Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

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.

There is third option, DHS armor.

Dual Hardness: 600 BHN front, 440 rear; 7-102 mm. Same applications as MARS 240, US equivalent is MIL-A-46099.

Gives capability to break up penetrator and is not as brittle as pure HHS. And as we can see, there is American equivalent to the French armor.

And DHS armor is well known in the west from at least WWI period, If I remember correctly, something like DHS was used on dreadnoughts and other battleships.

Also thickness range of such armor plate is well withing estimated thickness of M1 series glacis plate.

 

[militarysta]

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.
.

Methos, this " late-model T-72B" is the same as erly T-90S hull. And this indeed have about slighty more then 500mm RHA vs KE.

 

[methos]

I thought it is known which steel alloys were used on the M1 Abrams based on TankNet?

The M1 Abrams consists of the following Armor Steel:

MIL-A-12560 Class I
MIL-A-12560 Class II
MIL-A-46177
MIL-A-46100

But re-reading this thread this seems to be based on Nii Stali.

 

[Damian]

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

Yeah, as well as in M1 series it is slightly larger than 80 degrees.

For M1 series the most correct glacis inclination seems to be 82 degrees, while for Leopard 2 it is not known for me. But in the end it does not change much.

 

[Damian]

I thought it is known which steel alloys were used on the M1 Abrams based on TankNet?



But re-reading this thread this seems to be based on Nii Stali.

Well, I would not be so sure without having documentation in my hands. So I would just be carefull with any such statements than someone knows something and shares this knowledge in the internet.

Oh and one more thing. Any estimations are based mostly on the most common RHA properties, but as allways estimations are not credible without full knowledge about armor properties so.

When we take RHA plate of x thickness and inclined at specific angle, we recive an estimation, but this estimation might not be completely valuable without knowing what type of steel is used on discussed tank.

So the estimation properties for the above example will change significantly if we replace RHA with for example THS.

 

[hest]

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.

It is not relevant as to subject.

Protection of T-72B changed with different production batches.

With Kontakt-5 in 80s all T-80U, T-72B were protected against NATO APFSDS also from hull. While Leopard 2A4, Abrams were vulnerable.

450mm RHA.

It is for early versions, was improved during production.

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).

Illustration reflects just turret design and does not account ERA and it's corresponding cover, added protection and deflection, neither ricochet angles.

T-80U and T-72B with Kontakt-5 were protected against all NATO APFSDS.

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.

At that time composite armour thickness eficciency was no higher than 70-80 % which given dimensions of hull, implies that tanks Leopard 2, Abrams could not be protected against Soviet projectiles.

Howewer for hull of tanks T-72B , T-80U/UD with Kontakt-5 it was the opposite.

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.

Yes but it is just not possible for armour of such dimensions to give sufficient protection if it only consists of composite, which efficiency will not surpass 90 % of equivalence to RHA.

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 not direct relation with LOS because passive armour composition did not employ all available volume, 700 mm thickness.

With new composite armour it is fully possible even more than 600 mm.

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%

What is shown is plate with dimensions which do not correspond with employed in tank, and test with optimum angle of incidence of 60 degrees from normal (Russian ERA is measured for 30 which is not optimum angle).

Problem with NERA is that they have worse thickness, required space efficiency, to achieve similar performance, and efficiency is general against cumulative rounds.

So it is not possible with it to achieve protection against modern weapons for hull due to limitations in space, weight, efficiency.

 

[hest]

Yeah, as well as in M1 series it is slightly larger than 80 degrees.

For M1 series the most correct glacis inclination seems to be 82 degrees, while for Leopard 2 it is not known for me. But in the end it does not change much.

As shown, modern APFSDS angle of ricochet is more than 83 (less than 7) degrees... for late 80s-90s round.

 

[Damian]

It is not relevant as to subject.

Protection of T-72B changed with different production batches.

With Kontakt-5 in 80s all T-80U, T-72B were protected against NATO APFSDS also from hull. While Leopard 2A4, Abrams were vulnerable.

This is obvious nonsense and pure propaganda. There was no vurnability, especially to obsolete soviet ammunition, and the fact that not even modern FCS gives enough precision to hit such lowly exposed and small surface.

There was higher probability to hit driver compartment weak zone in front hull armor of T-72B and T-80U.

It is for early versions, was improved during production.

