Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

Commander cupola like this is analog to SCWS, not to CROWS or any other system.

Besides You seems to completely not understand. CROWS is not only for tanks, but is common system for different platforms, it improves logistics, is cheaper because can be purchased in much grater numbers, can be installed on much grater variety of vehicles.



If You would be educated moron, then You woyld know that project is one, and final product is second.

The same can be done with CROWS, in M1A2SEP v2 there is only one terminal from which CROWS can be operated, it is commander terminal for CBCB2 and CITV, so it means that or commander can switch through CITV/CROWS channel, or CROWS is slaved to CITV, or both options are avaiable.

In Leopard 2, it can be opposite, so FLW is operated by loader not commander, or it can be even more different, depending what solution was choosen by Germans.

But this is advantage of RWS systems like CROWS or FLW over cupola You are advertising here. CROWS and FLW are modular systems, designed to be installed on different platforms. You can install CROWS on everything, from tank, through APC to a vessel or even bunker or guarding container. You can't do this with cupola You are advertising here as something better. Not it is not better, and nobody gives a damn about cupolas these days. Whole world is goind to RWS systems.

Only idiot Lidsky is still in love with obsolete systems.

If we focus on ability to use auxiliary weapon remotedly, then CROWS is the worst solution. Why install an expensive and reduntant thermal sigh which will need protection, increasing weight and resulting in bulky system, with no advantage, when it would be exactly the same to operate weapon through available commander sight.

 

[Damian]

When it will actually pass tests, you will talk. Now it is not existant system for army.

Whenever when we should see M1A3...

We can say the same for Russian Army, neither Arena, neither new platform "Armata" are used by Russian Army, and nobody is certain if they will be if more economic problems will appear in Russia.

If we focus on ability to use auxiliary weapon remotedly, then CROWS is the worst solution. Why install an expensive and reduntant thermal sigh which will need protection, increasing weight and resulting in bulky system, with no advantage, when it would be exactly the same to operate weapon through available commander sight.

Ehhh, try to talk with primitive...

Listen idiot, CROWS was developed as it's designation name says, as common, common for different platforms.

Besides this CROWS is better than these obsolete cupolas used on Russian tanks, they have only simple day sights, no thermal sights, no capability to cock weapon from under armor, no ammo counter, neither these cupolas can be used on variety of platforms.

Also talking about weight of CROWS is silly, and shows lack of Your knowledge.

Protector weight is 135kg's in M151 variant and 145kg's in CROWS variant.

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KPS/Pro...pon Station/Brochures/PROTECTOR brosjyre.ashx

It is not much, and besides only 12,7mm machine gun, CROWS can be armed with 5,56mm machine gun, 7,62mm machine gun and 40mm automatic granade launcher. Something Russian tanks commander cupola do not have.

Besides this You will obviously not provide any comparrision with russian tanks commanders cupola, for example it's weight, ammo capacity (which is very low... even pitifull I would say, CROWS can stow from 200 to 600 12,7x99mm rounds, russian tanks have only 50 rounds of their 12,7x107mm ammo for cupola machine gun).

Besides this, look again at PZU-7 magnification, pitifull 1,2x zoom for day sight only, while CROWS have modern, more capable electroptics, both with better magnification and thermal image.

And there is even Protector/CROWS version with ATGM attachement possible, increasing firepower of even simple APC or any light platform. Something that product advertised by Lidsky is uncapable of.

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KPS/Pro...atasheets/Dataark_M151_september 2010 A4.ashx

This document says that Protector/CROWS optical system is capable to have more than 30x zoom magnification... so how this Lidsky fool want even compare to this, it's beloved pitifull cupola with PZU-7 day sight only with only 1,2x zoom magnification?!

 

[hest]

We can say the same for Russian Army, neither Arena, neither new platform "Armata" are used by Russian Army, and nobody is certain if they will be if more economic problems will appear in Russia.

I am not the one who brought them into discussion.

About Arena, it passed army acceptance trials and gained status for production, which no American paper system ever achieved.

Ehhh, try to talk with primitive...

Listen idiot, CROWS was developed as it's designation name says, as common, common for different platforms.

Besides this CROWS is better than these obsolete cupolas used on Russian tanks, they have only simple day sights, no thermal sights, no capability to cock weapon from under armor, no ammo counter, neither these cupolas can be used on variety of platforms.

Also talking about weight of CROWS is silly, and shows lack of Your knowledge.

Protector weight is 135kg's in M151 variant and 145kg's in CROWS variant.

There are newer modular systems as well.

Modular remote weapon station T05BV-1 developed by UKBTM.

It is operated from commander's panoramic sight.

