Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[methos]

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.

The weight of the later versions of the Zulfiqar is not known - there aren't any official figures (at least according to a Iranian military forum). The only known weight is that of the Zulfiqar I tank, which had only monolithic steel armour.

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.

No. Armour could be as thick as the armour of the T-72B. Photos from the hull show that there the armour might be as thick as the armour of the T-72B or M1A2. For the turret there are no images showing much detail, but it is possible that there the armour is also in the level of the T-72B/M1A2.

 

[Damian]

No. Armour could be as thick as the armour of the T-72B. Photos from the hull show that there the armour might be as thick as the armour of the T-72B or M1A2. For the turret there are no images showing much detail, but it is possible that there the armour is also in the level of the T-72B/M1A2.

Doubtfull. Take a look where hatches are placed, where is edge of front armor, and take also in to consideration of turret geometry. It is just not very likely.

Of course another problem is armor quality, it is not even certain if this is composite, monolithic or spaced armor.

 

[Akim]

No. Armour could be as thick as the armour of the T-72B. Photos from the hull show that there the armour might be as thick as the armour of the T-72B or M1A2. For the turret there are no images showing much detail, but it is possible that there the armour is also in the level of the T-72B/M1A2.

It is not rather than all. He weighs 40,5 tons, as well as Т-64B but uses more heavy engine. Iranians have a line, to increase long of the American undercarriage (it is visible related to their locality). Fastening for ЕRА not evidently, I do not eliminate although, that she can be установленна. Weight of tank and engine power allow it.

 

[hest]

Simple measure of thickness is not an indicative of protection, unless it is just steel, but it is not possible for armour composed only by steel to provide sufficient protection level, and it would not be very thick due to weight constraint.

So it is unlikely that if this Iranian tank has thick armour, to be monolitic.

In modern tanks with composite armour, general protection is more optimal, if there is more relative thickness of steel.

 

[methos]

It is not rather than all. He weighs 40,5 tons, as well as Т-64B but uses more heavy engine. Iranians have a line, to increase long of the American undercarriage (it is visible related to their locality). Fastening for ЕRА not evidently, I do not eliminate although, that she can be установленна. Weight of tank and engine power allow it.

The weight of the Zulfiqar III is not known, 41 tonnes is an estimate and iirc. it was for the prototype Zulfiqar 2. There are no official figures according to an Iranian military forum. It would be pretty dumb to build a tank inferior to the licence-made T-72S.

 

[Akim]

The weight of the Zulfiqar III is not known, 41 tonnes is an estimate and iirc. it was for the prototype Zulfiqar 2. There are no official figures according to an Iranian military forum. It would be pretty dumb to build a tank inferior to the licence-made T-72S.

Fully possibly an armour remained at the same level, although FCS considerably became better. Weight of tank could was diminished, due to more front-rank suspension. If will put on him ЕRА, weight will grow on 5-7 tons.

 

[hest]

Modern welded turret with multilayered composite armour (T-90).

Scheme

T-90S turret after ballistic tests. There was no penetration:

Tests are performed at close range (200-250m) against turret without ERA to measure protection level and to make improvements based on result with modern weapons, so it is pretty notable.

Frontal armour thickness of turret ranges from 700 to 900 mm, so it is logical fot it to provide protection against modern APFSDS with perforation level around 700 mm without ERA. This corresponds to statements.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Recent pic of the tank..

 

[hest]

About ealier discussion, protection of turret side:

By the addition of simple ERA it is deduced that armour composition of 300 mm turret side in equivalence to RHA against cumulative jet is less than 400 mm from normal. Given relation of efficiency of composite armour, against APFSDS it should be about 200-230 mm equivalence to RHA from normal, which by no means is good protection (or atleast should not be threated with equivalence to frontal armour) from exposed frontal angles of -/+ 30 degrees.

About Leopard 2, it is also notable that protection was increased with additional armour based on semi-reactive principle:

While protection of older Leopard 2A4 variant was not sufficient (and less in comparison with tanks T-72B, T-80U with Kontakt-5), Leopard 2A6 is now on good level.