Doubtfull that even after improvements, it was close to the lower front hull protection of M1 and Leopard 2, especially considering primitive materials that soviets were using.

T-80U and T-72B with Kontakt-5 were protected against all NATO APFSDS.

Not for very long, in 1994 M829A2 was fielded, DM53 in 1996, besides this it is still not known if M829A1 was ineffective against Kontakt-5, all tests says only, about M829 ineffectiveness.

At that time composite armour thickness eficciency was no higher than 70-80 % which given dimensions of hull, implies that tanks Leopard 2, Abrams could not be protected against Soviet projectiles.

Howewer for hull of tanks T-72B , T-80U/UD with Kontakt-5 it was the opposite.

What composite armor? You are using data of primitive soviet composite armors for advanced composite armor like Burlington? This is only Your wet dream.

Yes but it is just not possible for armour of such dimensions to give sufficient protection if it only consists of composite, which efficiency will not surpass 90 % of equivalence to RHA.

Well it seems that real tank designers across world achieved sufficent protection without ERA.

Just deal with reality, soviet designers were not best, russian designers are not best, and that other nations might found different, better solution.

Problem with NERA is that they have worse thickness, required space efficiency, to achieve similar performance, and efficiency is general against cumulative rounds.

So it is not possible with it to achieve protection against modern weapons for hull due to limitations in space, weight, efficiency.

You seems to not understand, that in NATO tanks, NERA is not used as pure NERA, but as one of the overall composite armor design elements. This is not a primitive NERA like armor design of T-72B and T-90.

As shown, modern APFSDS angle of ricochet is more than 83 (less than 7) degrees... for late 80s-90s round.

But this estimates are mostly messured only for RHA, and do not take in to account that vehicle armor might be something else than RHA.

Besides this, there is also probability of hit in to such surface. Show me at least single photo or report of M1 hit in the glacis plate or turret race ring protective collar. There is none.

 

[militarysta]

It is not relevant as to subject.

Protection of T-72B changed with different production batches.

Yes, but as I mentioned for T-72B it was 450mm RHA, for late T-72B(M) (in 1989) it was 500mm RHA - the same hull was used in T-90S without major changes. Maybe in T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) hull was again improved to this 530-550mm RHA (I doubt).
But until 1990 hull in T-72B and clones was under 500mm RHA.

Illustration reflects just turret design and does not account ERA and it's corresponding cover, added protection and deflection, neither ricochet angles.

T-80U and T-72B with Kontakt-5 were protected against all NATO APFSDS. (...)
With Kontakt-5 in 80s all T-80U, T-72B were protected against NATO APFSDS also from hull.

It's bullshit for resons mentioned erlier.
1. Area coverated by ERA cassette have many gaps, so in fact for example T-90S (and T-72B(M)) most of the front turret is not coverated by ERA.
Draw for dummies:

In UVZ tanks APFSDS can easy hit turret without hit ERA casette, T-80U havn't sucht a fail.

2. Main armour in T-72B (470-540mm RHA turret, 450mm RHA hull) was slighty under DM33 (470*-530mm RHA for 2000m, for typical <1300m distance better). So it was able to perforate by DM33A1 and M829. What whores -in T-72B designe where serious flaws so even older DM23 was able to perforated those areas and hit this area whit chanse equal to P= ~0,45 for tank front.
*470mm RHA is given by polish WITU

3. After added Kontakt-5 situation was changed for only 4 yers - before M829A1/A2 and DM43 where developed.
But even if we consider two cases:
a) yours and K-5 added those +130mm (so turret has 600 -670mm RHA, hull 580mm)
b) DM33 lost 20% it's capabilities to only 376mm RHA (guaranteed) 400(possible perforation) on 2000m and slighty more less distnace.
That this not change fact that APFSDS had greate chanse to missed ERA casette on turret.

BTW; 450mm RHA hull was able to perforate even by DM33A1 after K5 for distance lower then 1000m

While Leopard 2A4, Abrams were vulnerable. (...) At that time composite armour thickness eficciency was no higher than 70-80 % which given dimensions of hull, implies that tanks Leopard 2, Abrams could not be protected against Soviet projectiles.

