Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

What matters is reflected protection of limited armour thickness.

And NATO tanks are not worse here.

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

T-72B or T-80U/UD front hull could have problems with M829, if we belive in estimations of penetration levels of this amunition.

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.

1) Protection is sufficent for late 80's, besides this You still ignore a fact that armor was evolving in NATO whole the time.

Most estimations for basic M1 is based on informations for 1970's versions of Burlington, this means experimental phase where there was plenty of different versions. Nobody also knows what changes Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) done to the original Burlington design. In 1980's BRL tested that armor in two known for wide public versions, designated as BRL-1 and BRL-2. Nobody really knows anything about both, besides that BRL-2 offered superior protection.

2) Only for ignorant like You. Just admitt that You are here not for discussion but only to make an advertisement of obsolete Soviet and Russian technology, do You? So get the ---- out from here and back to russian language forums, most of them are silly and funny to read. When bunch of kids like You discuss there.

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.

1) Neither there is problem today.

2) To the contrary, hull front provides sufficent protection, more it provides better protection than for any soviet tank, especially the failed tanks made by UVZ.

Semi-reactive is term used for NERA.

Maybe in russian language countries. In western terminology it is a reactive armor as same as ERA, just like it's name says, it is non energetic reactive armor, there is also non explosive reactive armor, and of course explosive reactive armor, all 3 are reactive armors. Simple as that, and because this is english language forums, I will stick with english terminology and how it is understood in the west.

So what will this NERA provide according to you ?? How it is effective against modern APFSDS with > 700 mm penetration ?

It will decrease penetration, maybe it will stop penetrator, maybe not, maybe it will save the crew.

You see the basic flaw of Your mind is that You expect a direct answer to something that is classified. I know that You Russians or Belarussians have this idiotic habit to expect that everyone just like You is stupid enough to share such informations with whole world... well hello to the real world, nobody is as stupid as You or your chaps, that are spreading in the internet documents, photos, drawings of their own armor developments.

I'am actually amused with what I seen in Russia or Ukraine, unfortunetly instead of keep their vehicles protection as secret, they spread more and more informations about their protection, only to make them feel good and "better" than the rest of the world.

I don't know why, I hope Akim can explain this phenomen. I however suspect here that some people living in the ex soviet republics, that have some deeper feeling to the old soviet times, have some sort of inferiority complex and at all cost they want to proove something, that is completely irrelevant, and far from reality.

 

[hest]

And NATO tanks are not worse here.

Of course not, but it is not possible to achieve protection with such armour dimensions, especially efficiency of 80s composite.

T-72B or T-80U/UD front hull could have problems with M829, if we belive in estimations of penetration levels of this amunition.

With Kontakt-5 protection is well above penetration value from all effective ranges.

1) Protection is sufficent for late 80's, besides this You still ignore a fact that armor was evolving in NATO whole the time.

Most estimations for basic M1 is based on informations for 1970's versions of Burlington, this means experimental phase where there was plenty of different versions. Nobody also knows what changes Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) done to the original Burlington design. In 1980's BRL tested that armor in two known for wide public versions, designated as BRL-1 and BRL-2. Nobody really knows anything about both, besides that BRL-2 offered superior protection.

It is not possible, unless in 80s armour was same as today.

2) Only for ignorant like You. Just admitt that You are here not for discussion but only to make an advertisement of obsolete Soviet and Russian technology, do You? So get the ---- out from here and back to russian language forums, most of them are silly and funny to read. When bunch of kids like You discuss there.

Perhaps you should not answer with emotions, but with something valuable to thread.

1) Neither there is problem today.

2) To the contrary, hull front provides sufficent protection, more it provides better protection than for any soviet tank, especially the failed tanks made by UVZ.

1 There is because ricochet properties of modern ammunition have nothing to do with 80s.

2 It is simple to figure. Dimensions and protection equivalence, not possible.

Maybe in russian language countries. In western terminology it is a reactive armor as same as ERA, just like it's name says, it is non energetic reactive armor, there is also non explosive reactive armor, and of course explosive reactive armor, all 3 are reactive armors. Simple as that, and because this is english language forums, I will stick with english terminology and how it is understood in the west.

Well, I think it is valid, rather than confusive Western reactive term, to mark difference.

