Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Akim]

 

[Damian]

MBT Revolution – moduÅ‚owa modernizacja Leoparda 2A4 | Defence24 | Wojsko Polskie | BezpieczeÅ„stwo | PrzemysÅ‚ zbrojeniowy | Wojska lÄ…dowe | Marynarka Wojenna | SiÅ‚y Powietrzne | Wojska Specjalne | Geopolityka | Targi Kielce | Dowództwo Operacy

Leopard 2A4 Revolution was presented by Rhinemetall to Polish Army as possible configuration for Leopard 2PL.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What kind of information loader receives ?

What is the use of MFD for loader ?

 

[Damian]

It is to control RWS, so tank commander will concentrate on commanding vehicle.

Actually in case of electronics, Rhinemetall proposal is more advanced than Krauss Maffei Wegmann proposal.

Or it can also probably use small cameras that can be installed around the tank, or use commander PERI, so commander can concentrate on something else like BMS, while loader will just support gunner in scanning... there is plenty of options.

 

[Akim]

@ Damian
In how much money will modernization of every tank approximately?

 

[methos]

Leopard 2 Revolution is a modular upgrade, so there is a huge probability that not all concepts from Rheinmetall will be taken over, if the Polish government chooses Rheinmetall as contractor.

 

[Damian]

Currently it is still too early to say how much upgrade will be cost, and which contractor team (KMW with Bumar or Rhinemetall with WZM) will won.

 

[Austin]

New Generation Arena-E

 

[hest]

Reactive armour performance

Added protection in equivalence with RHA (note, cumulative protection is measured at angle of incidence of 30 degrees from plate normal)

Kontakt-1

- Cumulative jet : 400 mm

Kontakt-5

- Cumulative jet: 600 mm

-APFSDS (kinetic): 130 mm

Relikt

Cumulative jet

- Monoblock warhead: Reduces performance of jet up to >90 %

- Tandem warhead: 600 mm

- APFSDS: 250 mm
------------------------------------
Interval between detonation of modern tandem warheads

- Rockets with no regulator (Panzerfaust, Vampir, etc): 150-200 microseconds

- Modern ATGM (Invar, Kornet, Arkan, Javelin, Spike): 300 microseconds

-------------------------------
Factors affecting tandem warhead performance (when detonation interval causes malfunction)

- ERA plate surface
- Distance between leading and main warheads

Will explain next time.

 

[militarysta]

It's for official NI STALII brochure about ERA -those whit BMP-3M on frontpage?

Kontakt-1

- Cumulative jet : 400 mm

Kontakt-5

- Cumulative jet: 600 mm

-APFSDS (kinetic): 130 mm

Relikt

Cumulative jet

- Monoblock warhead: Reduces performance of jet up to >90 %

- Tandem warhead: 600 mm

- APFSDS: 250 mm

Those values are for what rod? Those values will be totally diffrent for shorter DM33A1 and for loger DM53A1 and for ultra thck and long M829A3. And will be diffrent for example partial 3BM26 whit tungsten slug insde.
So this values are pure marketing -it's impossible to have he same values for many -completly diffrent in structure penetrators (rod).

 

[hest]

It's for official NI STALII brochure about ERA -those whit BMP-3M on frontpage?

It is all official from NII Stali which I have shown earlier.

Those values are for what rod? Those values will be totally diffrent for shorter DM33A1 and for loger DM53A1 and for ultra thck and long M829A3. And will be diffrent for example partial 3BM26 whit tungsten slug insde.
So this values are pure marketing -it's impossible to have he same values for many -completly diffrent in structure penetrators (rod).

Reduction of performance is due to lateral impulse which metal plate gives to round. It is safe value (which means guaranteed lowest) rest of factors (destruction, etc) are not accounted.

Same as why effect of ERA against HEAT is given only at 30 degrees from normal.

Depending on armour structure, it will be this figure (passive form) or effect will be increased (semi-reactive effect), but these values are only for plate effect.

As you see Relikt 250 is about twice of Kontakt-5 130, which is due to double plate effect.

This value was applied by Nii Stali to T-72B hull protection, with Relikt it is protected against M829A2 which is estimated by institute with perforation up to 750 mm.


With such ERA performance we can make several conclusions

- Given perforation level of modern APFSDS (more than 700 mm) and ATGM (surpassing 1000 mm ), it is not possible for current tanks to provide protection of both hull and turret consisting only of composite armour.

Only tanks as T-90 with Relikt can give such protection.