 

[Damian]

By the addition of simple ERA it is deduced that armour composition of 300 mm turret side in equivalence to RHA against cumulative jet is less than 400 mm from normal. Given relation of efficiency of composite armour, against APFSDS it should be about 200-230 mm equivalence to RHA from normal.

This is pure speculation. M32 ERA was added after contact with RPG-29, and better PG-7 granades version with penetration higher than ~500mm RHA. I seen side turret of M1 tank, hit by older RPG's without penetration.

Not to mention that M1 series turret side armor is somewhere between ~360-400mm thick, not ~300mm as You claim.

About Leopard 2, it is also notable that protection was increased with additional armour:

These side wedge shaped armor elements are simple screens, not NERA like front wedge shaped elements.

While protection of older Leopard 2A4 variant was not sufficient (and less in comparison with tanks T-72B, T-80U with Kontakt-5), Leopard 2A6 is now on better level.

How do You know that Leopard 2A4 protection is smaller than T-72B and T-80U with Kontakt-5, did You made any tests? Not to mention that there is earlier Leopard 2A4 subvariant with protection on Leopard 2A1/A3 level, and later production variant with improved protection. Well obviously You didn't know that.

 

[militarysta]

Modern welded turret with multilayered composite armour (T-90).

This turret is the same like for Ob.187, it was developed in 1984r in...yes in Charkiv factory* but not introduced to production lines becouse cast steel turrets where chaper. Initially plans orgdered only cast turret for all T-90, unfotunetly cast stell turret factory (last production line) was closed in Mariupol (Azowstal) in ~1998/1999. Army wants cheaper but less protected cast turret, but closing production lines orced using (in all aspects better) welded turret.

* welded turret for new soviet tanks in calsic shape (normal turret) was developed in Charkiv factory in 1984. After that it was rejected (due to cost reson) but this ready and in all aspects better turret was designated for Ob.187. After Soviet Union colapse this turret was "shared" between Ukraina and Russia. Free Ukraina faster introduced better turret - prototype Ob.478BE was redy in...1992 so after independend Ukraina had good turret. In Russia extly the same turret "stack" due to mony reson, and only closing cast turret production lines in Mariupol (Azowstal) was reson why Russina Army decide to welded turret.

This informatins are avaible in last polish Nowa Technika Wojskowa (New Military Technology), in article "Nowe czołgi naszych wschodnich sąsiadów T-90MS i Opłot-M" (New tanks our estern neighbors - T-90MS and Oplot-M) written by Tomasz Szulc.

T-90S turret after ballistic tests. There was no penetration:

As we see there was penetration. We don't know if was perforatin frontal armour in to crew comparment.

Tests are performed at close range (200-250m) against turret without ERA to measure protection level and to make improvements based on result with modern weapons, so it is pretty notable.

Interesting as I remember on otvaga2000 and gspo it was written about 3BM42 in "modern" weapons. So on 250m range 550mm RHA was maks for old 3BM42 round.

Frontal armour thickness of turret ranges from 700 to 900 mm,

Only for turret for 0. degree from longitudal axis. For 30. it's only 650mm LOS. It was count by Wiedźmin, me, and other peoples.
So for 0. it's simmilar like for all modern MBT's on west, but for 30. degree from longitiudal axis is less then for western tanks turret sides.
Here are the most optimistic values - draw made by Wiedźmin from otvaga

so it is logical fot it to provide protection against modern APFSDS with perforation level around 700 mm without ERA. This corresponds to statements.

Only for turret front and with ERA. And this what you wrote it's not correspond with statsment.
And if You want to talk about given russian statement try to find this staytsment about armour protection for T-90MS whit Relikt.
It's impossible to have "700 mm without ERA" when with ERA whole is around 850mm.

About Leopard 2, it is also notable that protection was increased with additional armour based on semi-reactive principle:

It's NERA or SLERA

While protection of older Leopard 2A4 variant was not sufficient (and less in comparison with tanks T-72B, T-80U with Kontakt-5),

So for Your idiotic statment fact that for turret sides at 30. Leopard-2A4 have 660mm LOS thicknes when T-72B 600-660mm LOS (so less) and for T-80U it is 540mm LOS means that Leopard-2 wa weaker then in Soviet tanks?

