Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Gur Khan attacks!: Об �Армате� вопреки секретности

This seems to be some sort of visualization of new MBT based on "Armata" platform. Turret seems to be rather big for something that is unmanned, wonder how much it weight and how much weight increase will that new MBT have (if it will be manufactured) compared to currently used MBT's.

Interesting is front hull design, very "westernish", and definetly step away from current front hull design typical for soviet, russian and ukrainian tank designs.

Overall I like hull design, turret could had been smaller tough.

 

[Akim]

Complete absence of hand drives of fire-control is not a problem. Airmen by this illness had had in 20th of past century, and tank crew members - in 60 at a management a tank, when gear-boxes were inculcated with a hydraulic management. However in the case of complexes of aiming and armament military to disintegration of the USSR showed conservatism, constantly pulling out the requirement of the emergency hand loading and shooting. Meantime in an aviation all complexes of armament are remotedly guided already a long ago, and a refuse in a battle results only in an exit from him. It is a norm, but not problem.

To compare an airplane to the tank, however, that bolide with a tractor. Delirium. Whether an author knows, that at a shell-hit in a tank all the electrician and electronics «goes out to the heck». Turret will he be muscular force of to turn?

 

[Austin]

I doubt those are Armata design but more like authors creative imigination on what it should be.

Till the time when the project gets declassifes we might see many such drawing and it could be many of those would be just fakes.

Hopefully UVZ declassifies the project within a years time.

 

[Damian]

I doubt those are Armata design but more like authors creative imigination on what it should be.

Till the time when the project gets declassifes we might see many such drawing and it could be many of those would be just fakes.

Hopefully UVZ declassifies the project within a years time.

Perhaps You are right, either way, I still like hull design, it allows to use a very big composite armor cavity at front, which means a lot of layers, and with unmanned turret, most of the armor weight can be concentrated there, allowing superior frontal protection + ERA that is traditional for Russian designs.

 

[Damian]

Army eyes communications, embedded computing, and electronic warfare upgrades for M1A2 main battle tank - Military & Aerospace Electronics

Seems that M1 Abrams modernization program is moving forward.

383 million USD means that this is a serious contract.

I hope to see technology demonstrator soon.

 

[hest]

Gur Khan attacks!: Об �Армате� вопреки секретности

It is idiotic to take this funny thing so seriously. Any similarity with real developement will be an unlikely coincidence.

 

[Damian]

It is idiotic to take this funny thing so seriously. Any similarity with real developement will be an unlikely coincidence.

It is a very close to the all similiar projects. Despite turret design that is indeed a bit silly, hull design is not bad, of course not as detailed as real projects, yet have some strong points like the front hull armor design, allowing use of a very big composite armor cavity. I also like side hull protection, seems to be sort of thick ballistic skirts or ERA, such design should permitt to use more capable ERA or composite armor with ERA attachements.

So overall it is not that funny, neither stupid as it might look like.

 

[hest]

Talking about designs...

In Abrams there are some design flaws, glacis has exposed projection in about 10 degrees, then it reaches another weak zone related to turret mechanism.

In my opinion new Leopard 2 versions are best Western design.

 

[Damian]

Talking about designs...

In Abrams there are some design flaws, glacis has exposed projection in about 10 degrees, then it reaches another weak zone related to turret mechanism.

In my opinion new Leopard 2 versions are best Western design.

You lack of knowledge and stupidity is obvious here. There is no weak zone in M1 series hull design.

The glacis plate that is estimated to be ~50mm thick is angled at 80 degrees, this make it for frontal projection ~300mm thick plate with minimal exposure to the enemy. There is also possibility that this is not RHA plate but HHS or THS armor. Under glacis armor, there are ~1,000mm long fuel tanks that are additional protection. Citation of Sebastian Balos:

If the fuel has an Em of 3 versus 270 BHN RHA (purely hydrodinamic theory, IIRC), then the thickness efficiency of diesel fuel is 0,31 - that means that 32 mm of diesel fuel is like 10 mm of 270 BHN RHA, versus HEAT. It must be noted that fuel cells are foamed (open cell foam) which also adds protection. If fuel cells are ~1000 mm, then they add well more than 320 mm of HEAT protection (with the foam it might be more than 400 mm). Also, another thing should not be overlooked - do we know that the inner wall of the front hull is a straight line? To be more precise, is it possible that in front of the driver is more armor than in front of the fuel cells to equal protection and protect the driver? Considering the whole concept of M1 which relies on crew survivability, such a theory might not be impossible. The same goes for glacis thickness over the driver and over the fuel cells. An attached scheme shows a 80 mm glacis, su just like on the hull side, it is possible that there is 80 mm over the driver and 50 mm over fuel cells. For promoting ricochet, a higher than usual glacis hardness is beneficial as found in scientific papers.

