the only english speaking forum on which I post.

Oh to the contrary, You have the same discussion style on this, as well as on MP.net.

And this discussion style is: trolling, bash with mud everything non russian, more trolling, and pretending to be some expert, which You are not, neither anyone of us is. However the difference is, that we use good sources, You are only advertising products of your beloved ex soviet industry.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Lidsky M.D. is just the same person under nickname Pythp3 that was trolling on MilitaryPhotos.net

Said once T-90A in Russian Army have bigger auto-loader and exported S once have older once..

 

[hest]

Becouse of what? Explain why side turret armour in Westran tanks whit LOS 660 and 800mm will not provide enought protection when its bigger value then LOS for 30. in Soviet/Russian tanks. Just explain why in you mind thicker armour will not give at least the same protection then thinner (for the same angle) armour in Soviet/Rusian tanks.

Because apart from the fact that side armour does not cover entire side projection, it has different structure than frontal armour. It is part composite which is not equivalent in volume (thickness to RHA) so even if entire 300 mm were composite (which are not) it would not be possible for side to reach equivalence with same thickness of RHA against APFSDS. It is no more than 240 mm RHA from normal.

BUHAHAHAHAHAH Have You seen M1 hull or Leopard-2 designe? No? Internal structure? Placed fuel tanks, ammunition, side skirts? No? You haven't idea about that:

aren't you?

And ammo placed (without M1 becouse it's the best):

And how this is related to hull armour composition and it's ability to exploit ricochet properties of APFSDS rounds ?? I explained that, so what is your argument, another than avoiding question ?

You don't understand simple qestion: why in your mind lower value (540-650mm LOS) give better protectio then bigger value (660-800mm LOS)
Any reson able to explain?

-Because it is not thickness of frontal armour
-Because side armour has not the same efficiency per volume (thickness) as frontal
-Because tanks as Leopard 2 hace vulnerable side projection covered by very thin armour exposed from 30-35 degrees.

 

[hest]

M1A2 turret sides internal structure:



But of course You haven't idea that Burlinghton work in other metod then stupid cast steel and simple cermics or reflecting plates inside?

This is only arbitrary composition based on poor observability. Perhaps you would also show where DU is placed ??

And to say, what do you claim to be effectiveness of 300 mm side armour, equivalent to RHA against APFSDS ?

 

[Damian]

Said once T-90S in Russian Army have bigger auto-loader and exported once have older once..

You know how it works... Russia Strong!!!111!!!

Because apart from the fact that side armour does not cover entire side projection, it has different structure than frontal armour. It is part composite which is not equivalent in volume (thickness to RHA) so even if entire 300 mm were composite (which are not) it would not be possible for side to reach equivalence with same thickness of RHA against APFSDS. It is no more than 240 mm RHA from normal.

1) How do You know that side turret armor structure is different than front turret armor? Did You seen both? No You didn't.
2) It is completely composite, only You seems not to understand composite armor concept.

And how this is related to hull armour composition and it's ability to exploit ricochet properties of APFSDS rounds ?? I explained that, so what is your argument, another than avoiding question ?

You obviously not understand due to primitiveness of Russian tanks protection. It was long time ago discovered in NATO and Israel, that actually many different materials can be used as armor, very efficent armor. Mr. Harvey, man who designed Burlington, designed it actually by accident, working on new types of fuel tanks for tanks. He discovered that multiple bulkheads inside a fuel tank, provided superior protection than more conventional ways.

Of course later his design was evolving further in to more and more complex design.

-Because it is not thickness of frontal armour
-Because side armour has not the same efficiency per volume (thickness) as frontal
-Because tanks as Leopard 2 hace vulnerable side projection covered by very thin armour exposed from 30-35 degrees.

1) At 30 degrees it is.
2) Oh really, and how do You know that not knowing exact design details of both front and side armor.
3) Only turret bustle in Leopard 2 is not protected by composite armor, crew compartment is, and it was good enough for Germans. American M1 Abrams have whole turret sides protected by composite armor, as well as Leclerc, Challenger 2 do not have anything more in turret bustle than storage for crew belongings.