Of course they could. BM42 had about 460mm RHA at 2000m. Leopard-2A4 hull IMHO was between 470 and 500mm RHA vs APFSDS. So Bm42 was slighty under. Only one problematic round was BM32 when 500mm RHA was avaible. So in fact whole 3BM22, 3BM26 was unable to perforate hull - and those rounds where most of the ammo suply in end of the 1980s.. 3Bm42 was able to perforate in distance UNDER 800-1000m and it was rare (start of production in 1986 en masse since 1989/1990...). 3BM32 was very rare.
And on the same time hull was protected against ale Kobra, Åšwir, and 90% ATGMs.
Turret in Leopad-2A4 was protected against those rounds enought.

Yes but it is just not possible for armour of such dimensions to give sufficient protection if it only consists of composite, which efficiency will not surpass 90 % of equivalence to RHA.

You don't understand that multi layers armour work in diffrent way. Image 10-14 NERA layers and after that 2-6 havy layers. Easier?
Burlinghton armour works in active way not passive!
In fact until 1994 all armour upgrade programs for Leopard-2 where done - (KWS program). For M1 even elier.

What is shown is plate with dimensions which do not correspond with employed in tank,

LoL U mad? 3cm thick NERA layers is thinner then on Leo-2A5-A7 turret wedges, and front hull, and exatly the same as on upper frotn hull in Strv.122 And dimension are correct becouse NERA works in modules ussaly smaller then ERA.

and test with optimum angle of incidence of 60 degrees from normal (Russian ERA is measured for 30 which is not optimum angle).

Are You idiot? For NERA and ERA optimum angle in 30 degrees from "ground level'! And it was confirmed in many reliable sources! 60. degree angle is maximum for most active working armour.

Problem with NERA is that they have worse thickness,

not true - 28mm thick NERA pannel is thinner then ERA bricks, even double NERA pannels on Leo-2A5-A7 (this wedges) is only 60-80mm thick - and check ERA modules on estern tank -how thick they are. Becouse single Kontakt casette have 13mm but need covered by thick metal plates. So whole cassette is thick ans NERA, and thicker then single NERA layer.
Example:
Single NERA layer - 28mm thick.
ERAWA-1 - 26mm thick

required space efficiency, to achieve similar performance,

???

and efficiency is general against cumulative rounds.

? and where is problem again?

So it is not possible with it to achieve protection against modern weapons for hull due to limitations in space, weight, efficiency.

What is bullshit becouse as I wrote - even if base hull in Leopard-2 protection is 470-500mm RHA vs KE and 650mm RHA vs CE (it can be bigger) then whit NERA addons (double on front hull for all Leo-2 mods) this hull can windstand HEAT warhed whit bigger then 1200mm RHA perforation, and APFSDS whit about 640mm RHA perforation.
So in fact most of all avaible now Russian weapons...




btw;
I forgot -rest about NERA;

 

[militarysta]

Interesting article:

andrei_bt - ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТЬ БРОНЕБОЙНЫХ ПОДКАЛИБЕРНЫХ И КУМУЛЯТИВНЫХ СНАРЯДОВ

Protection M1A1 is estimatous at:
vs KE - 500-550mm RHA
vs CE - 650 -700mm RHA

Whit give us reatio between both protection as 1:1,27.

To remember:
In this two greate articles about erly Burlinghton:
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf
We have some dates (with bibliography of course). In 1978 Burlinghton special armour had mass Efficiency like 1,5 vs APFSDS and 3 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel of the same weight.
So 1kg Burlinghton armour shoud offer protection like 1,5kg homogeneous steel armor vs APFSDs and 3kg homogeneous steel armor vs HEAT (of course it is only example).
But it;s not the poit.
Most important: In russian article are given values whit relatio 1:1,27, but in article about burlinghton we have some facts based on found documents in UK:
In middle 1970 there was dependence between protection against APFSDS and HEAT
430 and 585mm RHA (1 to 1,36), but Increased armour protection against HEAT to 850mm RHA resulted with a decrease in armour protection vs APFSDS to "only" 405mm (1 to 2.09)

So relatio in this article is incorrect when we consider knowed facts about burlinghton form middle 1970.
So there are two options for M1A2:
a) 1:1,36 ratio:
vs KE - 500-550mm RHA
vs CE - 680 -750mm RHA

b) 1: 2.09 ratio:
vs KE - 500-550mm RHA
vs CE -1050-1150mm RHA

IMHO first option is more possible (500-550 vs KE, 680-750 vs CE), and means that M1A1 was safe against 3BM42 on bigger then 600-800m distance, and against 3BM32 on bigger then 1000m distance. Fr the other side when we consider fact thats SC warhed must have +150mm RHA perforation more then armour level (to kill crew or ignit ammo) then M1A1 can widstand HEAT warhed with perforation at least 830-900mm RHA
Quite impressive when we consider that those estimatous and base on relatio for Burlinghton armour from decade earlier then M1A1....