Belarussian Adunok module developed by KB Display:

It is installed in many different plattforms, not only tanks, currently in Tigr and such vehicles, with variety of weapons, grenade launcher, machine gun of different caliber, etc. It incorporates thermal sight.

Remote operation module Uprava-Kord of NPO Karat, ship based:

Also can incorporate own sights.

-------------
And who is primitive ??

Such remote weapon stations were available back in the 80s in T-80, later T-90, in fact remote weapons appeared in USSR in 70s in T-64:

ZU-64 developed by KHKBTM in early 70s for T-64:

T-55 with ZU-62 developed by KBTM Omsk, also in 70s:

In Western tanks remote weapon stations as such, appeared only recently (CROWS was adopted in Abrams only few years ago )

 

[Damian]

I am not the one who brought them into discussion.

About Arena, it passed army acceptance trials and gained status for production, which no American paper system ever achieved.

So what, Arena is same paper system, as most other. But I understand, You learned this bashing other countries during soviet times? ; )

There are newer modular systems as well.

Modular remote weapon station T05BV-1 developed by UKBTM.

Nothing modular here, it is designed only for tanks.

And who is primitive ??

Such remote weapon stations were available back in the 80s in T-80, later T-90, in fact remote weapons appeared in USSR in 70s in T-64:

ZU-64 developed by KHKBTM in early 70s for T-64:

T-55 with ZU-62 developed by KBTM Omsk, also in 70s:

In Western tanks remote weapon stations as such, appeared only recently (CROWS was adopted in Abrams only few years ago )

As allways You are wrong, Americans also used remotly controlled weapon stations in form of powered cupolas, some very advanced, there were so many developments than not all of them were accepted in to service.


M60A2 had very advanced cupola that provided some Hunter-Killer capabilities.

MBT-70 had remotly controlled 20mm automatic cannon, similiar weapon was tested on one of Leopard 2 prototypes.

XM803 had commander panoramic sight with machine gun mount, something that could also had been installed on M1 Abrams if there would be no congress demand to push down vehicle costs... sacrifice for these was in lack of such devices at initial production run, and to add them as incremental upgrades later. But similiar device appeared on T-xx series tanks only 40 years later!

Project LK 10322, also had commander panoramic sight with machine gun mount.

In the end commander in M1/M1A1 series recived powered cupola with remotly controlled machine gun.


Currently this cupola had been redesigned and modernized in to more advanced SCWS with thermal sight, something that any cupola in T-xx series do not have.

M1A2 have redesigned interior, and it was immposible to use such powered cupola on it, this is why CROWS is used. Also calling CROWS reduntant is ignorance, CROWS is superior to any cupola, also it is prooven, effective, battle tested system, very reliable, and soldiers like it very much.


Take a look at CROWS-2 station and CITV when video starts, they look at the same direction, it might be possible to slave CROWS-2 with CITV, and explains why there is no additional CROWS-2 terminal inside, it just use allready avaiable tank commander systems terminals, it's "joystick" controller and CITV display.

To be honest I could just scan more photos and drawings from Hunnicutt books, about such remotly operated weapon stations developed in USA. And there was a lot of them.

 

[hest]

So what, Arena is same paper system, as most other. But I understand, You learned this bashing other countries during soviet times? ; )

It passed army trials, which no American system was able to do.

There is nothing to bash, as there is nothing developed yet.

Nothing modular here, it is designed only for tanks.

It is superior than any system which you shown.

Besides, I have shown you many examples.

As allways You are wrong, Americans also used remotly controlled weapon stations in form of powered cupolas, some very advanced, there were so many developments than not all of them were accepted in to service.

M60A2 had very advanced cupola that provided some Hunter-Killer capabilities.

MBT-70 had remotly controlled 20mm automatic cannon, similiar weapon was tested on one of Leopard 2 prototypes.

XM803 had commander panoramic sight with machine gun mount, something that could also had been installed on M1 Abrams if there would be no congress demand to push down vehicle costs... sacrifice for these was in lack of such devices at initial production run, and to add them as incremental upgrades later. But similiar device appeared on T-xx series tanks only 40 years later!

Project LK 10322, also had commander panoramic sight with machine gun mount.

In the end commander in M1/M1A1 series recived powered cupola with remotly controlled machine gun.

Currently this cupola had been redesigned and modernized in to more advanced SCWS with thermal sight, something that any cupola in T-xx series do not have.

M1A2 have redesigned interior, and it was immposible to use such powered cupola on it, this is why CROWS is used. Also calling CROWS reduntant is ignorance, CROWS is superior to any cupola, also it is prooven, effective, battle tested system, very reliable, and soldiers like it very much.