As we can see there is no weakness, only stupidity and hate spread towards this successfull design.

Glacis plate is also way above turret race ring in M1 series, so in fact what we can see from the outside is not turret race ring that is weak zone indeed, but a lower part of turret front armor and a glacis plate with it's race ring protective part that can be called protective collar.

Leopard 2 itself have it's weaknesses, it is not better not significantly worser than M1 series, Challenger 2 or Leclerc.

However the only tank currently avaiable on market, in which I would want to go in to battle is M1, rest are nothing more than a death traps to their crews, if armor protection will fail and ammo start to burn.

 

[hest]

Tell me, what protection will give your maximum 300 mm of RHA against modern APFSDS ?? It is backward design compared to other Western tanks.

 

[Damian]

Tell me, what protection will give your maximum 300 mm of RHA against modern APFSDS ?? It is backward design compared to another Western tanks.

It is only Your fantasy and , lack of any understanding.

There is combination of 300mm armor (and who says it is RHA? It might be HHS or THS armor, not simple RHA... oh wait I forgot that Russians stopt their advance in armor metallurgy on RHA ) and 1 meter long fuel tanks.

If we will belive Sebastian Balos estimations then we have for example against HEAT a 300mm armor + another 300-400mm protection from fuel tanks, this is against HEAT, against APFSDS it will be less, yet still valuable when we take in to account that this zone from frontal projection is very small target.

So if we assume that glacis plate is pure RHA, then it gives ~600-700mm RHAe vs HEAT, and respectively lower protection against APFSDS. It will give higher protection if we assume that this is HHS or THS armor instead of RHA.

Also remember that Leopard 2 glacis armor is also 40-50mm armor angled at 70 degrees, much more exposed, and without any additional protection behind it, this is why Germans needed additional NERA placed on it.

The M1 glacis is also different philosophy than that presented by most tanks, when in most tanks, the glacis is the most exposed and best armored part of hull, in M1 series, the best armor and most exposed part of hull front is it's lower front where thick composite armor module is placed.

Challenger 2 have a very weak protection of hull front. Leclerc also have weak glacis place in it's upper part. C1 Ariete is a joke, not a tank.

 

[hest]

It is outdated design, because modern APFSDS will not ricochet due to angled 50 mm of steel.

Any hit in that zone is assured penetration into crew compartment.

Same for any modern ATGM.

 

[Damian]

It is outdated design, because modern APFSDS will not ricochet due to angled 50 mm of steel.

Any hit in that zone is assured penetration into crew compartment.

Same for any modern ATGM.

It is nothing strange that primitive like You do not understand the idea.

The idea is to take responsibility for vehicle protection from glacis plate to the lower front of the hull where is very thick composite armor module installed, glacis plate for this is much smaller, more difficult to hit target, with rather good but not the best protection.

And this is much more modern, and better solution than primitive and obsolete T-xx series front hull armor. Even designers at UVZ admitt this.

As we can see the Object 187 and M1 use the same hull design philosophy with weak but not very exposed glacis plate, and massive, very exposed lower fron hull armor.

Anyone can calculate the probability where projectile will hit, in the near horizontal plate, or much more exposed composite armor module. And still this thin yet near horizontal armor plate provides enough protection + fuel tanks behind both glacis plate and thick lower front hull composite armor, adds approx ~300-400mm aainst HEAT and respectively less against APFSDS, yet they are significant protection addon.

It actually amuse me that Russians, that like to pretend that they know something about vehicle protection, still didn't discover a simple fact, that anything inside a tank, can be valuable addition to the vehicle protection, for example fuel, or electronic equipment.

But for fuel to be effective as armor addon, it needs to be compertalized, and compertalization gives another add in protection because besides fuel tanks, additional protection is added by fuel tanks compartment bulkheads.

One more thing, when Russians stopped on RHA and SHS armor, west and Ukrainians use HHS, THS and ESR armor.

THS mass effectiveness (and space effectiveness) is 1.78 versus RHA.

An interesting list.

Creusot - Loire armour plates:

MARS 160: 320 BHN, thickness of 2 to 203 mm, used for: sentry boxes, observation posts, firing ranges, etc.
MARS 190: 388 BHN, thickness of 2 to 508 mm, used for: as above, but also for tanks and other armoured vehicles. Equivalent to US MIL-A-12560.
MARS 240: 500 BHN, thickness of 2 to 51 mm, used for: as above, but also for vests, shields and add-on armour. Equivalent to US MIL-A-46100.
MARS 300: 600 BHN, 4-25mm, add-on armour
Dual Hardness: 600 BHN front, 440 rear; 7-102 mm. Same applications as MARS 240, US equivalent is MIL-A-46099.