In fact Leppard-2A4 armour can give protection not in 1:2.09 ratio but in 1:1.36 ratio. In that case it will be ex:
540mm RHA vs APFSDS and ~740mm vs HEAT
It's really interesting becouse in "orgins of the burlinghton" those ratio was given as
---------------------------------------------
From the other side: my own estimatous give
Leopard-2A3/4:
480-540mm RHA vs KE and 650-750mm vs CE*
and since 1986 for Leopard-2A4:
530-600mm RHA vs. KE and 720-820 vs CE*.

*values for CE are counted by ratio 1:1.36, but IMHO it's the lowest value - armour from circa 1985 just must be better then armour developed in 1978.. So it can be bigger value.

 

[Damian]

IMHO without complete documentation for discussed armor, all this play with RHA estimations is only guestimation, without any deeper sense.

Not to mention that even despite a fact that some documentation about Burlington is avaiable for wider public, there were so many versions and variations of this armor, that we do not know, up to this day, what variant was choosen by Americans, what variant was choosen by British, and what variant was basis for Germans and French for their own armor developments.

So in the end this play with RHA estimations will end as a "my dick is bigger than yours" crap...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

From a PDF..

But it was not mentioned that these other two rounds ( Longer Rods ) are in production ?

The basic Round as per info here is 500mm of RHA from 2000ms, Is it possible the longest one have like 650mm RHA from 2000ms..

 

[methos]

The ammunition there is experimental ammuntiion with segmented penetrator, all have shown a penetration depth below 500 mm in tests at unknown range (probably reduced charge tests to simulate 2 km range).

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/11441.pdf

 

[militarysta]

IMHO without complete documentation for discussed armor, all this play with RHA estimations is only guestimation, without any deeper sense.

Damian, it's partial true. They are at least two option to estimatous armour protection without "complete documentation".

 

[Damian]

Damian, it's partial true. They are at least two option to estimatous armour protection without "complete documentation".

You know the reasons I dislike RHA equivalent protection estimations when it comes to more advanced protection like composite armor or ERA. RHAe is just not very reliable, and estimations are based mostly at incomplete data and guess. Besides this some data are just misinformations, some are half truths, no single and sane army will provide anyone with more accurate data, so I prefer to be as far from this, as it is possible.

Besides this, such play with estimations, sooner or later transform as I said in to "my dick is bigger than yours" contest, and this is idiotic.

 

[hest]

Yes, but as I mentioned for T-72B it was 450mm RHA, for late T-72B(M) (in 1989) it was 500mm RHA - the same hull was used in T-90S without major changes. Maybe in T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) hull was again improved to this 530-550mm RHA (I doubt).
But until 1990 hull in T-72B and clones was under 500mm RHA.

You are still dodging main points.

Since 1985 Soviet tanks T-72B, T-80U/UD with Kontakt-5 had better protected hull than Western analogues, and protected against NATO APFSDS from most ranges, which means that given armour thickness and corresponding efficiency, it is not possible for just composite armour without ERA to give enought protection.

Leopard 2, Abrams hull armour thickness is around 600 mm. Before arguing, just answer, what ratio of thickness equivalence to protection in RHA you consider for 80s-90s composite armour ? It is just not possible to achieve more than 500 mm maximum.

It's bullshit for resons mentioned erlier.
1. Area coverated by ERA cassette have many gaps, so in fact for example T-90S (and T-72B(M)) most of the front turret is not coverated by ERA.
Draw for dummies:

In UVZ tanks APFSDS can easy hit turret without hit ERA casette, T-80U havn't sucht a fail.