In general

Reactive: Use of resultant energy of armour due to reaction (explosive, etc) to counter projectile.
Semi-reactive: Use of energy of projectile (not of armour reaction) against it.

It will decrease penetration, maybe it will stop penetrator, maybe not, maybe it will save the crew.

You see the basic flaw of Your mind is that You expect a direct answer to something that is classified. I know that You Russians or Belarussians have this idiotic habit to expect that everyone just like You is stupid enough to share such informations with whole world... well hello to the real world, nobody is as stupid as You or your chaps, that are spreading in the internet documents, photos, drawings of their own armor developments.

So I should not expect rational answer, provided material, but baseless claims ?

 

[Damian]

Of course not, but it is not possible to achieve protection with such armour dimensions, especially efficiency of 80s composite.

NATO tanks are better, and You are making another mistake and flaw in You understanding reality. NATO composite armors, even of the 80's are not the same as Soviet composite armors. NATO use more advanced and more efficent composite armors. Do not use data for simpler and inferior soviet armors as a comparision data for something that have different structure, different number of layers and use different materials.

With Kontakt-5 protection is well above penetration value from all effective ranges.

Of course You have a data from tests to proove such bald statements. And I do not wan't here this silly NII Stali advertisement.

It is not possible, unless in 80s armour was same as today.

As I said, NATO armor of the 80's was far more advanced than soviet developments. In mid 1980's USA started to experiment with DU alloys encased in steel (question is what steel, definetly not RHA, most probably HHS or DHS at that time), and in 1988 replace Burlington with this new type of armor. While soviets are steel playing with primitive T-72B armor or T-80U/UD Cellural castings with polymer filler or Cermetal package.

Perhaps you should not answer with emotions, but with something valuable to thread.

I just like to be little sadist for silly fools like You, it makes me feel good. :cool2:

And I provide valuable informations, only You are unable to comprehend them.

1 There is because ricochet properties of modern ammunition have nothing to do with 80s.

2 It is simple to figure. Dimensions and protection equivalence, not possible.

1) And how You know that, did You actually worked with people that are creating this type of protection? Did You tested this armor? No, so STFU.

2) No it is not simple to figure, because soviet knwoledge about composite armors is years behind what NATO countries achieved.

Well, I think it is valid, rather than confusive Western reactive term, to mark difference.

In general

Reactive: Use of resultant energy of armour due to reaction (explosive, etc) to counter projectile.
Semi-reactive: Use of energy of projectile (not of armour reaction) against it.

This is semantic, for us all of them are reactive, and we do not give a shit about what soviet terminology says, You know why? Because soviets are not alpha and omega, You are not the smartest.

So I should not expect rational answer, provided material, but baseless claims ?

No, You should just shut up. Simply because any discussion with idiots like You, that have only attidute to proove that their nationality is best in everything is pointless.

Besides You expect that someone will provide You with whole documentation for armor protection of western tanks? There are people writing in the internet forums, that know such details, that are or were part of armor development programs, but this does not mean that they are idiots and will say something about it, especially to You.

I also seen photos of Leopard 2 composite armor after ballistic tests, and You think that I will post them in the internet and share this knowledge with You? Why should I?

 

[militarysta]

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

For front hull and especially turret is no whorse then heavy ERA in russian tanks.
For front hull in Leopard-2Ex version (KWS Maxmum) there are at least two NERA layers for upper front hull and lower front hull. Upper glastic plate consist one NERA layer but angeled at ~10 degree. Those wedges on turret front have two layers for upper part and two layers for lower part. Inside left module there are two NERA triangle modules placed inside, inside right module - one. In fact HEAT jet or penetrator must overcome 2-3 NERA layers befor hit turret, and 2 before hit front hull.

For one NEAR layer HEAT warhed lost more then 35% for two NERA layers - more then 90%. And wedges NERA module was tested on HOT-3 warhed and simmilar - whit precursor. Propably even Kornet and Chriznatiem will not be able to perforate those armour after 2-3 layers of NERA.
APFSDS lost on one layer more then 15%. So for at leats two layers it will be how mucht? Propably more then 25%.
In fact Leopard-2A5-A6 protection with those NERA modules on turret and hull is biger then in most tanks.
Nacked turret for late 2A4 can windstand APFSDS whit perforation up to 650mm RHA. Tested turrets for Greece widstand 18 shots by CL322 (600-650mm RHA). When we add NERA protection ten turret can deal with APFSDS whit bigger then 800mm RHA perforation. So in fact ony DM53 L-55 and M829A3.