Take a look at CROWS-2 station and CITV when video starts, they look at the same direction, it might be possible to slave CROWS-2 with CITV, and explains why there is no additional CROWS-2 terminal inside, it just use allready avaiable tank commander systems terminals, it's "joystick" controller and CITV display.

To be honest I could just scan more photos and drawings from Hunnicutt books, about such remotly operated weapon stations developed in USA. And there was a lot of them.

You are only able to show primitive systems which have not even been deployed, and the fact that your tanks lacked stabilised weapon station for all this time.

Abrams lacked such feature which was present on Soviet tanks for two decades, and only now they started to incorporate imported systems.

 

[Damian]

It passed army trials, which no American system was able to do.

There is nothing to bash, as there is nothing developed yet.

Neither Arena is in production, and despite being offered for exports, nobody want's this system.

It is superior than any system which you shown.

Besides, I have shown you many examples.

Nothing superior, it is just machine gun mount slaved with commander panoramic sight. Not to mention that T-90MS panoramic sight have serious drawbacks in it's design. Slaved machine gun mount is not moving fully around with panoramic sight, this creates serious blind zone, and there is no additional sighting system that can be installed to machine gun mount and covers blind zone.

And these examples You shown are primitive systems.

You are only able to show primitive systems which have not even been deployed, and the fact that your tanks lacked stabilised weapon station for all this time.

These systems at their time were superior to anything else developed in Soviet Union. Let's take XM803 panoramic sight with slaved machine gun, such thing was developed in Russia 40 years later!

Abrams lacked such feature which was present on Soviet tanks for two decades, and only now they started to incorporate imported systems.

Only thing that M1's CWS cupola lacked was full stabilization, but it was obvious effect of Congress decision to decrease vehicle costs. Development team needed to find somewhere sacrifices, they decided that less important systems will be simplified and later upgraded or replaced in form of incremental upgrades incorporated to bigger Block upgrades.

In fact for the schedule new panoramic sight and probably commander weapon station would be installed in 1985, because M1A1/Block II should looks like today M1A2 according to plan, however industry was not able at that time design all new systems like CITV on time. It was problematic because CITV is not just simple periscope with thermal camera, this is digital panoramic sight, and it sends image through cables, with digital treatment to further increase, allready good image quality, and display it on commanders display. So there were serious problems to overcome for technology avaiable back then.

But as I said, we could see "M1A2" standard in 1985, if only technology and industry, would be capable to get all upgrades possible back then. The original M1 itself, could also had been different tank, if only Congress would not say "no" for costs increase, that were effect of use of more advanced systems inherited from MBT-70 and XM803 programs.

But because You do not understand historical context, and the only thing You are capable to do is prise only Soviet Union developments, then go away.

 

[hest]

Neither Arena is in production, and despite being offered for exports, nobody want's this system.

Your fantasy systems are not offered as they are not even developed.

Nothing superior, it is just machine gun mount slaved with commander panoramic sight. Not to mention that T-90MS panoramic sight have serious drawbacks in it's design. Slaved machine gun mount is not moving fully around with panoramic sight, this creates serious blind zone, and there is no additional sighting system that can be installed to machine gun mount and covers blind zone.

It is superior design, more compact and less vulnerable, throught better panoramic sight which is better for operator, instead of shifting to another different and redundant sight.

And these examples You shown are primitive systems.

They are the same as CROWS and what you have shown. They have their own thermal sights, rangefinder, etc, and they are mounted in light armoured vehicles as Tigr.

In fact it is not logical to incorporate such system into tank when there is much better and simpler solution, to use available sight.

These systems at their time were superior to anything else developed in Soviet Union. Let's take XM803 panoramic sight with slaved machine gun, such thing was developed in Russia 40 years later!

Yes, you can talk about primitive failed system which was not deployed.

Only thing that M1's CWS cupola lacked was full stabilization, but it was obvious effect of Congress decision to decrease vehicle costs. Development team needed to find somewhere sacrifices, they decided that less important systems will be simplified and later upgraded or replaced in form of incremental upgrades incorporated to bigger Block upgrades.

In fact for the schedule new panoramic sight and probably commander weapon station would be installed in 1985, because M1A1/Block II should looks like today M1A2 according to plan, however industry was not able at that time design all new systems like CITV on time. It was problematic because CITV is not just simple periscope with thermal camera, this is digital panoramic sight, and it sends image through cables, with digital treatment to further increase, allready good image quality, and display it on commanders display. So there were serious problems to overcome for technology avaiable back then.