- Simple addition of ERA to older tanks (T-72B, etc) will bring them to modern protection level.

- Due to anti-tandem properties of modern ERA, it is not possible for ATGM with relatively low penetration level (Javelin, Spike) to neutralise tank even from top of turret, should they impact on protected part, due to either inability to perforate armour, or weak after armour effect.

 

[militarysta]

It is safe value (which means guaranteed lowest) rest of factors (destruction, etc) are not accounted.

So in fact it's value witch still unkown type of ammo, for the other hand - 250mm RHA sounds possible but it's rather low value.
btw: where is written that it's "guaranteed lowest" value?

Same as why effect of ERA against HEAT is given only at 30 degrees from normal.

It's not "only" but normal for all ERA -ERA efectivness is biggest for angles under 30 degree -so this is still optimum case for ERA cassette. And test on ERAWA, ERAWA-2, Dyna, Nóz (Knife) etc shown that clear: 30 degree is still optimum for ERA. And for that angle ERAWA-2 was able to reduce Panzerfaust-3IT (precursor + main charge) from 900mm RHA (behind/after ERA...) to only 400mm RHA perforation. So CP was 66%. So thhat angle is normal and very "comfortabe" for ERA.

As you see Relikt 250 is about twice of Kontakt-5 130, which is due to double plate effect.
This value was applied by Nii Stali to T-72B hull protection, with Relikt it is protected against M829A2 which is estimated by institute with perforation up to 750 mm.

Those values are low. Are strange low. In fact if it't true for Relikt and Kontakt-5 protection then I understand why germans stay whit DM53/63 and don't developed monster like M829A3. It's not necessery.

T-72B (Ob.184) turret is 470-540mm RHA + 250mm Relikt = 720-790mm RHA
DM53 from L-55 is 750mm RHA at 2000m. and for at lest 3 sources it's value is given to 810mm RHA. And for typical fire range in Europe terrain (bellow 1500m) this value will be more then 800mm in any case. For monster like M829A3 all estimatous give more then 800mm RHA for 2000m.
T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) turret protection is not given -as I said I estimate it's between 600 and 500mm RHA what is very big value whit some "safe" margin (it's for LOS between 880 and 650mm) so when we count like you want (+250mm for Relikt) we have protection
between 750 and 850mm...
What is not comfortable for T-90A whit Relikt becouse DM53 L-55 have more then 750mm in less then 1500m distance...and M829A3 have more then 800mm for all conditions.
So it's starnge a little...

With such ERA performance we can make several conclusions

It's very strange to make sucht conclusion based on one adds brochure - ironicly whit very LOW ERA posibility estimatous.

- Given perforation level of modern APFSDS (more than 700 mm) and ATGM (surpassing 1000 mm ), it is not possible for current tanks to provide protection of both hull and turret consisting only of composite armour.
Only tanks as T-90 with Relikt can give such protection.

Ok, but only for Russian tanks what You know about protection in western tanks? Are you so sure thet "is not possible"?


BTW: protection in T-90A for hull just must be lower then for turret for one obvious reson: smaller LOS thickness

Draw made by Wiedźmin from otvaga:


So - If fort turret T-90A LOS (880mm) we consider that protection is 600mm vs APFSDS (we can give even to big IMHO 650mm RHA)
then what will be protection for 700-500mm LOS for hull? Hmmm 520mm in best case (thickes LOS)? So again - if we add tose sily +250mm RHA from Reikt we have how mucht? 770m RHA vs KE? Still under DM53 and M829A3 performances - at least under typical fire range in European terrains conditions.

- Simple addition of ERA to older tanks (T-72B, etc) will bring them to modern protection level.

But it will be still bellow modern APFSDS ammo...

- Due to anti-tandem properties of modern ERA, it is not possible for ATGM with relatively low penetration level (Javelin, Spike) to neutralise tank even from top of turret, should they impact on protected part, due to either inability to perforate armour, or weak after armour effect.

And this is bullshit. As I said - when Javeli or Spike hit at angle bigger then 60 degree efectivness ALL ERA will be smaller then those marketing stuff. And there is only 40-70mm roof RHA plate. Both: Javelin and polish Spike have precursor (50mm diameter - 300/350mm RHA perforation ) and main SC is 103mm diameter (about 670mm RHA perforation, in offcial sources more then 700mm RHA perforation).
700mm - 150mm RHA (needed value for SC after avercome armour protection to kill crew or ignit ammo) - 70mm roof = 480mm RHA those value (68%) can lost SPIKE for main warhed (not precursor!) and it's still able to kill tank by top-attack mode.
And You calim that for SC warhead whit precursor on hit angle bigger then 60 angle Relikt will achive that or better result? Have you consider that and problem whit hit angle by attacking Spike/Javelin?