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.

Lindsky -you are completly wrong!
30 degrees always will be better for all active working NERA, ERA, SLERA armour due to doubled thickness for RHA plates and explosive layers (or energetic) inside armour/cassette. On 30 degree atacking jet or penetrator must overcome:
a) doubled thickness for all ERA/NERA/SLERA compnents
b) longer interaction between penetrator/jet and moving metal plates in armour
c) bigger chanse to bent projectile so mucht that it will be unable to overcome main armour (skewing the target)

And tell my why for all known ERA test perforamces and CP for 30 degree are better then for 60 degree? That what You try to calim is in obvious contradictions to all known ERA test.

These figures are from nowhere.

They are really true And logical. It's not my fault that you can't stand that other tanks can have better main armour then in Soviet union/Russia.
NERA can reduce APFSDS for about 15-25%
NERA can reduce single SC for more then 90% and propably double SC for at least half. And we should remember about minimum 150mm RHA perforation up to armour level - required for effective destroy target by HEAT.
So even if this armour is 470mm vs APFSDS and 650mm vs HEAT (1: 1,36) then whit NERA ad-on armour it can survive APFSDS whit more then 600-640mm RHA (25%) and HEAT whit more then 1200mm RHA . Even if double NERA reduce double SC perforation for only 40% (very underestimated value) then SC warhed had still 720mm RHA (before NERA 1200mm) and -150mm RHA (minimum needed perforation value more then armour level to kill tank) give us only 600mm RHA so less then front hull protection.
So those figures are really possible. And I rather underestimated value then overestimated.

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.[/quote
1. Of course that NERA are less efective vs APFSDS, but in the same time it's at least the same efective against HEAT.
2. Opposite to ERA - NERA have longer interaction whit target, what gives better efectivness vs double SC warhed.

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

Yes, and we had paradocs when heavy soviet turrets whit mostly cast steel armour and primitive insert had simmiar value vs KE as lighter and mucht modern burlinghton style armour. But in soviet tanks it was thanks to using more then 60% thickenss pasive cast steel and RHA plate layers, and in westrern tnaks due to using more then 60% active light layers, and only less then 40% pasive layers - but not including only RHA plates and cast steel (like in soviet union) but ceramics, kevlar and others. So in fact more spohisticated protection.
When we can said about simmilar performances vs KE for T-80U whit Kontakt-5 and nacked Leopard-2A4 turret (or Leopard-2A3/erly A4 turret and T-72B turret) then the situation was quite different agains HEAT warhed. On literature two options are know for erly burlinghton from 1978 for relatio between protection against KE and CE
first: 1:1,36
second: 1: 2,09
In both options turret for M1A1 and Leopard2A3/A4(erly) will be have more vs HEAT then russian turrets.
After added Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5 some kind of ballance where done, but ERA on those times where not resistant agaisnt double SC warhed -especially like in HOT-3. And Buinghton was
More or less you can choose relatio between KE and CE for those two given ratio- it's confirmed by found documents.
So if Leopard-2A3/4 had 480-540mm RHA vs KE and since 1986 Leopard-2A4 had 530-600mm RHA vs. KE then you have values vs CE like 1:36 or 2:09 then first value. In both cases more then for soviet tanks.

It was not possible for thickness of maximum 600 mm to be enought protection at that time.[/quot]
Well -it was.

Without figures this amateur drawing has no value.

This " amateur drawing" is made better then most draws on btvt or in ViT or other Russian sources - it's simple - part coverated by ERA - green; not coverated - red. And resut clearly visible - most of frontal T-72 clones area where not protected by ERA! And ist obious and easy to see. And it's not my foult that T-72B(M) and T-90S had pathetic coverated by ERA front whit huge zones without any ERA. T-80U was far far better here.
In fact NATO round had greate chanse to hit T-72BM (and T-90S) turret in parts without ERA. And when I really dislike Andriej Tarasenko then in that part He have right - ERA cover on T-72 is pathetic and full of gaps.

Anachronistic talk, .