British steel Stainless plates:

CP30: conventional armour, 2 - 80 mm thick, used for armoured vehicles.
Hykro: 85 - 300 mm thick, "special protection duties"-projectile testing
CP50: 500 BHN (470-530 BHN), up to 40 mm thick, for lightweight fighting vehicles, such as Saxon. Yield strength is 1350MPa, ultimate tensile stress 1650 MPa, elongation 8 % and reduction in area 45 %. CP30 has probably 300 BHN.

We can then assume that M1 series glacis armor is made from MIL-A-12560 or MIL-A-46100 or MIL-A-46099, this gives us a hardness range from 388 to 600-440 BHN hard armor steel.

 

[hest]

It is nothing strange that primitive like You do not understand the idea.

The idea is to take responsibility for vehicle protection from glacis plate to the lower front of the hull where is very thick composite armor module installed, glacis plate for this is much smaller, more difficult to hit target, with rather good but not the best protection.

And this is much more modern, and better solution than primitive and obsolete T-xx series front hull armor. Even designers at UVZ admitt this.

As we can see the Object 187 and M1 use the same hull design philosophy with weak but not very exposed glacis plate, and massive, very exposed lower fron hull armor.

It was only aceptable when designed about 30 years ago when it could exploit ricochet properties of rounds, against modern ammunition it is completely vulnerable.

In tank as Leopard 2 with better hull design there is no such problem.

Neither there was in Soviet tanks with inclined frontal hull armour.

In latter Soviet developements, similar hull design had lower angle (exposure) and solved the problem with employement of built in reactive armour (Molot, etc) to provide strong lateral impulse and destabilisation in rare possibility of impact.

 

[hest]

Here is graphic about side hull protection.

Required increment of mass m (cubic kg) and corresponding protection equivalence Ð’ (mm of steel) over 0 (70 mm RHA) in dependance of angle q from frontal projection.

Rounds

1 ХМ946, 2 M829A1, 3 М829, 4 М111

So do not try to defend Abrams because you will only make laught...

 

[militarysta]

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.

T-72M1, T-72B, T-64B, T-80U hull composition is known and visible even on draws. There was no extra armour inside, no high-tech armour. Just simple combination RHA plate, cast steel and glass textolite. Those armour layout was mucht simpler and cheaper then in soviet's tank turets.
Protection in T-72B was about 450mm RHA. In T-80B after tests M111 captured in Lebanon (and when those round easy penetrated hull amrour) on T-80B and T-72M1 30mm thick RHA plate was added and inner layout was changed. The same in T-80U, but still it is steel + glas textolite mixed whit thin RHA plates + inner steel layer.

And placed " semi-reactive armour" in T-72 hull is very vry low possible due to hull gemetry. And as I sid - always hull armour in soviet tanks was whorse hen in turret.

Protection equivalence, 500 mm...

450mm RHA.

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)

It's partial true. On all tanks there are weak points. Possibility of hit and perforation armour was for Ob.184 equal to P= ~0.45 after hit in some areas - they are marked bellow:

Based on GhurKhan Blog and inner biuletyn for soviet tankers -so sources is rather good. And values are equal even for DM23 for 1000m...
Coverated tank by ERA was goog idea, but ERA layout had many gaps in estern tanks - especially in T-72 family. T-80U had far far better placed ERA casette.
Small compare:

Kontakt-5 layout for T-72M1989 was the same like for erly T-90S.
So in fact:
1) main turret armour in Ob.184 give 470-540mm RHA protection what was under DM33A1 capability on 1000-1300m distance
2) whole front tank protection had weaknesses able to perforatet whit P= ~0,45 even by DM23 on 1000m distance
3) on Fulda gap distance is far under 1300m (the same in rest western europe)
4. Coverated T-72B by Kontakt-5 ERA (after K-1 -uneble to protect against APFSDS) was nice idea, but only in Charkiv developers could protected tank whithout bigger gaps. T-72BM had big not covered by ERA zones on front hull and turret. Those big parts are not protected by ERA.
So in fact situation wasn't comfortable for Soviet tanks -due to falitures in ERA cover on tanks (without T-80U) and weaker main armour whit big weak zones able to perforate on typical distanse even by DM23 (P= ~0,45).

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).