 

[Damian]

- Given perforation level of modern APFSDS (more than 700 mm) and ATGM (surpassing 1000 mm ), it is not possible for current tanks to provide protection of both hull and turret consisting only of composite armour.

Only tanks as T-90 with Relikt can give such protection.

- Simple addition of ERA to older tanks (T-72B, etc) will bring them to modern protection level.

- Due to anti-tandem properties of modern ERA, it is not possible for ATGM with relatively low penetration level (Javelin, Spike) to neutralise tank even from top of turret, should they impact on protected part, due to either inability to perforate armour, or weak after armour effect.

1) Primitive low volume (thickness) russian composites armor, gives protection much lower than advanced high volume (thickness) western composites armors.

2) T-90 series are based on T-72 series which were allways designed as simplified inferior desing. It is propaganda of UVZ to show them in good light. UVZ was nothing else as factory meant to design and manufacture primitive or outdated tanks, far from high quality products designed and manufactured in Kharkiv KB-60M/KMDB or in Leningrad. Relikt itself is primitive and obsolete design, that was long ago surpased by superior Knife/Dublet ERA manufactured by BTSKT Microtec.

3) ERA, especially Russian made Kontakt and Relikt ERA do not bring protection of obsolete tanks to the modern levels... also when we consider their primitive and simple basic protection.

4) Typical propaganda of yours. There is no ERA that can fully protect turret roof, neither other type of armor protection, within any "healthy" weight limits.

 

[hest]

So in fact it's value witch still unkown type of ammo, for the other hand - 250mm RHA sounds possible but it's rather low value.
btw: where is written that it's "guaranteed lowest" value?

It is lateral impulse of modern rounds. It is not just addition to armour, only plate effect.

It's not "only" but normal for all ERA -ERA efectivness is biggest for angles under 30 degree -so this is still optimum case for ERA cassette. And test on ERAWA, ERAWA-2, Dyna, Nóz (Knife) etc shown that clear: 30 degree is still optimum for ERA. And for that angle ERAWA-2 was able to reduce Panzerfaust-3IT (precursor + main charge) from 900mm RHA (behind/after ERA...) to only 400mm RHA perforation. So CP was 66%. So thhat angle is normal and very "comfortabe" for ERA.

30 degrees is the minimum "effective" angle. It is much better around 60...

Optimum impact angle for single warhead is 0-30 degrees from normal, for tandem warhead it is the opposite, 30-60 degrees.

Those values are low. Are strange low. In fact if it't true for Relikt and Kontakt-5 protection then I understand why germans stay whit DM53/63 and don't developed monster like M829A3. It's not necessery.

T-72B (Ob.184) turret is 470-540mm RHA + 250mm Relikt = 720-790mm RHA
DM53 from L-55 is 750mm RHA at 2000m. and for at lest 3 sources it's value is given to 810mm RHA. And for typical fire range in Europe terrain (bellow 1500m) this value will be more then 800mm in any case. For monster like M829A3 all estimatous give more then 800mm RHA for 2000m.

As explained these are only values for ERA plate effect. Depending on armour composition it will be better protection

Even with T-72B with medium protection value for hull of 500 mm, it would be protected, against modern projectiles from most of combat ranges (medium penetration level around 700 mm). Turret even better.

While no Western tank can protect hull in such way.

T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) turret protection is not given -as I said I estimate it's between 600 and 500mm RHA what is very big value whit some "safe" margin (it's for LOS between 880 and 650mm) so when we count like you want (+250mm for Relikt) we have protection
between 750 and 850mm...
What is not comfortable for T-90A whit Relikt becouse DM53 L-55 have more then 750mm in less then 1500m distance...and M829A3 have more then 800mm for all conditions.
So it's starnge a little...

We have argued about this earlier.

Anyway, with Relikt hull is protected against all modern APFSDS (turret even better). While no Western tank has sufficient protection for both hull and turret, it is not possible.

And your criteria is strange. According to you, armour thickness of modern tank is 60-70 % equivalent to RHA against APFSDS, (I think it is about 90%...) But then we have problems

- It does not correspond with thickness and stated value even for older tanks
- With such thickness efficiency, all Western tanks, Abrams, Leopard, for both hull and turret are vulnerable against most weapons.