It was from soviet tank forces biulettyn. So in fact even for Dm23 chanse to perforate weak zones was equal to P= ~0,45

so it does not play in favour for Western tanks with inferior protection,

superior protection you would like to wrote.

specially in late 80s with deployement of Soviet APFSDS with perofration level of up to 500 mm

yyy only BM32 had 500mm RHA for 2000m but it was very rare round. BM42 had 460mm RHA.

Since 1985 Soviet tanks T-72B, T-80U/UD with Kontakt-5 had better protected hull than Western analogues

Main armour in those tanks was primitive in compare to western burlinghton. Simple compilation steel, RHA and glass textolite. Since 1989 two NERA layers inside hull -separated by RHA plate.
And Ob.184 whit Kontakt-5 ERA was introduce int sevice in 1988 so don't lie and T-80U with erly Kontakt-5 in 1986. Both tanks in bigger numbers entire service in...1989/1990 and 1988. In those years improved 2A4 Leopard was in service and M1A1IP.

and protected against NATO APFSDS from most ranges,

For T-72B whit Kontakt-5 betwen 1988 and 1991 - yeeh whole 3 years, and when we consider bige gaps without ERA then those tanks whas fully susceptible to DM33 and M829...
The only one good protected and trully danger tanks was T-80U.

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

Go back and read about burlighton And as I said 500mm vs KE was enought due to Soviet ammo - when only popular round was 3BM26, 3BM42 was about 460mm and only 3BM32 can achive 500mm RHA -bu it was really rare round.
And as I said Leopard-2A4 had 470-500mm RHA on front hull, abrams - slighty more.

 

[Damian]

And Ob.184 whit Kontakt-5 ERA was introduce int sevice in 1988 so don't lie and T-80U with erly Kontakt-5 in 1986. Both tanks in bigger numbers entire service in...1989/1990 and 1988. In those years improved 2A4 Leopard was in service and M1A1IP.

You want to say M1A1HA. Besides this, there is actually not very well known fact that there were also different series of M1A1HA, th early ones from 1988-1989 period, and later ones from 1990-1993 period with upgraded protection, that was also used in M1A1HC and M1A2. So probably the late production M1A1HA's are these tanks unofficialy designated M1A1HA+. But most probably due to semi-modular nature of western composite armors, as soon as it was possible, all older M1A1's and M1A1HA's recived new armor.

In 1991 during ODS, in Saudi Arabia, most tanks sended there from USA were basic M1A1's, allmost all of them were upgraded in field workshops with new Heavy Armor package, this was probably the 2nd generation Heavy Armor package, because in 1990-1991 USMC recived first M1A1HC's, so armor production most probably switched then to the new armor.

So to the mid/late 1990's USA had approx 5,569 tanks that can be called M1A1HA and it's derivatives. However there is still big problem to estimate the numbers of actually manufactured subvariants of the M1A1, the only known numbers of M1A1 series ubvariants manufactured are known for basic M1A1 (1985-1988) and first M1A1HA (1988-1990), for later production batches, it seems that no one tried to made proper research and documentation.

The only one good protected and trully danger tanks was T-80U.

And not many of them in 1980's, there was even less more advanced T-80UD's back then. in the late 1980's to early 1990's only approx ~500 T-80UD's were manufactured, and probably slightly more T-80U's.

 

[Damian]

On Alexei Khlopotov blog, in one post we could observe photos from currently performing military exhibition in Africa. And there is a very uniqe tank there.

Nothing special on the first look, seem to be upgraded T-72...

We can see a typical for T-72 series commander cupola with manually operated machine gun.

But something is not right there....

Look at the turret, it is not cast, typical for T-72B/T-90, but welded like in T-90A.

There are two options, or this is simplified T-90A/T-90S, or we have here a new modernization for T-72B, perhaps this is T-72B2?

This makes sense, cast turrets are not manufactured anymore, and two improve characteristics of tanks protection, the best option is to use production line for T-90A turrets, which reduce costs and give capability to achieve more commonality.

Either way, interesting.

 

[Damian]

One more thing.

After a closer look it seems that turret is not nececary welded. I don't know, from the side look it have some similarities with welded turret, but from the front it seems to be closer in shape to cast turret... Problematic to not be confused when Nagidka is mounted on a tank.

In the end Wiedzmin from OTVAGA forums solved the problem, turret is cast.

My mistake then.