When, you idoit understand simple fact that M1A1 and Leo-2A4 have thicker armour (740/660mm LOS) for turret sides for 30. then soviet tanks (600-660 /540mm LOS).
And Burlinghton was not based on stupid cast steel whit small active layers inside. Whole Burlinghton work on active way.

 

[methos]

These side wedge shaped armor elements are simple screens, not NERA like front wedge shaped elements

It is probably NERA. The armour contains numerous bolts which are not part of the mounting mechanism, which is also a visible feature of the frontal armour modules. i think I once saw an image showing that it made of more than one layer, but I cannot find it at the moment. Maybe it is just homogenous armour, but it seems to be more likely NERA.

 

[hest]

This turret is the same like for Ob.187, it was developed in 1984r in...yes in Charkiv factory* but not introduced to production lines becouse cast steel turrets where chaper. Initially plans orgdered only cast turret for all T-90, unfotunetly cast stell turret factory (last production line) was closed in Mariupol (Azowstal) in ~1998/1999. Army wants cheaper but less protected cast turret, but closing production lines orced using (in all aspects better) welded turret.

* welded turret for new soviet tanks in calsic shape (normal turret) was developed in Charkiv factory in 1984. After that it was rejected (due to cost reson) but this ready and in all aspects better turret was designated for Ob.187. After Soviet Union colapse this turret was "shared" between Ukraina and Russia. Free Ukraina faster introduced better turret - prototype Ob.478BE was redy in...1992 so after independend Ukraina had good turret. In Russia extly the same turret "stack" due to mony reson, and only closing cast turret production lines in Mariupol (Azowstal) was reson why Russina Army decide to welded turret.

This informatins are avaible in last polish Nowa Technika Wojskowa (New Military Technology), in article "Nowe czołgi naszych wschodnich sąsiadów T-90MS i Opłot-M" (New tanks our estern neighbors - T-90MS and Oplot-M) written by Tomasz Szulc.

In fact current welded turrets of UKBTM, KHKBTM, KBTM Omsk (T-90, T-84, etc) originated from developement of NII Stali and UKBTM for ob.187 about 1985. It is true that developement of other bureaus (Kharkov, Omsk) all started at almost same time.

As we see there was penetration. We don't know if was perforatin frontal armour in to crew comparment.

That is what I referred to. There was no penetration into crew compartment as stated by representative of UKBTM.

Interesting as I remember on otvaga2000 and gspo it was written about 3BM42 in "modern" weapons. So on 250m range 550mm RHA was maks for old 3BM42 round.

Each year there are tests with different requirement of protection stated by goverment standart, after which depending on results changes are made.

Some years ago there were tests with Kornet and Svinets-1 APFSDS for example.

Only for turret for 0. degree from longitudal axis. For 30. it's only 650mm LOS. It was count by Wiedźmin, me, and other peoples.
So for 0. it's simmilar like for all modern MBT's on west, but for 30. degree from longitiudal axis is less then for western tanks turret sides.
Here are the most optimistic values - draw made by Wiedźmin from otvaga

It is measure with wrong drawing.

Besides, even on that measurement there is error margin of 50 units. It even corresponds with stated thickness of 700-900 mm from 0 to -/+ 30 degrees.

Such figures correspond to stated protection of 700 mm APFSDS perforation without ERA in most situations.

Only for turret front and with ERA. And this what you wrote it's not correspond with statsment.
And if You want to talk about given russian statement try to find this staytsment about armour protection for T-90MS whit Relikt.
It's impossible to have "700 mm without ERA" when with ERA whole is around 850mm.

Such figures are "medium "given for lowest value related to hull (by standart), as figure of about 500 mm for T-80U and 500-550 mm for T-72B model 1989.

You can look for "official" figures for mentioned tanks.

It's NERA or SLERA

That is considered semi-reactive armour.

So for Your idiotic statment fact that for turret sides at 30. Leopard-2A4 have 660mm LOS thicknes when T-72B 600-660mm LOS (so less) and for T-80U it is 540mm LOS means that Leopard-2 wa weaker then in Soviet tanks?

As you know, thickness of front+side is not same as just front.

With Kontakt-5 (which you also always forget) it is even better.