It's very strange to make sucht conclusion based on one adds brochure - ironicly whit very LOW ERA posibility estimatous.

There is nothing surprising on fact that even hull of modern tanks with ERA surpasses 700 mm of protection against most weapons, while Western tanks cannot achieve such value.

Ok, but only for Russian tanks what You know about protection in western tanks? Are you so sure thet "is not possible"?

You can explain with thickness measures ??

BTW: protection in T-90A for hull just must be lower then for turret for one obvious reson: smaller LOS thickness

Draw made by Wiedźmin from otvaga:


So - If fort turret T-90A LOS (880mm) we consider that protection is 600mm vs APFSDS (we can give even to big IMHO 650mm RHA)
then what will be protection for 700-500mm LOS for hull? Hmmm 520mm in best case (thickes LOS)? So again - if we add tose sily +250mm RHA from Reikt we have how mucht? 770m RHA vs KE? Still under DM53 and M829A3 performances - at least under typical fire range in European terrains conditions.

It depends on your criteria of armour thickness efficiency.

We have armour generations

- Passive armour of first T-72B: 460 mm
- Improved semi-reactive armour of late T-72B: 500 up to 550 mm

For T-90A with modern composite armour, thickness of hull armour as you show is up to 700 mm. Turret medium value is >700 mm.

In any case, with Relikt both hull and turret will defeat all APFSDS.

And this is bullshit. As I said - when Javeli or Spike hit at angle bigger then 60 degree efectivness ALL ERA will be smaller then those marketing stuff. And there is only 40-70mm roof RHA plate. Both: Javelin and polish Spike have precursor (50mm diameter - 300/350mm RHA perforation ) and main SC is 103mm diameter (about 670mm RHA perforation, in offcial sources more then 700mm RHA perforation).
700mm - 150mm RHA (needed value for SC after avercome armour protection to kill crew or ignit ammo) - 70mm roof = 480mm RHA those value (68%) can lost SPIKE for main warhed (not precursor!) and it's still able to kill tank by top-attack mode.
And You calim that for SC warhead whit precursor on hit angle bigger then 60 angle Relikt will achive that or better result? Have you consider that and problem whit hit angle by attacking Spike/Javelin?

I will show later, but now brief points

- Starting from 30 degrees and on, assured defeat of warhead.
- 0-15 degrees, in general 2 situations

1 Missile cumulative jet is damaged by first plate, reducing performance of main warhead in 60 %
2 Main warhead is destroyed by plate

 

[Damian]

There is nothing surprising on fact that even hull of modern tanks with ERA surpasses 700 mm of protection against most weapons, while Western tanks cannot achieve such value.

T-xx series of tanks have the most inefficent when it comes to armor protection, front hull armor design.

As we can see on drawing, it is a low volume (thickness) type of armor, where there is less layers of composite armor. T-80U/UD front hull is estimated as ~500mm RHAe vs KE by NII Stali as You said. This pathetic value is a result of in efficent hull design.

More efficent design is that of M1 Abrams or Leopard 2, where not glacis plate, but hull "beak" is place where composite armor can be placed, this gives much more space for composite armor layers (there are more layers in western armors, which means more protection standing against projectile, more layers that will increase erosion, yaw, bending of projectile). Glacis itself in such design could had been inclined much more agressively, and from frontal vehicle projection, it is far smaller target, more difficult to hit, and at 8 degrees from horizontal, a 50mm thick plate, will increase it's thickness against enemy projectile up to ~300mm, add to this possibility that it is HHS or THS armor with high hardness, and that for example in M1, there is additional internal protection in from of fuel tanks that are approx ~1 meter long.

It is far superior method of vehicle protection, gives similiar or better performance than Russian solutions, and still permitts to use ERA if nececary.

We have argued about this earlier.

Anyway, with Relikt hull is protected against all modern APFSDS (turret even better). While no Western tank has sufficient protection for both hull and turret, it is not possible.

And your criteria is strange. According to you, armour thickness of modern tank is 60-70 % equivalent to RHA against APFSDS, (I think it is about 90%...) But then we have problems

- It does not correspond with thickness and stated value even for older tanks
- With such thickness efficiency, all Western tanks, Abrams, Leopard, for both hull and turret are vulnerable against most weapons.

This is pure propaganda. Western ammunition, especially APFSDS is far more superior to Russian made ammunition, You think that western tanks are not tested against it?

Only idiot can think that way.

In any case, with Relikt both hull and turret will defeat all APFSDS.