This is only arbitrary composition based on poor observability. Perhaps you would also show where DU is placed ??

And to say, what do you claim to be effectiveness of 300 mm side armour, equivalent to RHA against APFSDS ?

1) Only person with poor observability here is You. And what do You expect, that DU will be different on color than standard steel plates or what?



Here You have composite armor prototype with Depleted Uranium alloy plates with Poliurethane between them.

2) If You think that we will start primitive discussion about unknown in reality, efficency of composite armor messured in RHA equivalent, then no. RHAe is good for children like You, not for serious people.

Not to mentions that messures of composite armor effectiveness in RHA equivalent is just unreliable.

As I said, good for children, especially the ones who play computer games.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

This is only arbitrary composition based on poor observability. Perhaps you would also show where DU is placed ??

Armor plate
Because of its high density, depleted uranium can also be used in tank armor, sandwiched between sheets of steel armor plate. For instance, some late-production M1A1HA and M1A2 Abrams tanks built after 1998 have DU reinforcement as part of the armor plating in the front of the hull and the front of the turret, and there is a program to upgrade the rest.

........................................................................

 

[hest]

Well Burlington armor was allways underestimated by fanboys of soviet designs... it is understandable, afterall it was far more advanced than protection of soviet tanks.

It is easy for internet guy with no insight and knowledge about Soviet developement, to say such nosense.

In fact, I would say by impression, that imperatives of developement were due to overestimation, which in some situations was not even rational.

Also works of Paul Lakowski should be taken in to consideration. The simple amount of different materials used in western composite armors based on overall Burlington design, are impressive. Yet of course for obvious reasons such informations in form of precise data are classified, however me and Militarysta, seen for example Leopard 2 composite armor array, far more impressive, even in pure size and number of layers, compared to soviet designs.

It is statement from person with no technical education and no knowledge, who try to argue in opposition against entites as scientifical research institutes, designers, etc of whole country.

And You are not capable to do anything else than to bash with mud all non soviet designs, You are not capable to do any constructive and interesting discussion, without this typical for You, agressive advertisement of all soviet and russian products as some super weapons.

Anyone on this forum who is childish is You.

Anytime when I start a subject you and your friends get all emotional and defensive, for example you in my first post about tank remote operated machine guns (all emotional and started personnal offense), Methos with huge bias towards Western guns and underestimation of the rest even in contradiction with his own "calculations" or last time when I talked about modern reactive armour and your Polish friend came with ERAWA with no relation at all to what I posted, or his underestimation of country's tank force with his ridicolous criteria...

Oh to the contrary, You have the same discussion style on this, as well as on MP.net.

And this discussion style is: trolling, bash with mud everything non russian, more trolling, and pretending to be some expert, which You are not, neither anyone of us is. However the difference is, that we use good sources, You are only advertising products of your beloved ex soviet industry.

You can believe whatever you want, but it is just funny for me, for person, when another tries to assure him something it is not .

 

[Damian]

Kunal, this is not exactly correct description, but gives the idea. Of course exact informations about armor design are classified, however it have several upgrades, 3 official upgrades (1st generation 1988, 2nd generation 1990, 3rd generation 1999 and unofficial improvement between 2008 and 2012 after Iraq experience, there is mentioned that besides frontal, also side protection was improved in M1A1SA and M1A2SEP).

 

[militarysta]

(1) it has different structure than frontal armour.
(2)It is part composite which is not equivalent in volume (thickness to RHA) so even if entire 300 mm were composite (which are not) it would not be possible for side to reach equivalence with same thickness of RHA against APFSDS. It is no more than 240 mm RHA from normal.