3BM42 Mango had <460mm RHA on 2000m, on 1000m it was in best case 500mm RHA. If in Leopard-2A4 hull armour was the same burlinghton as in turret then 3BM42 Mango (on service since 1986...) then Leopard-2A4 hull protection was between 470 and 500mm RHA so it was very relevant to 3Bm42 perforation, and those round was able to perforate hull armour UNDER 1000m distance. But 3BM42 was in service since 1986 and in bigger numbers entire siervice since...1988/1989. And most tanks must use old,and not good 3BM26.
On the same time - if Leopard-2A4 hull armour had the same type armour as turret had then it had at least 650mm vs HEAT warhed (1: 1,36) so sucesfull perforation (whit ignit ammo or kill crew) was able for warhed whit perforation equal 800mm RHA. So all GLATGM (Kobra, etc) was unable to kill Leo2A4 after hit in hull. The same most of ATGMs. Only in 1988-1990 when Wihr and Metis entired service those ATGMS was able to overcome protection.

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

Of course not, becouse on M1A2 armour was changed several times, and Leopard-2Axx had improved by NERA panell hull protections. For new KWS variant: Strv.122, A6E, A6HEL, A6Ex, A7, A5Dk, For modernisated A4 variant: MBT Revoultion, Evolution, IBD armour. Most of the Leopard-2 family now have protected hull and turret by new armour - mostly active working NERA stuff.

Neither T-90A will surpass 600 mm protection for hull

Knowing difrences between hull and turet on T-72B and T80U it will by rather 500mm RHA not 600...
maybe in T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) hull is better protected but in late T-72BM (m.1989) and erly T-90S whit simmilar armour it was 500mm RHA for front armour. Realtio between turret and hull LOS give as (whit assume about the same armour in both) for hull protection about 520mm RHA. Talking about more then 550mm RHA is fairy tails.
Of course when we added ERA then protection is quoite good - without this big weak area on fornt of the driver...

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.

NERA had serious advanteges over ERA and acually on west only NERA are in developmend precess.
On very siple NERA one layer armour whithout advanced composite inside we have sucht results:


On double NERA layers that:


In fact second test shown performances no whorse then Relikt

As I said NERA had advantages:

1) They are cheaper then ERA
2) They are lighter then ERA (one NERA wedges module on Leopard-2A5 turret weight 500kg whole NERA for turret 1100-1200kg)
3) They life cost is sevral times lower then ERA
4) Due to non explosing reaction NERA can be placed inside armour, not only outisde
5) Efectivnes against SC (HEAT) is the same like for ERA

Only one disadvantages NERA armour is smaller efectivness against APFSDS 15-25% while for modern ERA it's 25-50%

NERA modules are placed on all younger then Leopard-2A4 turrets and most hulls.
Like here on upper hull glastic plate (Strv.121):

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

Like here:
http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/roger_johansson/strv_122/images/strv_122_33_of_58.jpg
http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/thord_wedman/strv_122/images/strv_122_018_of_237.jpg
?
Or here:
http://thaidefense-news.blogspot.com/2011/07/leopard-2a7-200.html
?
Or maybe "are not installed in hull anyway" like here:
http://data4.primeportal.net/tanks/alberto_rubio_gamarro/leopard_2e_spanish/images/leopard_2e_spanish_024_of_192.jpg
http://data4.primeportal.net/tanks/alberto_rubio_gamarro/leopard_2e_spanish/images/leopard_2e_spanish_146_of_192.jpg
?

As I said -whit those NERA double layers on hull front Leopard-2A5-A7 can windstand SC whit at least 1100-1200mm RHA perforation and APFSDS whit about 640mm RHA perforation. For turret and those NERA wedges it will be even more due to better NERA angeled and thicker main armour.

 

[Damian]

It was only aceptable when designed about 30 years ago when it could exploit ricochet properties of rounds, against modern ammunition it is completely vulnerable.

This is completely acceptable even today, because your primitive mind is not capable to comprehend it's idea, You little troll.

In tank as Leopard 2 with better hull design there is no such problem.

In Leopard 2 hull design is similiar in it's basic idea. Heavy armored lower front hull, and extremely inclined but thin glacis plate of 40-50mm thickness.

Say me what glacis plate will be better? A 40mm one inclined at 70 degrees or 50mm one inclined at 80 degrees.

Calculations.

Leopard 2 - 40mm, 70 degrees = 328mm + ammunition that will explode.
M1 Abrams - 50mm, 80 degrees = 359mm + 1,000mm thick fuel tanks that add ~300-400mm vs HEAT.

Neither there was in Soviet tanks with inclined frontal hull armour.