Wishfull thinking, that this obsolete protection can give such performance. I can agree that Knife or Dublet can give such protection for T-xx tanks, but Relikt? It is completely osbolete type of ERA with explosive material between metal plates, inefficent and without any perspectives.

IMHO Indian Army should completely cut any contacts with UVZ, and work with KMDB or other defence companies that are respecting customer by providing modern, not obsolete products.

KMDB offers the most modern solutions, without any export downgrades as UVZ is doing.

Besides this anyone should know that the most progressive, and with best solutions design bureau was KMDB during soviet times, not UVZ that the only tasks that arecived from soviet goverment and army, was to manufacture obsolete tanks, or manufacture simplified, downgraded tanks, like the T-72 that originally was intended as a T-64 version with different engine, but due to manipulations, lies and other actions of UVZ "mafia" lead to complete redesing of T-64, and was one of reasons of Soviet union troubles with logistics.

And such things are nothing else as a treason.

There is of course another option for India. Start a cooperation with for example German company IBD Diesenroth, this company can sold You, also with licence fro manufacturing, very advanced composite armor both for Arjun and T-90S, this armor can be used both in forms of inserts for the vehicles base cavities and as well as additional bolt on modules.

There is also problems with other things like engines. Currently the most efficent engine design is so called powerpack, where engine and transmission are coupled in to one single module, that can be quickly replaced. It is a very important thing on the battlefield, however such thing as powerpack do not exist in Russia.

UVZ when was designing T-72 series (which T-90 series were developed from), used an obsolete engine design from older tanks. In fact it was a complete step back, a regression from what Morozov design team achieved with T-64.

T-64 used a very compact 5TD engine, that could had been replaced quickly. There was also no transmission block in a classical meaning, but rather two small transmission blocks for each of the sprocket wheel. Very compact, elegant, efficent design, very light also.

KMDB is still faithfull for this idea with the newer 6TD series of compact Diesel engines, and offers a complex and efficent upgrades for both, existing fleets of T-72M1, T-90S and Arjun tanks. So it is a better solution that obsolete and ineffective UVZ proposals.

 

[Damian]

Raytheon to debut target-seeking BattleGuard at US Army Conference | Army & Land Forces News at DefenceTalk

Possible replacement for M1 series CITV and for M2 series CITV as well. Might be also used on other different platforms.

 

[militarysta]

30 degrees is the minimum "effective" angle. It is much better around 60...

Optimum impact angle for single warhead is 0-30 degrees from normal, for tandem warhead it is the opposite, 30-60 degrees.

It's seem that when I wrote about 30 degree for you it's 60, when i wrote about 60 for You it 30. You count it from "top" or elevation?

For ERA optimum hit angle is 0-30 degree, and border is 60 degree when ERA cassette lost most of it's efectivness. If HEAT warhed hit in 60-90 degree then ERA casette wil be ussaly helpless when it's placed on only 40-70mm RHA plate (tank roof).

As explained these are only values for ERA plate effect. Depending on armour composition it will be better protection

No, it will be not. Main armour is main armour, ERA is ERA. If ERA "eat" some % APFSDS capabilities then main armour have ligher job to do. I know what You want to say but it's not so easy - interaction between main armour and priviously bent and blunt by ERA penetrator will be easer, but or the other hand -it's impossibe to ad to ERA some value from main armour.

Even with T-72B with medium protection value for hull of 500 mm, it would be protected, against modern projectiles from most of combat ranges (medium penetration level around 700 mm). Turret even better.

It will not be protected becouse even If you tell that hull is 500mm vs APFSDS (overestimated -in fact slighty less - 450-480max) then whit even Relikt we have no more then 750mm RHA as best option.
This perforation value have on 1300m:
M829A2 (USA)
M829A3 (USA)
DM53/63 (most Leopard-2 users now)
M338 (Israeli)
Propably
DM43 from L-55.

While no Western tank can protect hull in such way. (...) While no Western tank has sufficient protection for both hull and turret, it is not possible.(...) even hull of modern tanks with ERA surpasses 700 mm of protection against most weapons, while Western tanks cannot achieve such value..