 

[methos]

Regarding the glacis/hull armour discussion: I think Lidsky M.D. is right: The T-90 with Kontakt-5 or Relikt should have higher glacis/hull protection than the average Western tank (i.e. not vehicles fitted with heavy applique like the Strv 122). But that is just the result of some careful estimation of performance based on known layouts, thickness and weight efficiency.
Still Kontakt-5 coverage is rather low and might not be enough against the latest APFSDS.

 

[Damian]

But this is comparing uncomparable. Nobody said that glacis per se have higher protection. Hull front itself in western tanks have higer protection. Simply because as I said there is more layers of composite armor in the beak part of the hull + western composite armor is more advanced than soviet one, this is a well known fact. Also in case of M1 we have additional protection from the front hull fuel tanks.

And as You said, on Strv122 example, there is no problem with placing additional armor on the glacis plate.

It is complete misunderstanding of two different concepts.

Russian/Ukrainians (Soviets) as a main front hull armor used glacis plate. This is not the best way to make a vehicle protection, neither is good for crew. Just look how driver sits there, incredibly uncomfortable, makes driver more fatigued, less effective, and hull is unnececary higher.

Same hull shape was known in the west for a long time, as long as in Soviet Union, and the problems with it were perfectly known, so someone briliant in UK get an idea why not to change the hull profile and not shift front hull protection from the glacis plate to the front hull armor part known as "beak armor".

This gave several profits.

1) Hull is lower.
2) Driver sits in more comfortable position, is less fatigued and more efficent.
3) Front hull beak gives more space form more layers of composite layers.

Besides this, western hull design is safer in case where tank is hit and armor perforated. Driver have more chances to get out, because gun is not so low over his hatch, it is also safer in a peace time if there is accident when turret and gun lock fails.

We had such incident in Poland, driver head was literally squashed by turret and main gun barrel when a travel lock failed. Such accident is less likely in western designs.

Besides this, in my country we had really a good material to compare which tank design school was overall better, soviet or western, the general opinion is that western school was better.

But of course Lidsky can come to my country, go to 10th Armored Cavalry Brigade and try to say tankers that had opprotunity to serve on soviet made equipment to serve on it again instead on western tanks... I doubt he would get back alive from there.

Of course our army and our designers had many more problems with soviet made tanks, especially with their allmost non existing capability for any logical modernization without actually building completely new vehicle. Another flaw of a philosophy where tank have low service life expectations.

 

[methos]

But this is comparing uncomparable. Nobody said that glacis per se have higher protection. Hull front itself in western tanks have higer protection. Simply because as I said there is more layers of composite armor in the beak part of the hull + western composite armor is more advanced than soviet one, this is a well known fact. Also in case of M1 we have additional protection from the front hull fuel tanks.

More advanced does not mean better protected. T-90 glacis is said to be 235 mm at 68.5° (or 68°). This will be 620 to 640 mm thick composite armour, and this is about the same as on M1 and Leopard 2. But the Russian armour weighs more than a 500 mm steel plate, if Fofanov's description is correct. How much does the hull armour of the Leopard 2 or the M1 weigh? Any idea? I believe that it is less, based on weight/thickness ratio of (early) Burlington and other materials.
Fofanov wrote that the 60 mm steel layer replacing together with the NERA layers the former GRP layer is hardened steel, so probably SHS or HHS. The outer layer of the steel armour is also SHS or HHS. If they use SHS or HHS 600+ mm RHAe vs KE is possible, simply because of the huge weight. Add Kontakt-5 or Relikt and the T-90 is reasonable armoured against most type of APFSDS. Against shaped charges the T-90 armour is not very efficient. Two paralell layers NERA and a rather thick block steel will not be enough to stop modern ATGMs, especially such with tandem charge... but with ERA the T-90 is reasonable protected against ATGMs. Maybe not as good as Western turrets, but still not really worse than the hull armour in my opinion.

Russian/Ukrainians (Soviets) as a main front hull armor used glacis plate. This is not the best way to make a vehicle protection, neither is good for crew. Just look how driver sits there, incredibly uncomfortable, makes driver more fatigued, less effective, and hull is unnececary higher.

Yes, but they could simply move the driver's sight behind the glacis. About comfortability - I can only say that various former East German tankers claim that the T-72 was comfortable in their opinion, but I don't know if they also claim that for the driver's station. Hull is high? The hull is not higher than that of a Leopard 2 or M1. In the current form the driver's sight placement is a weak spot, but other tanks (e.g. Challenger) don't have a better solution... and a direct hit at the driver's sights will also lead to penetration with a highly sloped glacis (like on Leopard 2 or M1).