When, you idoit understand simple fact that M1A1 and Leo-2A4 have thicker armour (740/660mm LOS) for turret sides for 30. then soviet tanks (600-660 /540mm LOS).
And Burlinghton was not based on stupid cast steel whit small active layers inside. Whole Burlinghton work on active way.

What is all about is thickness-effectiveness, and I explained.

 

[militarysta]

BTW, about T-90MS and T-90A protection Level.



The Russians carefully "directed" "leak information" when some engeener says to Putin that T-90MS have on turret:
~850mm RHA vs KE
~1200mm RHS vs HEAT

Of course, microphones "accidentally" captured it. And it leaked to the media.

By chance you can get pregnant, and not reveal this information. Therefore, it is a deliberate marketing plot.

But...

теперь все становится на свои места с уровнем защищенности. Если с реликтом уровень 850мм по БПС то без него гдето 570ии а с К5 680мм
(...)
без него 600-650, с К-5 720-780, как вы 570 то получили ? с учетом того что в инет утекает не пойми что, и 850 и НИИ сталевская табличка могут быть фейком, уж Путину то можно было сказать хоть "3 метра" разница то
(...)
Я тупо взял и тупо поделил 850 на 1.5 (заявленная эффективность работы реликта по БПС ) получил 567 потом так же тупо умножил на 1.2 (заявленная эффективность к5) получил 680мм

If it's true we can seriously think about the resistance of earlier versions of T-90 ...
especially if truth is writing on NI STALII pages about Relickt and Kontakt-5 ERA.

Relikt give 1.5 more protection.
Kontakt-5 1.2 more protection.
Od course working hevy ERA depends on meny factors.
But:
It's looks funny when we realize that this values are for LOS thickest value (~880mm).

If T-90S with Relikt have 850mm vs KE then the T-90A with Kontakt-5 should have about 720-750mm RHA, and "nacked" T-90A turret should have about 600-650mm RHA.

think about this valuse not for 840mm LOS but for (more offten) 650mm LOS (perpendicular to the turret at an angle of 30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower)

And DM-53LKEII (1999) "accidentally" have about 750mm RHA for 2000m


Of course in my opinnion russian havy ERA works on more sophisticated way, and you can not count it like "base armour" x1,5 etc.

In my personal opinion T-90A basick armour (without hevy ERA) is about:
for 840mm LOS about ~650mm RHA
for 650mm LOS about ~500mm RHA.

It's much less than other estimates assume, but I have certain conditions to make such a claim. Except that I leave some things for myselves

Of. course this 500-650mm RHA for basick T-90A means that tank have very good protection.
All because active working ERA can reduce (Kontakt-5)
DM53 for 700-750mm to only 560-600mm RHA pnetration, and in case Relikt to only ~450-500mm RHA. So in theory T-90A turret can withstand even modern amo. Of course with Relickt, not old Kontakt-5.

It looks worse when we take M829A3 -this APFSDS should pass 600-640mm RHA after Kontakt-5, and ~500mm RHA after Relikt.

Of course the above is my speculation. I may be wrong. But as I said - I have my reasons to believe so.

 

[hest]

This is pure speculation. M32 ERA was added after contact with RPG-29, and better PG-7 granades version with penetration higher than ~500mm RHA. I seen side turret of M1 tank, hit by older RPG's without penetration.

It is just ERA which reduces effectiveness of monoblock cumulative jet abot 400 mm. Was made to provide protection against RPG up to 500 mm perforation.

How do You know that Leopard 2A4 protection is smaller than T-72B and T-80U with Kontakt-5, did You made any tests? Not to mention that there is earlier Leopard 2A4 subvariant with protection on Leopard 2A1/A3 level, and later production variant with improved protection. Well obviously You didn't know that.

-Effectiveness of side armour (per thickness) as compared to frontal
-The fact that it was later improved with additional armour.

 

[hest]

BTW, about T-90MS and T-90A protection Level.

The Russians carefully "directed" "leak information" when some engeener says to Putin that T-90MS have on turret:
~850mm RHA vs KE
~1200mm RHS vs HEAT

Of course, microphones "accidentally" captured it. And it leaked to the media.

By chance you can get pregnant, and not reveal this information. Therefore, it is a deliberate marketing plot.