You have not impressive knowledge about western tanks...and You make some thesis without any knowledges in thema.
First:
1. LOS thickness in western tank hulls is ussaly the same like in T-80/72 family, but upper glastic plate is something what in russian tank doesnt exist -so we have in all estern tanks this big weak element before driver (480mm LOS and smaller value).
In Leopard-2A4 hull LOS is 600mm in M1 and M1A2 it 650mm LOS.
2. In russian does not exist Burlinghton analog yet -so in all T-72/64/80 famili hull is rather simpler layout based on steel, rha plates and ceramic inisde. Its really simple, and for all 3 families allways T-72 layout was most primitive and the worse...
In T-72B and T-80U it's looks that:


It's the same primitive like T-72B turret armour layout... In old T-72M1 hull front armour had 3 layers: steel, glass textolite and steel again and it was primitive in 80s. Layout in T-72B and T-80 consist 6 layers steel, RHA plates and...glass textolite again. There is no magic or advanced armour again.
In fact for bigger LOS in T-72B hull (~680mm) protection was equal to ~450-500mm RHA mostly due to using pure steel in hull. No advanced technology, no advanced armour protection. Just chep and simple steel, RHA plates and glass textolite. This armour was easy to perforate by DM-33 (470-540mm RHA) on typical 1300m distanse. In T-72BM in 1989 layout was changed - propably to simillar level like in T-80U. But it's still no high-tech.
In western tank burlinghton armour is placed in hull - in M1A2 in almoust 600mm thick cavity (from whole 650mm LOS), in Leopard-2A4 in 520mm thick cavity (from whole 600mm LOS). Burlinghton armour in Leopard-2 turret for circa 1994 gives for 840mm LOS about 650mm vs KE. So maybe for 600mm LOS protection will be equal to ~470mm for nacked front hull? For the other hand - Burlinghton special armour has very big resistance against HEAT warhed for Leopard-2A4 it's about 880-900mm in turret so in this model hull will be like 650 vs HEAT. And those nubers are for lowest ratio between KE:CE for burlinghton in 1978. In other test some burlinghton armour model was twice better against HEAT then against KE...
Of course it's for the theoretical assume that in hull is the same armour like in turret. But I suppose that composition in hull is diffrent then in turret - like in russian tanks when both armour composition is primitive (Ob.184 - T-72B) for turret and hull but diffrent (in hull is simpler and cheaper armour without active working layers).

But in new Leopard-2 tanks: Strv.122, Leo-2A5DK, 2A6E, 2A6HEL, Ex, A7 on hull area added thick and big double NERA modules so armour resistans is bigger then for main hull armour only. Single NERA plate can reduce single SC warhed perforation on about 35%... So twice NERA layers can reduce precursor and main warhed. So in fact even if armour protection is "only" 650mm vs HEAt for main Leo-2 hull then whit NERA addons this armour can windstand HEAT warhed whit perforation up to 1000mm RHA, and when we consider that HEAT warhed to ignit ammo must have perforation bigger on about 150mm RHA then armour protection then thiss hull can windstand SC smaller then 1200mm RHA. So in fact only newest Kornet and Chrizantiema are able to overcome that protection. Older Kornets and Metis-M, Wihr - not. What is logical.
The same NERA can reduce APFSDS perforation for about 15-25%.

In fact most of the western tanks hull is protected against HEAT and most APFSDS.

We have armour generations

- Passive armour of first T-72B: 460 mm
- Improved semi-reactive armour of late T-72B: 500 up to 550 mm

For T-90A with modern composite armour, thickness of hull armour as you show is up to 700 mm. Turret medium value is >700 mm.

In any case, with Relikt both hull and turret will defeat all APFSDS.

Wishfull and naive thinking. And fairy-tails for btvt lovers
T-72B hull was around 450mm RHA vs APFSDS
T-90S hull (Ob.188) was around 500mm RHA vs APFSDS
maybe T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) is better protected (as I said whit LOS turret and hull ratio no better then around~520mm) but no more due to alway simpler and cheaper hull armour (then for turret) in russian tanks, and as I mentioned - ratio between LOS on turret and hull.
Even whit Relikt hull can be easy penetrated by M829A2, M829A3, DM53/63 and propably M338. And under 1000m distance by more APFSDS.

 

[hest]

It's seem that when I wrote about 30 degree for you it's 60, when i wrote about 60 for You it 30. You count it from "top" or elevation?

For ERA optimum hit angle is 0-30 degree, and border is 60 degree when ERA cassette lost most of it's efectivness. If HEAT warhed hit in 60-90 degree then ERA casette wil be ussaly helpless when it's placed on only 40-70mm RHA plate (tank roof).

I said, 30 degrees from normal (of plate), which for you is 60 degrees (from longitudinal axis).

Kontakt 400 mm and Kontakt-V 600 mm and Relikt against tandem warhead 600 mm, are given for angle of 30 degrees from normal, or 60 degrees for you, which is not the most optimum angle.