 

[Damian]

T-90 glacis is said to be 235 mm at 68.5° (or 68°). This will be 620 to 640 mm thick composite armour, and this is about the same as on M1 and Leopard 2. But the Russian armour weighs more than a 500 mm steel plate, if Fofanov's description is correct. How much does the hull armour of the Leopard 2 or the M1 weigh? Any idea? I believe that it is less, based on weight/thickness ratio of (early) Burlington and other materials.

If Fofanov description is correct, I know that many statements in his site or old TankNet posts are currently viewed by him as incorrect, this is first thing.

Second is that we do not know much about Burlington armor variants used in Leopard 2 and M1, neither we should ignore a fact that they were evolving whole the time and their weight was significantly increasing during tanks production and modernization.

So I would be carefull with all these maths without complete data.

Fofanov wrote that the 60 mm steel layer replacing together with the NERA layers the former GRP layer is hardened steel, so probably SHS or HHS. The outer layer of the steel armour is also SHS or HHS. If they use SHS or HHS 600+ mm RHAe vs KE is possible, simply because of the huge weight.

Russians use only SHS, as it is written in many russian language sources that are not in favour with UVZ, that Russians use only "medium hardness steel".

The outer layer of the steel armour is also SHS or HHS. If they use SHS or HHS 600+ mm RHAe vs KE is possible, simply because of the huge weight.

You forget about the basic weakness of their armor design, very thin and weak backplate for the whole armor package. This is completely opposite to the NATO idea.

SU = layers from the thickest to the thinnest.
NATO = from the thinnest to the thickest.

Without a strong backplate, even if the composite armor package will work properly, it is possible that projectile will go through.

Add Kontakt-5 or Relikt and the T-90 is reasonable armoured against most type of APFSDS.

This type of ERA is only efficent against most wide spread and mostly obsolete by today standards munitions.

Against shaped charges the T-90 armour is not very efficient. Two paralell layers NERA and a rather thick block steel will not be enough to stop modern ATGMs, especially such with tandem charge... but with ERA the T-90 is reasonable protected against ATGMs. Maybe not as good as Western turrets, but still not really worse than the hull armour in my opinion.

It is not known, but I would not make bet for their design solution really.

Yes, but they could simply move the driver's sight behind the glacis. About comfortability - I can only say that various former East German tankers claim that the T-72 was comfortable in their opinion, but I don't know if they also claim that for the driver's station. Hull is high? The hull is not higher than that of a Leopard 2 or M1. In the current form the driver's sight placement is a weak spot, but other tanks (e.g. Challenger) don't have a better solution... and a direct hit at the driver's sights will also lead to penetration with a highly sloped glacis (like on Leopard 2 or M1).

Our tankers that were serving on both T-72 and Leopard 2, did not have very good opinion about T-72 series comfort when they had something to compare (Leopard 2).

As for hull, yes hull is high in itself, but not in overall tank height, it is just that from what I know, T-XX tanks have a bit smaller space between the belly (especially under driver station) and the ground. So the difference might not be much but it is there.

As for glacis design, of course that currently there is no perfect solution, it is avaiable, more for western tanks do to their hull design better suited for this design solution.

I have idea how to achieve this, but because I do not have a talent to make drawings, I can't show it unfortunetly. Well there are actually several options that are possible to be used.

The only Soviet tank that could use these options was Object 187, that have "westernish" hull design.

But one of my ideas is fully aplicable to currently used M1 hull design, and thickness at 82 degrees increases significantly.

 

[Damian]

This is a very simplified drawing of one of my ideas. Of course it would demand a full research and development program, and probably several other changes, but as we can see, there is further armor protection increase potential in the hull design, much greater in my opinion than in soviet style hull front armor design.

I will try to experiment more with this solution, perhaps there is a way to move a space for hatch a bit more toward hull beak, so driver vision blocks can be placed in the hull top, thus making hatch more flat, and when opened it won't make any problems with turret traverse.

 

[hest]

Soviet tanks' hull armour, for example, T-72B consisted of 6 layered configuration with elements composed by high hardness steel, which later was improved with addition of Semi-reactive or NERA elements.