But...

If it's true we can seriously think about the resistance of earlier versions of T-90 ...
especially if truth is writing on NI STALII pages about Relickt and Kontakt-5 ERA.

Relikt give 1.5 more protection.
Kontakt-5 1.2 more protection.
Od course working hevy ERA depends on meny factors.
But:
It's looks funny when we realize that this values are for LOS thickest value (~880mm).

If T-90S with Relikt have 850mm vs KE then the T-90A with Kontakt-5 should have about 720-750mm RHA, and "nacked" T-90A turret should have about 600-650mm RHA.

think about this valuse not for 840mm LOS but for (more offten) 650mm LOS (perpendicular to the turret at an angle of 30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower)

And DM-53LKEII (1999) "accidentally" have about 750mm RHA for 2000m


Of course in my opinnion russian havy ERA works on more sophisticated way, and you can not count it like "base armour" x1,5 etc.

In my personal opinion T-90A basick armour (without hevy ERA) is about:
for 840mm LOS about ~650mm RHA
for 650mm LOS about ~500mm RHA.

It's much less than other estimates assume, but I have certain conditions to make such a claim. Except that I leave some things for myselves

Of. course this 500-650mm RHA for basick T-90A means that tank have very good protection.
All because active working ERA can reduce (Kontakt-5)
DM53 for 700-750mm to only 560-600mm RHA pnetration, and in case Relikt to only ~450-500mm RHA. So in theory T-90A turret can withstand even modern amo. Of course with Relickt, not old Kontakt-5.

It looks worse when we take M829A3 -this APFSDS should pass 600-640mm RHA after Kontakt-5, and ~500mm RHA after Relikt.

Of course the above is my speculation. I may be wrong. But as I said - I have my reasons to believe so.

It is just not understanding of how these statements are made.

- It is medium protection value given for hull which has lower protection than turret, so they can guarantee these figures.
- Your figures are true only for hull as I explained, they cannot give figure for turret.

About ERA, it's effectiveness depends on round (destruction of destabilisation) and composition of armour.

Semi-reactive armour further increased destabilisation effect of ERA on round.

Kontakt-5 adds 130 mm of RHA against APFSDS in general. Relikt adds 250 mm but this is for hull and will depend on armour.

It is seen in example of Nii Stali.

For T-72M Relikt gives an increase of 1.4 times

For T-80B it gives an increase of 1.3 times.

For T-72B it is again 1.4 times

(all for hull).

Explanation is, increase in T-72M and T-80B is due to destabilisation effect of round. T-80B has better armour so relative increase will be less.

In T-72B it is more, because effect of ERA on round is exploited by semi-reactive composite armour.

For turret with better composition increase will be even greater (1.5 or more...).

 

[militarysta]

Each year there are tests with different requirement of protection stated by goverment standart, after which depending on results changes are made.

Some years ago there were tests with Kornet and Svinets-1 APFSDS for example.

So give me link to forum or site when it's wrote. I found on otvaga, gspo, ghur khan and others only about 3BM42 tests in APFSDs thema.

It is measure with wrong drawing.

I have dozen T-90A and this turret draws and photos in fact all avaible in Russian internet. And two patenst on that turet (one in polish language) and for all mesurments made on all possible turet draws LOS thickness for 30. was between 620 to 650mm LOS,and for front between 450 in gun mantled mask area to 650mm in this inner triangle area (it's inner part structure turret to incarase thickness next to gun mantled mask area) and for rest (0. degree) between 700 to max 880mm LOS. This 900mm LOS is rather impossible.

Besides, even on that measurement there is error margin of 50 units. It even corresponds with stated thickness of 700-900 mm from 0 to -/+ 30 degrees.

LOL no, it not "error margin" on Wiedzmin's draw - this draw was posted on otvaga in contecs inner citadele in tanks. In wesern tanks it's ussaly between 40-120mm thick, on T-90A it's 50mm thick due to many sources. And this +50mm is not "error margin" but showned what if in T-90A ill be placed so thick inner citadele. But it's not so values placed on draw are prooper.

Such figures correspond to stated protection of 700 mm APFSDS perforation without ERA in most situations.

