Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Akim]

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.

Just South Korea of Interested in using AL. layout since NATO rounds are unitary. Vice versa, application is AL allows considerably to increase defence at a degrowth. Those countries which use AL does not gather from him to renounce.

 

[hest]

Precursor test on stack 50mm RHA plates 40mm diameter HEAT precursor and 240mm RHA perforation (ratio equal 6 diameter...) and precursor test on model "T-80" front protection armour. Propably T-80U -as two of them was tested in Sweden in 1994.
10mm + 10mm RHA plate + ERA "standard NATO" cassette + 5 x 50mm RHA plates. All with angle 30 degree what give us:
40mm RHA+ ERA on optimum angle + 500mm RHA.
Interesting...
This two 10mm RHA plates propably was added due to to weak in performace "standard NATO ERA cassette" as I remember it was not really better then Kontakt-1. So 40mm steel on front of it should help.

They show test against top armour, 50 mm RHA plate and imitator of Kontakt-1. Precursor will detonate ERA from a meter, then main warhead will cause penetration.

But curiously later they test it against stripped target.

What is suprised - front T-80U was estimatous by Swedish developer as only 500mm RHA...

Indeed T-80U had 500 mm RHA against APFSDS for hull.

All these T-84's and T-80U ended somewhere in Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), among other prototypes and test vehicles.

It is interesting, because those T-84s had equipement, Nozh (in early configuration, not multilayered), one had auxiliary power plant and air conditioner, and old Drozd APS.

Ukraine benefited from that sale, could put new developement, Nozh finnaly in to service.

What is however important APG had been some time ago completely closed for civilians (also US Ordnance Museum had been relocated because of this), also soldiers without proper clearence can't get inside APG. So this means probably there are some tests performed, M1A3 or any other new US Army AFV will be tested there also.

It is just normal for proving ground used for armour tests and weapons developement to have restricted access, in every country...

 

[Damian]

It is interesting, because those T-84s had equipement, Nozh (in early configuration, not multilayered), one had auxiliary power plant and air conditioner, and old Drozd APS.

Ukraine benefited from that sale, could put new developement, Nozh finnaly in to service.

One of these T-84's were probably used for armor tests, so Americans had opprtunity to test both advanced Knife ERA (even in single layer configuration, it gives a lot of data), Drozd active protection system (Ukrainians claim that they modified it and upgraded) and also test modern composite armor from former eastern block. Also T-84's use more advanced ESR steel than T-90's that are claimed to use most probably SHS steel (it is called as medium hardness steel).

So a lot of data to collect. Ukrainians also sold plenty of T-72's (probably T-72B's) and older tanks to USA, I think also T-64B's found their way to USA, because someone on TankNet said, he has seen them there.

It is just normal for proving ground used for armour tests and weapons developement to have restricted access, in every country...

No You do not understand. APG is now closed completely to anyone without proper secuiruty clearance. Earlier there was also museum that was opened for civilians, similiar to Kubinka for example, but for some unknown reasons, it was decided to relocate museum, and close whole APG terrain for all unauthorized personell. This is interesting.

 

[hest]

Bill-2

Bil-2 missile has a tandem-warhead configuration. After algorithm calculates "vulnerable zone", which is normally above turret near frontal part, it detonates over a meter above target.

Leading warhead is compensated, to hit in same place as main warhead. After ERA is destroyed, main warhead detonates after a short interval of several hundreds of microseconds, perforating armour.

To note that only feature of this ATGM is it's particular attack mode, howewer disadvantage is wire guidance system, outdated by modern standarts.

 

[Damian]

To note that only feature of this ATGM is it's particular attack mode, howewer disadvantage is wire guidance system, outdated by modern standarts.

Wire is not completely outdated. On some Spike variants, wire gives ability for operator, to directly guide missile in to specific spot on target by use ov missile own optical system, image and commands are sended to missile and operator through wire. So it have advantages.

 

[hest]

One of these T-84's were probably used for armor tests, so Americans had opprtunity to test both advanced Knife ERA (even in single layer configuration, it gives a lot of data), Drozd active protection system (Ukrainians claim that they modified it and upgraded) and also test modern composite armor from former eastern block. Also T-84's use more advanced ESR steel than T-90's that are claimed to use most probably SHS steel (it is called as medium hardness steel).

Drozd incorporated to T-84 was Soviet remnant, all facilities are now in Russia.

Howewer what surprised me, is what can be of interest for Americans, old Drozd system.