Such armour would give significantly better performance against APFSDS rounds due to utilisation of densier composition (steel) than composite armour cavity with worse efficiency per thickness.

Of course on Western tanks, justification of such armour as Burlington, is weight reduction and needed protection against cumulative jets. Contemporary Soviet tanks had no necessity to use such configuration due to utilisation of ERA.

 

[hest]

German MBT-70 tank with ERA, early 80s

And some ERA developement history (in russian)

http://vpk.name/news/75748_nash_otvet_bleizeru.html

 

[Damian]

Soviet tanks' hull armour, for example, T-72B consisted of 6 layered configuration with elements composed by high hardness steel, which later was improved with addition of Semi-reactive or NERA elements.

Such armour would give significantly better performance against APFSDS rounds due to utilisation of densier composition (steel) than composite armour cavity with worse efficiency per thickness.

Burlington also is using NERA array with SHS, HHS, DHS or THS (depending on variant) steel plates.

Of course on Western tanks, justification of such armour as Burlington, is weight reduction and needed protection against cumulative jets. Contemporary Soviet tanks had no necessity to use such configuration due to utilisation of ERA.

No, as I said above, You know nothing about Burlington, neither other western composite armors.

ERA do not add any significant protection against shaped charge weapons, especially tandem warheads, especially obsolete Russian ERA like 4S22 Kontakt-5 and 4S23 Relikt.

German MBT-70 tank with ERA, early 80s

This is not ERA You fool, again You shows a complete lack of knowledge about western designs. These "ERA" cassettes are just steel plates welded to turret as weight simulators for armor package not installed on a tank.

Lidsky "person with a great knowledge about tanks"!

As a side note, in the 1980's Americans had their own ERA, similiar to Kontakt-1.

History of this ERA is interesting, it was originally developed for M60A3 tanks for the US Army, but when US Army started to recive M1 tanks, they decided to use funds for more M1's instead of up armoring M60A3's that were seen as obsolete. However the USMC that had lower funds and it was scheduled to recive M1's later (in 1990's), decided to purchase ERA kits and install them on their M60A1's.

So USMC M60A1's used in the Gulf War, had these ERA kits.

What is important, if there would be a problem with protection based only on Burlington when it comes to M1 series, then US Army would definetly use ERA they have and take the same approach as the soviets.

There were however no problems with the Burlington armor, and it's continous development resulted in stronger and stronger composite armor that didn't need ERA, and provided universal and efficent protection against both APFSDS threats and HEAT threats.

 

[Damian]

BTW. One more thing about the armor weight, do not be so sure that it is not a dense and rather heavy protection. I seen a photos from Leopard 2 armor array tests, armor array definetly didn't look to be not dense and made from "cardboard" as some people tend to think.

Here is one of possible Burlington armor variants during ballistic tests. Despite multiple hits, array is still in one piece, there is also no indication that armor was perforated and it seems that it was hit by kinetic energy ammunition.

It is however not nececary that this particular variant was used on any tank.

Also because of this variety of Burlington variants, it is immposible to say anything about protection values.

Any statements like these of Lidsky, are nothing more than a fantasy.

Another better photo of discussed MBT-70, we can see not only welded steel plates and blocks to the turret as weight simulators, but also on the hull front.

Lidsky, instead of relying on inaccurate (mostly fantasies) russian language sources, better save some money and purchase good books of respected western authors, like Richard Hunnicutt, Rob Griffin etc.

Maybe then You will stop to spread fantasies about western tanks.

 

[hest]

Burlington also is using NERA array with SHS, HHS, DHS or THS (depending on variant) steel plates.

Such configuration will not surpass steel per thickness efficiency.

No, as I said above, You know nothing about Burlington, neither other western composite armors.

ERA do not add any significant protection against shaped charge weapons, especially tandem warheads, especially obsolete Russian ERA like 4S22 Kontakt-5 and 4S23 Relikt.

There is no counterpart for ERA as of added protection, it made even old tanks inmune against all NATO cumulative projectiles. Even Kontakt-1 in 1985 reduced performance in more than 400 mm for angle of incidence of 30 degrees from normal.

Today ATGMS are useless against modern ERA especially front...

This is not ERA You fool, again You shows a complete lack of knowledge about western designs. These "ERA" cassettes are just steel plates welded to turret as weight simulators for armor package not installed on a tank.