Most optimum angle for single warhead is (for you) 90-60 degrees. For tandem warhead 90-60 degrees is dangerous angle.

Top attack ATGM from 90-60 degrees - neutralised (destruction of components before main warhead initiation). From 60 degrees and on, atleast 600 mm reduction and 70 mm base armour, no way it will be effective.

No, it will be not. Main armour is main armour, ERA is ERA. If ERA "eat" some % APFSDS capabilities then main armour have ligher job to do. I know what You want to say but it's not so easy - interaction between main armour and priviously bent and blunt by ERA penetrator will be easer, but or the other hand -it's impossibe to ad to ERA some value from main armour.

Situation is, ERA performance, and witness, passive block.

ERA in general will reduce penetration in 250 mm (lateral impulse) stated by NII Stali

If armour behind is semi-reactive, it will be different. Thus as I said, it is not just to add value to certain tank.

Examples

T-72M1 1.4
T-80B 1.3
T-90 (early) 1.5 (stated against M829A2, estimated with 750 mm)
BMPT 1.4

It will not be protected becouse even If you tell that hull is 500mm vs APFSDS (overestimated -in fact slighty less - 450-480max) then whit even Relikt we have no more then 750mm RHA as best option.
This perforation value have on 1300m:
M829A2 (USA)
M829A3 (USA)
DM53/63 (most Leopard-2 users now)
M338 (Israeli)
Propably
DM43 from L-55.

For late T-72B with indeed 500 mm protection, will be 750 mm. Most of APFSDS from most ranges (from 2 km). And this is only old T-72.

You have not impressive knowledge about western tanks...and You make some thesis without any knowledges in thema.
First:
1. LOS thickness in western tank hulls is ussaly the same like in T-80/72 family, but upper glastic plate is something what in russian tank doesnt exist -so we have in all estern tanks this big weak element before driver (480mm LOS and smaller value).
In Leopard-2A4 hull LOS is 600mm in M1 and M1A2 it 650mm LOS.
2. In russian does not exist Burlinghton analog yet -so in all T-72/64/80 famili hull is rather simpler layout based on steel, rha plates and ceramic inisde. Its really simple, and for all 3 families allways T-72 layout was most primitive and the worse...
In T-72B and T-80U it's looks that:


It's the same primitive like T-72B turret armour layout... In old T-72M1 hull front armour had 3 layers: steel, glass textolite and steel again and it was primitive in 80s. Layout in T-72B and T-80 consist 6 layers steel, RHA plates and...glass textolite again. There is no magic or advanced armour again.

It is not correct.

T-72B hull armour was of passive composition, spaced RHA plates, etc. From 1989 it was semi-reactive armour with elements similar as in turret.

Visual thickness was up to 700 mm. Protection equivalence, 500 mm...

In fact for bigger LOS in T-72B hull (~680mm) protection was equal to ~450-500mm RHA mostly due to using pure steel in hull. No advanced technology, no advanced armour protection. Just chep and simple steel, RHA plates and glass textolite. This armour was easy to perforate by DM-33 (470-540mm RHA) on typical 1300m distanse. In T-72BM in 1989 layout was changed - propably to simillar level like in T-80U. But it's still no high-tech.
In western tank burlinghton armour is placed in hull - in M1A2 in almoust 600mm thick cavity (from whole 650mm LOS), in Leopard-2A4 in 520mm thick cavity (from whole 600mm LOS). Burlinghton armour in Leopard-2 turret for circa 1994 gives for 840mm LOS about 650mm vs KE. So maybe for 600mm LOS protection will be equal to ~470mm for nacked front hull? For the other hand - Burlinghton special armour has very big resistance against HEAT warhed for Leopard-2A4 it's about 880-900mm in turret so in this model hull will be like 650 vs HEAT. And those nubers are for lowest ratio between KE:CE for burlinghton in 1978. In other test some burlinghton armour model was twice better against HEAT then against KE...
Of course it's for the theoretical assume that in hull is the same armour like in turret. But I suppose that composition in hull is diffrent then in turret - like in russian tanks when both armour composition is primitive (Ob.184 - T-72B) for turret and hull but diffrent (in hull is simpler and cheaper armour without active working layers).

In that period ( up to 90s) all Soviet tanks with Kontakt-V (T-72B, T-80U/UD) were protected (both hull and turret) against all NATO APFSDS (more than 600 mm of APFSDS protection)

Western tanks were vulnerable atleast in hull. Given Visual thickness of hull of about 600 mm and corresponding protection equivalence (for 80s until 90s) they were vulnerable against deployed APFSDS Mango (500 mm general perforation).