But as I said, we could see "M1A2" standard in 1985, if only technology and industry, would be capable to get all upgrades possible back then. The original M1 itself, could also had been different tank, if only Congress would not say "no" for costs increase, that were effect of use of more advanced systems inherited from MBT-70 and XM803 programs.

Since 1972- T-64 with remote operated weapon station.
Since 1987- T-80UD, later T-90 with fully stabilised remote weapon station

On Abrams such feature appeared 2 decades late with foreign system. So you can further try to show technological level.

 

[Damian]

Your fantasy systems are not offered as they are not even developed.

Oh, yes, this is definetly fantasy:

From 0:10


Fantasy, definetly.

It is superior design, more compact and less vulnerable, throught better panoramic sight which is better for operator, instead of shifting to another different and redundant sight.

Of course, You never used any of these, and You have such confidence that something is redundant or not effective... while soldiers who are actually fighting have very good opinions about CROWS systems or similiar designs.

Russia is not manufacturer that have any good experience with RWS systems, however all western nations and Israel, develops RWS systems with their own sighting systems, as common, modular designs for different platforms, so customer, do not need to purchase several different systems for different vehicles, but one system, this reduce costs and logistic problems.

But it seems that in a country where most people never had any idea about economy, such thinking is beyond their comprehending abilities.

They are the same as CROWS and what you have shown. They have their own thermal sights, rangefinder, etc, and they are mounted in light armoured vehicles as Tigr.

In fact it is not logical to incorporate such system into tank when there is much better and simpler solution, to use available sight.

I was not talking about these RWS systems, neither T-90MS system is a good system, with blind zones due to wrong sight and machine gun mount design.

Yes, you can talk about primitive failed system which was not deployed.

Primitive here is only You. System was not deployed because of Congress demands to reduce costs, but it is just plain stupid to call it primitive, especially back then. Something similiar Russians were capable to design only 40 years later... Christ You are not even capable to design a good quality thermal sight on your own, neither Russia, neither Bellarus, both use French technology.

Since 1972- T-64 with remote operated weapon station.
Since 1987- T-80UD, later T-90 with fully stabilised remote weapon station

Since 1950's M48 series had remotly operated machine gun in commander cupola.

And prototypes or concepts of such remotely controlled weapon stations are old as late 1940's.

On Abrams such feature appeared 2 decades late with imported system. So you can further try to show technological level.

It is easy for someone who is historical ignorant to make such idiotic conclusions without any knowledge about situation back then.

As I said, Congress demanded decrease in vehicles costs, designing teams needed to make some sacrifices in vehicle systems to achieve this goal, and it was supported by the Army that needed new tank.

This is how it works on democratic countries, not countries governed by dictators or oligarchs. And there is also economy that must be taken in to account.

In fact Soviet Union was governed by idiots, Alexander Morozov himself was upset when Nizhny Tagil had been ordered to manufacture T-72, as it completely standed against his original plans to manufacture T-64 only, and to reduce costs and logistic risks by complete unification, this show how smart this man was, but fortunetly or not, Soviet Union was governed by idiots who were uncapable to understand economy, and in the end it collapsed, unable to maintain it's economy during arms race. Because only idiots can order to manufacture 3 type of tanks, in the same time, that are builded around the same design concept, but are different at mechanical level, use different components and needs 3 different logistical chains.

Americans, whole NATO was smarter in planning. First was principle that army when start purchase of new tank, stop purchase of old tank, each new tank should be in design concept and on mechanical level newer and different than old tank. Also when there is enough new tanks, older tanks of different design should be retired from service as soon as possible to not complicate logistic chain.

Also designers should desing vehicle that is cost effective, not gold plated super weapon.

This is why Americans started to use Block upgrades plan. It means that initial Block I is simpler, cheaper, less advanced than Block II, but not only that, in fact there can be so many differences in design, that Block I and Block II are completely different weapon systems, but this do not contradicts principle, that when new more advanced vehicle is manufactured, older one is not manufactured anymore, and should be retired from service as soon as possible.

We can see this on the M1 Abrams example perfectly.

M1/M1IP were Block I tanks, that have slightly different hull, and completely different turrets than M1A1/M1A2 that are Block II tanks. So to upgrade Block I to Block II, factory needs to completely rebuild hull, and build new turret. M1 Abrams Block III would have been completely different tank as well, there were many concepts, below photo of plastic model of one of such concepts.

But to understand the historical context, to understand situation, anyone interested in this should read some good literature focused on this subject. The best books are these written by Richard Hunnicutt, probably one of the best writters, who was more focused on details, than political babble talk who have longer dick, like the soviets like to do.