2. Main armour in T-72B (470-540mm RHA turret, 450mm RHA hull) was slighty under DM33 (470*-530mm RHA for 2000m, for typical <1300m distance better). So it was able to perforate by DM33A1 and M829. What whores -in T-72B designe where serious flaws so even older DM23 was able to perforated those areas and hit this area whit chanse equal to P= ~0,45 for tank front.
*470mm RHA is given by polish WITU

3. After added Kontakt-5 situation was changed for only 4 yers - before M829A1/A2 and DM43 where developed.
But even if we consider two cases:
a) yours and K-5 added those +130mm (so turret has 600 -670mm RHA, hull 580mm)
b) DM33 lost 20% it's capabilities to only 376mm RHA (guaranteed) 400(possible perforation) on 2000m and slighty more less distnace.
That this not change fact that APFSDS had greate chanse to missed ERA casette on turret.

BTW; 450mm RHA hull was able to perforate even by DM33A1 after K5 for distance lower then 1000m

1 Without figures this amateur drawing has no value.

2 Anachronistic talk, given Kontakt-5 was deployed since 1986, so it does not play in favour for Western tanks with inferior protection, especially in late 80s with deployement of Soviet APFSDS with perofration level of up to 500 mm.

3 Protected parts of tanks T-80U/UD and T-72B (base protection, 500 mm) with Kontakt-5 had equivalence superior to 600 mm of RHA, more than any NATO APFSDS of that time.

Of course they could. BM42 had about 460mm RHA at 2000m. Leopard-2A4 hull IMHO was between 470 and 500mm RHA vs APFSDS. So Bm42 was slighty under. Only one problematic round was BM32 when 500mm RHA was avaible. So in fact whole 3BM22, 3BM26 was unable to perforate hull - and those rounds where most of the ammo suply in end of the 1980s.. 3Bm42 was able to perforate in distance UNDER 800-1000m and it was rare (start of production in 1986 en masse since 1989/1990...). 3BM32 was very rare.
And on the same time hull was protected against ale Kobra, Åšwir, and 90% ATGMs.
Turret in Leopad-2A4 was protected against those rounds enought.

It was not possible for thickness of maximum 600 mm to be enought protection at that time.

You don't understand that multi layers armour work in diffrent way. Image 10-14 NERA layers and after that 2-6 havy layers. Easier?
Burlinghton armour works in active way not passive!
In fact until 1994 all armour upgrade programs for Leopard-2 where done - (KWS program). For M1 even elier.

It is well known that composite armour was of semi-reactive kind (NERA).

LoL U mad? 3cm thick NERA layers is thinner then on Leo-2A5-A7 turret wedges, and front hull, and exatly the same as on upper frotn hull in Strv.122 And dimension are correct becouse NERA works in modules ussaly smaller then ERA.


Are You idiot? For NERA and ERA optimum angle in 30 degrees from "ground level'! And it was confirmed in many reliable sources! 60. degree angle is maximum for most active working armour.

For plate there is increment on effectiveness on dependance of angle, starting from 0 (no effectiveness.

You show tests with angle of 60 degrees from normal of NERA plate which is much better condition than test of Russian ERA with standart of 30 degrees from normal .

not true - 28mm thick NERA pannel is thinner then ERA bricks, even double NERA pannels on Leo-2A5-A7 (this wedges) is only 60-80mm thick - and check ERA modules on estern tank -how thick they are. Becouse single Kontakt casette have 13mm but need covered by thick metal plates. So whole cassette is thick ans NERA, and thicker then single NERA layer.
Example:
Single NERA layer - 28mm thick.
ERAWA-1 - 26mm thick


???

? and where is problem again?

Problem with NERA

- No such thing as universal effectiveness, less effective against APFSDS, so with ERA, no comparison.
- To provide analogous protection to conventional ERA as Kontakt, due to less interaction time of NERA (about half) it is required to increase dimensions.

What is bullshit becouse as I wrote - even if base hull in Leopard-2 protection is 470-500mm RHA vs KE and 650mm RHA vs CE (it can be bigger) then whit NERA addons (double on front hull for all Leo-2 mods) this hull can windstand HEAT warhed whit bigger then 1200mm RHA perforation, and APFSDS whit about 640mm RHA perforation.
So in fact most of all avaible now Russian weapons...

These figures are from nowhere.

btw;
I forgot -rest about NERA;

[/QUOTE]
So far only supports my point.

Analogous NERA plate, and conventional ERA:

- NERA interaction which is about half, needs to be from 60 degrees from normal (as in your test) to be compared with ERA plate from 30 degrees from normal.