Oh really? You capability to comprehend reality starts to be interesting if this is not inclined armor.

In latter Soviet developements, similar hull design had lower angle (exposure) and solved the problem with employement of built in reactive armour (Molot, etc) to provide strong lateral impulse and destabilisation in rare possibility of impact.

ERA or NERA can be installed on any tank. Neither You still understand what about I'am talking about. No GTFO and stop trolling.

 

[hest]

Also for Abrams side hull of just 30mm is also serious problem, when there is practically no safe manouvering angle.

 

[Damian]

Also for Abrams side hull of just 30mm is also serious problem, when there is practically no safe manouvering angle.

Wrong.

Side hull for M1 series is:

Upper side hull crew compartment = ~60-70mm, + ~70mm heavy ballistic skirts = ~130-140mm armor in spaced configuration. Much better than on any Soviet tank.
Lower Side hull crew compartment (suspension attachements) = ~40mm,
Side hull engine compartment (engine and suspension attachements) = ~40mm.

Leopard 2 series:

Upper side hull crew compartment = ~60-70mm, + ~100-150mm heavy ballistic skirts = ~160-210/170-220mm thick armor in spaced configuration. Much better than on any Soviet tank.
Lower Side hull crew compartment (suspension attachements) = ~20mm,
Side hull engine compartment (engine and suspension attachements) = ~20mm.

Maybe You shall stop using incorrect and obsolete sources made when soviet union was still functioning, and when nobody seen the side hull arrangament?

Also it is possible that side hull armor is not pure RHA.

From my previous post.

An interesting list.

Creusot - Loire armour plates:

MARS 160: 320 BHN, thickness of 2 to 203 mm, used for: sentry boxes, observation posts, firing ranges, etc.
MARS 190: 388 BHN, thickness of 2 to 508 mm, used for: as above, but also for tanks and other armoured vehicles. Equivalent to US MIL-A-12560.
MARS 240: 500 BHN, thickness of 2 to 51 mm, used for: as above, but also for vests, shields and add-on armour. Equivalent to US MIL-A-46100.
MARS 300: 600 BHN, 4-25mm, add-on armour
Dual Hardness: 600 BHN front, 440 rear; 7-102 mm. Same applications as MARS 240, US equivalent is MIL-A-46099.

British steel Stainless plates:

CP30: conventional armour, 2 - 80 mm thick, used for armoured vehicles.
Hykro: 85 - 300 mm thick, "special protection duties"-projectile testing
CP50: 500 BHN (470-530 BHN), up to 40 mm thick, for lightweight fighting vehicles, such as Saxon. Yield strength is 1350MPa, ultimate tensile stress 1650 MPa, elongation 8 % and reduction in area 45 %. CP30 has probably 300 BHN.

We can then assume that M1 series glacis armor is made from MIL-A-12560 or MIL-A-46100 or MIL-A-46099, this gives us a hardness range from 388 to 600-440 BHN hard armor steel.

So the side hull can range from 388 to 600 BHN hard armor steel.

 

[methos]

The glacis plate that is estimated to be ~50mm thick is angled at 80 degrees, this make it for frontal projection ~300mm thick plate with minimal exposure to the enemy. There is also possibility that this is not RHA plate but HHS or THS armor. Under glacis armor, there are ~1,000mm long fuel tanks that are additional protection. Citation of Sebastian Balos:

No HHS or THS. THS was probably not technical possible at this time (Balos praised the fact that the THS could be made as single layer on the Leclerc as a new feature and on Leopard 1A3 THS was spaced), while HHS does not make sense. The glacis is designed to deflect rounds (and not to break after one shot), so they should have used a rather ductile alloy and not something brittle like HHS.

Protection in T-72B was about 450mm RHA. In T-80B after tests M111 captured in Lebanon (and when those round easy penetrated hull amrour) on T-80B and T-72M1 30mm thick RHA plate was added and inner layout was changed. The same in T-80U, but still it is steel + glas textolite mixed whit thin RHA plates + inner steel layer.

No. Fofanov posted in TankNet the composition of the late-model T-72B glacis (which is also used on T-72S as photos from the Iran show). This array offers more than 500 mm RHAe vs KE. Essentially the 105 mm layer GRP was replaced by 80 mm RHA + 2 spaced NERA layers.

Leopard 2 - 40mm, 70 degrees = 328mm + ammunition that will explode.
M1 Abrams - 50mm, 80 degrees = 359mm + 1,000mm thick fuel tanks that add ~300-400mm vs HEAT.

The slope is larger than 70°, else it would not be enough to let APFSDS ricochet.