 

[hest]

Wire is not completely outdated. On some Spike variants, wire gives ability for operator, to directly guide missile in to specific spot on target by use ov missile own optical system, image and commands are sended to missile and operator through wire. So it have advantages.

You do not understand big difference. In Spike it is "optical" wire for manual command signals as auxiliary to active seeker, for manual target search.

Semi-automatic wire command guidance it is just outdated, and everybody is replacing it, because wire limits range and system is vulnerable to electro-optical disruption.

 

[Damian]

Drozd incorporated to T-84 was Soviet remnant, all facilities are now in Russia.

Howewer what surprised me, is what can be of interest for Americans, old Drozd system.

Americans might be interested in everything, radar, electronics, countermessure method, every knowledge is usefull knowledge.

In the same way You may ask why they bought whenever they can, more soviet, russian or ukrainian designs, to increase knowledge, answer is simple.

They even were able to get their hands on Tor AA system documentation, and build on it allmost fully working Tor system, only without missiles, it is used for training their pilots how to fight on battlfield with modern AA systems.

You do not understand big difference. In Spike it is "optical" wire for manual command signals as auxiliary to active seeker, for manual target search.

Semi-automatic wire command guidance it is just outdated, and everybody is replacing it, because wire limits range and system is vulnerable to electro-optical disruption.

Not really, NATO in some point started to use coded transmission in wire guided SACLOS missiles. I would rather say that Shtora and Varta are outdated systems... and it seems to be truth, on T-90MS, Shtora do not have IR Dazzlers.

 

[Akim]

 

[Damian]

Such proposals are allways interesting, however it is problematic also, why spent money on such modernization, when You can purchase a completely new vehicle, IMHO this is main reason why such deep upgrades, or rather hybrids are not purchased by anyone.

In Poland with France, there was a work to integrate T-21 turret on T-72M1/PT-91 hull.

However I can't find thouse damn drawings right now.

 

[Akim]

Such proposals are allways interesting, however it is problematic also, why spent money on such modernization, when You can purchase a completely new vehicle, IMHO this is main reason why such deep upgrades, or rather hybrids are not purchased by anyone.

In Poland with France, there was a work to integrate T-21 turret on T-72M1/PT-91 hull.

However I can't find thouse damn drawings right now.

To purchase new - a thing is good. Only to replace at once all and long and expensive. Turkey by means of Israel modernized the М60 in М60-Т Sabra. The level of Leopard2А4 turned out, that corresponds to the tanks of region.

 

[Damian]

Yes... but IMHO M60T Sabra, can be comparable to Leopard 2A4 only in mobility, electronics and firepower, protection is still inferior. However this new armor is interesting, it is hard to say if it composite or ERA, or maybe both integrated in to single array.

 

[Akim]

Yes... but IMHO M60T Sabra, can be comparable to Leopard 2A4 only in mobility, electronics and firepower, protection is still inferior. However this new armor is interesting, it is hard to say if it composite or ERA, or maybe both integrated in to single array.

They enough quickly and inexpensively by means of modernization, heaved up the level of the tank forces, now can taking it easy to be rearmed on "Altai". It, as remember, in beginning, I said that BMPT- 64, to the accordance level "Puma". Accordance is means that he can execute the same tasks, but not simply comparison of characteristics. Poland also, will modernize the tanks, but not to buy Leopard2А6. What for? When after more cheap modernization, they will be to the accordance level of this tank.

 

[Damian]

Fair enough point.

 

[hest]

Weaknesess of top attack missile system, Bill-2, Tow-2B

- Their guidance vulnerable to electro-optical countermeasures complex present in modern tanks. As it is known, such missiles have a tracer which is detected by system to measure their location, and provide correction commands via wire or radio. Under electro-optical irradiation similar to used by tracer, it is not possible to identify missile and correct it's trajectory, therefore guidance is disrupted.
----------------------
- Missiles as Bill-2, Tow-2B use algorythms which have in account data provided by magnetic sensor to calculate detonation place.

Howewer it will not work against tanks equiped with magnetic countermeasures system.

Proper tank magnetic field (light blue) and altered magnetic field with SPM3-2 complex

In T-72

Missiles as Bill-2, Tow-2B will be subject of premature detonation.

 

[Damian]

Weaknesess of top attack missile system, Bill-2, Tow-2B

- Their guidance vulnerable to electro-optical countermeasures complex present in modern tanks. As it is known, such missiles have a tracer which is detected by system to measure their location, and provide correction commands via wire or radio. Under electro-optical irradiation similar to used by tracer, it is not possible to identify missile and correct it's trajectory, therefore guidance is disrupted.