 

[Damian]

You are still dodging main points.

Since 1985 Soviet tanks T-72B, T-80U/UD with Kontakt-5 had better protected hull than Western analogues, and protected against NATO APFSDS from most ranges, which means that given armour thickness and corresponding efficiency, it is not possible for just composite armour without ERA to give enought protection.

Leopard 2, Abrams hull armour thickness is around 600 mm. Before arguing, just answer, what ratio of thickness equivalence to protection in RHA you consider for 80s-90s composite armour ? It is just not possible to achieve more than 500 mm maximum.

No, You still do not understand the principles of modern composite armor working mechanism.

Overall thickness here does not matter really, but the space occupied by composite armor, that means how many layers are standing in the patch of the projectile.

Soviet composite armors were primitive compared to Burlington and it's further developments, this is pure fact. Besides this Soviet designers used the most idiotic front hull design they were able to choose... which later they tried to change in Object 187, but again some idiot decided to go with Object 188 as T-90.

Now, the front hull cavity of T-xx tanks, can hold approx 4 to 5 layers of composite armor.




As we can see, not much layers in the front hull cavity.



Let's compare with M1 Abrams. We have a ~650-700mm thick front hull composite armor cavity. Ok here I will play a bit with armor estimations. Let's say that You have right and there can be only ~500mm RHAe vs KE, but, behind composite armor cavity we have ~1,000m long cavity for fuel tanks.

Fuel tanks are composed from cavity bulkheads, fuel tank bulkheads with self sealing foam + fuel.

Sebastian Balos that is engineer posting on TankNet calculated that these fuel tanks should add at leas ~200mm RHAe vs KE and ~400mm RHAe vs CE.

What we know then?

The M1 series were completely invurnable to RPG-29 hits in to the lower front hull, we know that RPG-29 penetration capabilities are ~750mm RHA behind ERA, still unable to penetrate front hull armor.

Let's calculate then. This is pure estimation and guestimation mostly, do not read it as a reality but.

If we assume that on TankNet forum Sebastian Balos is right then.

M1 - Glacis Plate = 50mm, inclined at 82 degrees = ~300mm + ~200mm vs KE + 400mm vs CE (from fuel tanks) = 500mm vs KE, 700mm vs CE.
M1 - Lower Hull Front = ~650-700mm = ~500mm vs KE, >750-800mm vs CE + 200mm vs KE + 400mm vs CE (from fuel tanks) = 700mm vs KE, 1,150-1,200mm vs CE.

Preaty nice for something considered by our little propagandist Lidsky as "inferior" eh?

And this is not even based on my suspcisions but on Lidsky fantasy and calculations made by real engineer, mr Sebastian Balos from TankNet forums.

So I say, inferior design here are actually soviet tanks, not NATO ones. Especially that if we add ERA to NATO tanks, and we assume that estimation above is close to reality, we gain a superior protection.

1 Without figures this amateur drawing has no value.

2 Anachronistic talk, given Kontakt-5 was deployed since 1986, so it does not play in favour for Western tanks with inferior protection, especially in late 80s with deployement of Soviet APFSDS with perofration level of up to 500 mm.

3 Protected parts of tanks T-80U/UD and T-72B (base protection, 500 mm) with Kontakt-5 had equivalence superior to 600 mm of RHA, more than any NATO APFSDS of that time.

1) No Lidsky, only You as primitive form of life do not understand this.

2) Well as we can see, actually Soviet tanks have inferior protection here, even with Your "wunderarmor".

3) Well as we can see, NATO was capable to achieve similiar protection with a fuel tanks! It only shows how primitive is protection of tanks like T-72B or T-80U.

It was not possible for thickness of maximum 600 mm to be enought protection at that time.

As we can see, it was possible. As I said, it is amusing that Russians who don't have slightest idea, how composite armor works, and how different types of other materials can be used efficently to increase protection, try to fight with reality. I strongly recommend You to read about discoveries of Mr. Harvey and Israelis about protective properties of fuel and fuel tanks.

It is well known that composite armour was of semi-reactive kind (NERA).

Nothing semi reactive here, NERA is as reactive armor as ERA is, only using different mechanism.