Lol, so try to move this value for 840mm front Leo-2A4 arour and 960mm LOS M1A2 armour. So what - more then 750-800mm for both?

Such figures are "medium "given for lowest value related to hull (by standart), as figure of about 500 mm for T-80U and 500-550 mm for T-72B model 1989.

You can look for "official" figures for mentioned tanks.

Well in all case those values where lower...for hull of course.

As you know, thickness of front+side is not same as just front.

Yes, but for 30. degree from longiyiudal axis Soviet tanks have lower LOS thickness.I post this many times:

30 degree from longitiudal axis
western turret sides at 30.:
Leo2A4: 660mm LOS
M1A2 : ~760mm LOS

estern turets for 30 degree:
T-72B 600 and small 660mm LOS area
T-80U: 540mm LOS

With Kontakt-5 (which you also always forget) it is even better.

With (and only with) Kontakt-5 it's has chanse do be simmilar without K-5 it must be less. Ecpecially against HEAT.

What is all about is thickness-effectiveness, and I explained.

You don't understand. And explain again becouse you way of thinking it's strange.
Thickness in western tanks for 30. is bigger. In estern tanks protection is based on diffrent principles.

For T-80U for 30 degree its:
90mm cast steel , 260mm cavity for "special armour" and 190mm cast steel. So only about 40% is for active working armour. No more. 60% is stupid cast steel.

For 0. it 120mm cast steel + 340mm special armour cavity + 280mm cast steel. Again: 400mm cast seel and 340mm sapecial armour.
Its 45% for acive armour and 55% for pasive cast steel.
In Leopard-2A4 for 840mm LOS for 0 you have 500mm special armour and 340mm pasive layers. 60% for Active layers and 40% for pasive layers.
In fact in western tanks most of armour works inactive way not pasive.

 

[hest]

In fact figure of 850 mm (550-600 mm) of T-90 is logical:

T-80U - Hull, 500 mm against APFSDS

T-72B model 1989 - Hull 500-550 mm

There was another increase in T-90 and T-90A so it is around 600 mm wich corresponds with increase of Relikt.

 

[militarysta]

It is just not understanding of how these statements are made.

- It is medium protection value given for hull which has lower protection than turret, so they can guarantee these figures.
- Your figures are true only for hull as I explained, they cannot give figure for turret.

Give me sources, becouse most of values was given for turret front, not hull.

About ERA, it's effectiveness depends on round (destruction of destabilisation) and composition of armour.

It's obvious.

Kontakt-5 adds 130 mm of RHA against APFSDS in general. Relikt adds 250 mm but this is for hull and will depend on armour.

Noone ERA can "adds" some RHA values. It's bullshit. ERA reduce APFSDS perforation for some % and it's depend on many factors: type of the ERA, ERA angle on /before main armour, type of penetrator (diameter, material, velocity, hit angle etc). "Adds" some RHA value is bullshit usefull for game maykers when game engine can't count ERA in game.

For turret with better composition increase will be even greater (1.5 or more...).

Ok, sources needes.

BTW:
теперь все становится на свои места с уровнем защищенности. Если с реликтом уровень 850мм по БПС то без него гдето 570ии а с К5 680мм
(...)
без него 600-650, с К-5 720-780, как вы 570 то получили ? с учетом того что в инет утекает не пойми что, и 850 и НИИ сталевская табличка могут быть фейком, уж Путину то можно было сказать хоть "3 метра" разница то
(...)
Я тупо взял и тупо поделил 850 на 1.5 (заявленная эффективность работы реликта по БПС ) получил 567 потом так же тупо умножил на 1.2 (заявленная эффективность к5) получил 680мм
This have more sense, due to fact tat in whole wrold armour protection is given for turret front, not like You try to trying us about "hull protection". It haven't sense, but nice try ;-)

 

[hest]

Situation is, modern composite armour is more efficient than steel against cumulative jet, but does not surpass thickness equivalence of steel.

In fact from your measure of T-90 it is seen medium value between 0 and 30 degrees between 700 and 900 mm (rough equivalence with RHA against APFSDS).

All modern tanks have good protection for turret against Kinetic rounds. Situation is not true for hull (without ERA).