Unless tracer is coded, as with newer versions of these NATO missiles. Electrooptical countermessure systems like Shtora or Varta are considered by today standards as obsolete.

Besides this BILL-2 and TOW-2B are not promising designs in NATO as well, promising and with perspectives are FGM-148 Javelin, Spike, and JAGM, as well as several other, less known developments.

 

[hest]

Unless tracer is coded, as with newer versions of these NATO missiles. Electrooptical countermessure systems like Shtora or Varta are considered by today standards as obsolete.

It seems you do not understand principle of operation of such guidance, and of electro-optical countermeasures.

Besides this BILL-2 and TOW-2B are not promising designs in NATO as well, promising and with perspectives are FGM-148 Javelin, Spike, and JAGM, as well as several other, less known developments.

Against such missiles there are also effective countermeasures, I will show later.

 

[Akim]

Unless tracer is coded, as with newer versions of these NATO missiles. Electrooptical countermessure systems like Shtora or Varta are considered by today standards as obsolete.

Besides this BILL-2 and TOW-2B are not promising designs in NATO as well, promising and with perspectives are FGM-148 Javelin, Spike, and JAGM, as well as several other, less known developments.

Do I can to know why do you consider these complexes obsolete?

 

[Damian]

It seems you do not understand principle of operation of such guidance, and of electro-optical countermeasures.

It seems You do not understand. IR Dazzlers when working are brighter than missiles IR diode making immposible for guidance system to recognize where is missile, but in NATO the countermessure to this was to use a coded signal, more difficult to jam. Same coded signals were incorporated with laser guidance systems, also less vurnable to jam.

Against such missiles there are also effective countermeasures, I will show later.

Only efficent countermessure against them are western active protection systems that have capability to fire countermessure projectiles at diving missiles. Russia do not have such active protection systems, from eastern countries, only Ukraine have such in form of Zaslon.

Arena active protection system is just obsolete, it's newer version presented as... plastic model is also obsolete.

Do I can to know why do you consider these complexes obsolete?

Because both are good only against missiles with older guidance systems, and only if enemy missile will be detected. Shtora and Varta base their detection systems on laser mark detectors, however lasers are considered as obsolete by NATO as well.

Currently the only promising guidance systems seen by NATO are passive TV/TI and Radar guidance systems, as these used for FGM-148 Javelin, Spike or JAGM and newer version of AGM-114 Hellfire.

For example FGM-148 guidance system is so precise, that You can actually lock on missile on such "cold" targets like building windows, or even humans, not only vehicles with running engines.

 

[hest]

It seems You do not understand. IR Dazzlers when working are brighter than missiles IR diode making immposible for guidance system to recognize where is missile, but in NATO the countermessure to this was to use a coded signal, more difficult to jam. Same coded signals were incorporated with laser guidance systems, also less vurnable to jam.

As you showed, you do not understand.

There is no such thing as coded signal.

On so called coded guidance, it is just change of sensivity of electromagnetic spectre and in tracer in hope to not coincide with countermeasure radiation.

Irradiation of systems as Shtora, or Varta is multispectral, it means there is no possibility to code guidance and be inmune.

Most which these systems hope to achieve, is a probability, but not guarantee, to not fall to countermeasure irradiation (and that is against old dazzlers). With modernised Shtora, Varta there is little chance if any.

Only efficent countermessure against them are western active protection systems that have capability to fire countermessure projectiles at diving missiles. Russia do not have such active protection systems, from eastern countries, only Ukraine have such in form of Zaslon.

Arena active protection system is just obsolete, it's newer version presented as... plastic model is also obsolete.

Countermeasures exploit these guidance system weakeness, of active IR or mm wavelenght missile seeker which due to dimensions it has already limited range and contrast, aquisition ability. I will explain...

In fact most modern APS, Zaslon, Arena, take out such missiles with ease, but it is another approach.

There is also approach with new generation armour...

Because both are good only against missiles with older guidance systems, and only if enemy missile will be detected. Shtora and Varta base their detection systems on laser mark detectors, however lasers are considered as obsolete by NATO as well.

Currently the only promising guidance systems seen by NATO are passive TV/TI and Radar guidance systems, as these used for FGM-148 Javelin, Spike or JAGM and newer version of AGM-114 Hellfire.

For example FGM-148 guidance system is so precise, that You can actually lock on missile on such "cold" targets like building windows, or even humans, not only vehicles with running engines.

This is talk without proper understanding.