Problem with NERA

- No such thing as universal effectiveness, less effective against APFSDS, so with ERA, no comparison.
- To provide analogous protection to conventional ERA as Kontakt, due to less interaction time of NERA (about half) it is required to increase dimensions.

Again You are completely not understanding what Militarysta is saying to You.

These figures are from nowhere.

Because when reality is against Your political views on superiority of Russians compared to other nations, then ---- reality yes? In civilized world we call this nationalism... or even rascism.

So far only supports my point.

Analogous NERA plate, and conventional ERA:

- NERA interaction which is about half, needs to be from 60 degrees from normal (as in your test) to be compared with ERA plate from 30 degrees from normal.

You still do not understand, nobody want to use a single NERA plate, but use several layers. You probably not even understand that for example newer Leopard 2's, hull and turret wedge shaped NERA armor, is not a single layer, but up to 3 layers.

 

[Damian]

Besides this, there is also another issue with fuel tanks, their internal structure. The funny thing is that Americans also keep under secret the internal structure of M1 series fuel tanks, why, these are only fuel tanks someone might say, well not exactly.

In UK Mr. Harvey, the man that stands behind Burlington armor, actually discovered it by an accident when he was working on how to make a fuel tanks a part of lighter vehicles protection. For example for Contentious light tank development program, it was planned to reinforce front hull protection by use of special fuel tanks.



Here is a drawing based on British documentation, that was used by Pawel Przezdziecki in one of his articles.

If we take in to consideration that fuel tanks development was close to the Burlington armor development, that Americans used fuel tanks intentionally as part of vehicle protection, and that they had full access to Burlington armor development program. It is very unlikely that the fuel tanks can have something more inside than only fuel.

Think about that.

So we not only have a protection of the armor itself, and a fuel tank (and especially fuel itself) here, but there is possibility that there is more armor encased inside a fuel tanks.

I must say it is a clever design, because You can add protection to the vehicle, in such way, that a potential enemy, will not realize that, and can actually underestimate protection of your vehicle.

 

[hest]

No, You still do not understand the principles of modern composite armor working mechanism.

Overall thickness here does not matter really, but the space occupied by composite armor, that means how many layers are standing in the patch of the projectile.

Soviet composite armors were primitive compared to Burlington and it's further developments, this is pure fact. Besides this Soviet designers used the most idiotic front hull design they were able to choose... which later they tried to change in Object 187, but again some idiot decided to go with Object 188 as T-90.

What matters is reflected protection of limited armour thickness.

Now, the front hull cavity of T-xx tanks, can hold approx 4 to 5 layers of composite armor.

As we can see, not much layers in the front hull cavity.

It is about 500 mm protection + ERA (for late 1980s).

Let's compare with M1 Abrams. We have a ~650-700mm thick front hull composite armor cavity. Ok here I will play a bit with armor estimations. Let's say that You have right and there can be only ~500mm RHAe vs KE, but, behind composite armor cavity we have ~1,000m long cavity for fuel tanks.

It is fact that it was not possible for such dimensions to give enought protection in late 80s, neither against today's projectiles.

And talk about overlap of secondary elements is not serious argument, not reliable, and with unfarovable consequences for tank.

M1 - Glacis Plate = 50mm, inclined at 82 degrees = ~300mm + ~200mm vs KE + 400mm vs CE (from fuel tanks) = 500mm vs KE, 700mm vs CE.
M1 - Lower Hull Front = ~650-700mm = ~500mm vs KE, >750-800mm vs CE + 200mm vs KE + 400mm vs CE (from fuel tanks) = 700mm vs KE, 1,150-1,200mm vs CE.

There were no problems with glacis plate in 80s, because it was designed to cause ricochet.

Hull front dimensions do not allow to provide sufficient protection.

Nothing semi reactive here, NERA is as reactive armor as ERA is, only using different mechanism.

Semi-reactive is term used for NERA.

You still do not understand, nobody want to use a single NERA plate, but use several layers. You probably not even understand that for example newer Leopard 2's, hull and turret wedge shaped NERA armor, is not a single layer, but up to 3 layers.

So what will this NERA provide according to you ?? How much improvement against modern weapons ?

 

[hest]

Update about tank modernisation:

Денис Мокрушин - Перевооружение 6-й танковой

It seems that T-72BA modernisation is no longer being performed, from now on UVZ will fulfill contract with T-72B2 model.