Now, we have situation, composite armour thickness efficiency will not surpass equivalence with RHA. Let's give to modern composite armour (as in Leopard 2A6, M1A2, T-90A, etc...) thikckness efficiency of 0.9 against APFSDS (best case).

Hull of Western tanks with dimension of no more than 600 mm will be vulnerable against most of modern APFSDS (and ATGM).

Neither T-90A will surpass 600 mm protection for hull (700 mm dimension). With ERA it is protected, reaching 800 mm equivalence against APFSDS.

It is dubious even if Western tanks' turret protection is enought given thickness-efficiency relation (and 0.9 is rather high).

But in new Leopard-2 tanks: Strv.122, Leo-2A5DK, 2A6E, 2A6HEL, Ex, A7 on hull area added thick and big double NERA modules so armour resistans is bigger then for main hull armour only. Single NERA plate can reduce single SC warhed perforation on about 35%... So twice NERA layers can reduce precursor and main warhed. So in fact even if armour protection is "only" 650mm vs HEAt for main Leo-2 hull then whit NERA addons this armour can windstand HEAT warhed whit perforation up to 1000mm RHA, and when we consider that HEAT warhed to ignit ammo must have perforation bigger on about 150mm RHA then armour protection then thiss hull can windstand SC smaller then 1200mm RHA. So in fact only newest Kornet and Chrizantiema are able to overcome that protection. Older Kornets and Metis-M, Wihr - not. What is logical.
The same NERA can reduce APFSDS perforation for about 15-25%.

In fact most of the western tanks hull is protected against HEAT and most APFSDS.

It is right approach, but in general NERA or semi-reactive armour is significantly less effective than ERA, requiring more volume and space.

It will not add as much protection as Kontakt-V for example.

And these wedges are not installed in hull anyway, so it is still vulnerable.

Wishfull and naive thinking. And fairy-tails for btvt lovers
T-72B hull was around 450mm RHA vs APFSDS
T-90S hull (Ob.188) was around 500mm RHA vs APFSDS
maybe T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) is better protected (as I said whit LOS turret and hull ratio no better then around~520mm) but no more due to alway simpler and cheaper hull armour (then for turret) in russian tanks, and as I mentioned - ratio between LOS on turret and hull.
Even whit Relikt hull can be easy penetrated by M829A2, M829A3, DM53/63 and propably M338. And under 1000m distance by more APFSDS.

As for protection, T-90 with Relikt is resistant against all mentioned APFSDS both hull and turret with value surpassing 800 mm.

 

[Damian]

In that period ( up to 90s) all Soviet tanks with Kontakt-V (T-72B, T-80U/UD) were protected (both hull and turret) against all NATO APFSDS (more than 600 mm of APFSDS protection)

Western tanks were vulnerable atleast in hull. Given Visual thickness of hull of about 600 mm and corresponding protection equivalence (for 80s until 90s) they were vulnerable against deployed APFSDS Mango (500 mm general perforation).

Now, we have situation, composite armour thickness efficiency will not surpass equivalence with RHA. Let's give to modern composite armour (as in Leopard 2A6, M1A2, T-90A, etc...) thikckness efficiency of 0.9 against APFSDS (best case).

Hull of Western tanks with dimension of no more than 600 mm will be vulnerable against most of modern APFSDS (and ATGM).

Neither T-90A will surpass 600 mm protection for hull (700 mm dimension). With ERA it is protected, reaching 800 mm equivalence against APFSDS.

It is dubious even if Western tanks' turret protection is enought given thickness-efficiency relation (and 0.9 is rather high).

Which is not truth. You are comparing primitive composite armor protection of Russian tanks, with advanced composite protection of western tanks.

You also do not understand the principle that thickness itself is not important, important is number of layers of composite armor inside. Western tanks both in turret and hull have more layers of composite armor, thus are superior than Russian tanks in this subject.

Besides this as I said, NATO invested a lot of money in to advanced materials for their composite armors.

Also NATO had obtained and tested both Kontakt-5 and Knife, if they would really had a problems with their tanks protection, they would just copied Russian or Ukrainian design solutions, as it seems, such problems do not exist, and only complete fool can belive that USA, Germany, France or UK, would not test their armors against the most dangerous threats, and their own APFSDS ammunition that is far superior to the Russian ammunition of that type.

 

[Damian]

T-64BM "Bulat".