 

[Apollyon]

[pdf]http://www.kearfott.com/images/stories/pdf/DATASHEETS_KGN_NJ/LAND/digital_dual-axis_line-of-sight_(los).pdf[/pdf]

 

[militarysta]

When it will actually pass tests, you will talk. Now it is not existant system for army.

Whicht system? AMAP-ADS, Trophy, KAPS, LEDS, Zaslon, Arena are in operate status. Quick kill and few more are ended now. In fakt Quick Kill is done.

On paper any system can be as good as anyone would want. Big difference is to develope.

Arena, Zaslon, Trophy, KAPS, AMAP-ADS where tested, and they are ended.

It is talk with no understanding of system.

Its seems thet You don't understand problem whit Arena and few more APS.

For what you call multiattack, problem is not time interval, it is irrelevant, but sensor.

Bullshit.

After destruction of target, sensor for a short interval is left blind, unable to track target. In fact it depends on sensor placement, and neutralisation method. And Quick Kill has nothing which should make us thing it is more capable on paper (as it is not developed).

In example Arena sensor are under lunched casstte level. And this casette is full of debrits not energy bast - but the problem is in not moving modules whit 3 cassette eacht - all of them is lunched whit the same angle so it's imposible to lunched them without some time interval becouse lunched casette on some hight just explode and set free debrits. It;s imposible to lunched two ore more cassette in almoust the same or simmilar time. Interval biger then 2s. is needed. And radar sensor in that case have nothing common whit problem becouse:
a) radar sensor in Arena are under explosing casette level
b) cassette destroy targets using debrits not energy blast or EFP/MEFP but during exploding (necessery to relese debrits) there is small zone when other casette can't be placed becouse will be destroy or damage. Time interval is needed. But those debrits from cassette aren't big problem for modern radar. For old Arena it could be problem impossible to pass, but for modern radar it's not big deal (and rather modern radar will be in modernisated Arena).

Problem whit sensor is possible for APS like KAPS, Iron Fist, LEADS etc -energy blast can "hide" thread moving under the explosio point - but solution is defending at two ranges - ~30 and ~10m (KAPS) so two interceptor can be lunched without problem.
In Quick Kill interceptor (two types -short and long range) can be lunched in one time and exploded in the same time and destroy more then one target. And the range is bigger then in Trophy.
Other idea for fix this problem is in AMAP-ADS when DIME is used and target is destroy ad very short range.

Next probem is energy blast in some kind of interceptors (KAPS, Quick Kill, Drozd, LEDS, Arena, Zaslon etc) - when second interceptor need some time interval after first one explosion. But the same problem is for ATGM's and RPGs projectants - time interval for salvo ATGMS is needed due to the same problem.

 

[Damian]

Impressive, however the number of only two launchers without any autoloader is problematic, perhaps it is possible to install more launchers on vehicle.

One of users from Russian forum OTVAGA 2004 says, that Iron Fist successfully passed tests in USA, also shooting down APFSDS penetrator.

 

[Akim]

MBT Zulfiqar III (Iran)

 

[Akim]

Error...-------------------

 

[asianobserve]

MBT Zulfiqar III (Iran)

And when the Iranians chose to copy designs...they copied the American design. At least the Iranians are in agreement with Damian. Or did they sought your advice Damian? :thumb:

 

[asianobserve]

 

[Akim]

And when the Iranians chose to copy designs...they copied the American design. At least the Iranians are in agreement with Damian. Or did they sought your advice Damian? :thumb:

It is symbiosis of "soviet" and American design. A not bad machine turned out. Free information about an armour is not present, but from that a tank weighs 40 tons (88000 pound) - evidently that his defence is weak.

 

[Damian]

Protection of Zulfiqar 3 is indeed weak, as all Zulfiqar variants. As Akim said, take in to consideration it's weight, and later try to compare where is edge of frontal armor and where are crew hatches, armor is very, very thin.

 

[asianobserve]

Protection of Zulfiqar 3 is indeed weak, as all Zulfiqar variants. As Akim said, take in to consideration it's weight, and later try to compare where is edge of frontal armor and where are crew hatches, armor is very, very thin.

If looks could kill then...

 

[Damian]

If looks could kill then...

Nah, IMHO it is just propaganda tool (You know, goverment says to normal citizens "hey look, we can also biuld a "modern" tank"), there are also some opinions that this is tank to make confusion on the battlefield, similiar in shape to M1, it might have a chance to make IFF procedures more difficult and get a chance for short range side or rear shot.

 

[asianobserve]

They're trying to play catch up with their neighbor that recently received M1A1s, hence, the looks on those Iranian Abramskies...