1) Burlinghton is Burlinghton -method is the same. Diffrent layout is powerade by fact that angle 30. double LOS thicknes. So whit simmilar efectivness layers can by placed in diffrent about hicknes and numbers of layers but simmilar in idea way.
2) 240mm RHA? LOL. Leopard-2A4 (late) frontal armour for 840mm LOS was bale to stop APFSDS whit 650mm RHA perforation. SO for turret sides it will be (for 660mm LOS) about 22% less (500mm RHA). Of course it's only estimatous but this 650m RHA vs APFSDS for front Leo2A4(late) armour Im more then sure.

-Because it is not thickness of frontal armour

It's stil thicker then turret front for 30. for Soviet/Russina tanks

-Because side armour has not the same efficiency per volume (thickness) as frontal

Sides armour for 30. is slight (~20%) thinner then frontal armour, but it's still thicker then turret front for 30. for Soviet/Russina tanks, and mass is simmilar per volument for frontal and sides armour. Of course whole mass for turret side is about 40% frontal armour, but due to slopped whole armour cavit its double thickness (30. degree) so in fact protection is only about ~20% smaller then for turret front.

 

[Damian]

It is easy for internet guy with no insight and knowledge about Soviet developement, to say such nosense.

In fact, I would say by impression, that imperatives of developement were due to overestimation, which in some situations was not even rational.

Neither You have any insight in western armor developments... not to mention that due to hilarious even, way how Russians are advertising their products, they allready revealed many secrets of their vehicles protection. For example T-72B and T-90 turret protection is in fact very primitive, and if we belive some newer informations from Alexei Khlopotov, turret inserts in T-90A are not much different than in previous tanks.

Oh and by the way, western intelligence as I said was very effective, BRIXMIS stolen vehicle manuals with armor documentation inside, a very well known history for people living in UK and being close to RAC.

It is statement from person with no technical education and no knowledge, who try to argue in opposition against entites as scientifical research institutes, designers, etc of whole country.

I don't give a damn about Russian institutes and their assumptions, based on western disinformations, what I care are western sources that are far more reliable.

Anytime when I start a subject you and your friends get all emotional and defensive, for example you in my first post about tank remote operated machine guns (all emotional towards Abrams), Methos with huge bias towards Western guns and underestimation of the rest even in contradiction with his own "calculations" or last time when I talked about modern reactive armour and your Polish friend came with ERAWA with no relation at all to what I posted, or his underestimation of country's tank force with his ridicolous criteria...

It is because You are talking BS, BS all the way. And this is also because people generally hate such propagandists like You. You are biased, even if You will not admitt this, which is typical for homosovieticus.

You can believe whatever you want, but it is just funny for me, for person, when another tries to assure him something it is not .

You can lie, little lier, I'am sure that lie was one thing that You was triained very well.

 

[militarysta]

or last time when I talked about modern reactive armour and your Polish friend came with ERAWA with no relation at all to what I posted,

And I will back to the ERAWA-2 becouse You wrote bullshit in that thema.

 

[hest]

Said once T-90A in Russian Army have bigger auto-loader and exported S once have older once..

Modernised autoloader appeared in 2005 in T-90A, now also in T-72B modernisation starting from 2011. Indeed it is not present on currently exported T-90S.

I showed in earlier discussion.

 

[hest]

And I will back to the ERAWA-2 becouse You wrote bullshit in that thema.

And I will wait. It will be funny to see your theories in clear contradiction. ...

 

[Damian]

Of course there is also one more aspect.

Did anyone of You asked Yourself, why most countries do not copy Russian solutions?

Look at all new tanks, like K2, Altay, Type 10, they are designed more or less per western design school, even if years earlier South Korea recived batch of T-80U tanks, why they didn't copied design from them, but used western school of tank designing (of course altered more or less, but still)?

Why Turkish designers done exactly the same, instead of using Soviet tank designing school solutions, after all they tested T-84-120.

Why Russian tanks failed comparative tests with NATO tanks in Greece and Sweden?

Answer Yourself to this, and think about what Lidsky is trying to advertise here.