Lidsky "person with a great knowledge about tanks"!

According to article, it is clearly ERA.

You can show the opposite ?

As a side note, in the 1980's Americans had their own ERA, similiar to Kontakt-1.

History of this ERA is interesting, it was originally developed for M60A3 tanks for the US Army, but when US Army started to recive M1 tanks, they decided to use funds for more M1's instead of up armoring M60A3's that were seen as obsolete. However the USMC that had lower funds and it was scheduled to recive M1's later (in 1990's), decided to purchase ERA kits and install them on their M60A1's.

So USMC M60A1's used in the Gulf War, had these ERA kits.

Yes, this ERA is well known for Soviet developers, and covered in many articles.

What is important, if there would be a problem with protection based only on Burlington when it comes to M1 series, then US Army would definetly use ERA they have and take the same approach as the soviets.

In fact Soviet developers always expected them to adopt ERA and another active protectiction means, which did not happen...

But they use ERA which is only way to protect weak hull and turret side

But use of such simple ERA on current times will not have significant implications, apart from increased weight.

There were however no problems with the Burlington armor, and it's continous development resulted in stronger and stronger composite armor that didn't need ERA, and provided universal and efficent protection against both APFSDS threats and HEAT threats.

It improves, but composite in thickness, will not surpass steel efficiency.

 

[Damian]

Such configuration will not surpass steel per thickness efficiency.

Oh, You made a proper tests on this armor to make such statements? Or this is again based on irrelevant soviet research on their less advanced composite protection?

There is no counterpart for ERA as of added protection, it made even old tanks inmune against all NATO cumulative projectiles. Even Kontakt-1 in 1985 reduced performance in more than 400 mm for angle of incidence of 30 degrees from normal.

Today ATGMS are useless against modern ERA especially front...

Of course, but only modern ERA made in former soviet union are Knife and Dublet, not obsolete Relikt.

According to article, it is clearly ERA.

You can show the opposite ?

This article is useless BS. MBT/KPz-70 protection was only spaced armor. If this is a knowledge of Russians about western armor, then their knowledge is less than 0.

In fact Soviet developers always expected them to adopt ERA and another active protectiction means, which did not happen...

But they use ERA which is only way to protect weak hull and turret side

But use of such simple ERA on current times will not have significant implications, apart from increased weight.

NATO do not need ERA to protect front of their tanks, composite armor is strong enough there.

Side armor is more problematic due to size restrictions (tank can't be too wide). This is why ERA or modular composite addon armors are used. But for frontal armor, there is no need, protection there is efficent with composite armor only.

As for this type of ERA, it is not that simple as You think, it is a multilayer ERA, not a simple single or double layer like Kontakt-1.

It improves, but composite in thickness, will not surpass steel efficiency.

Maybe less advanced Russian composite armors do not, West long time ago surpassed You in military science and technology. When You are still playing with primitive steel and ERA, west is moving towards advanced armors developed with nanotechnology... but You can delude yourself further and think You are some sort of superpower.

 

[Damian]

As for "ERA" on MBT/KPz-70.



Source is one of the best boosk about AFV's development and history. Richard Hunnicutt Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank volume 2.

This shows how much worth are Lidsky sources.

 

[hest]

Oh, You made a proper tests on this armor to make such statements? Or this is again based on irrelevant soviet research on their less advanced composite protection?

No, because Western composite armour is more primitive...

This is how you sound

Of course, but only modern ERA made in former soviet union are Knife and Dublet, not obsolete Relikt.

I see all your knwoledge and arguments.

This article is useless BS. MBT/KPz-70 protection was only spaced armor. If this is a knowledge of Russians about western armor, then their knowledge is less than 0.

Maybe, but you will show ?

It may well be Western ERA

NATO do not need ERA to protect front of their tanks, composite armor is strong enough there.

Back on that time such composite armour was adopted to achieve better weight characteristics, and improve efficiency against fast increasing cumulative performance. But efficiency against APFSDS cannot be more than steel. In fact in 80s it was in the order of 70-80% efficiency per thickness.

Side armor is more problematic due to size restrictions (tank can't be too wide). This is why ERA or modular composite addon armors are used. But for frontal armor, there is no need, protection there is efficent with composite armor only.

In fact it is not enough due to composite armour limitation, and thickness.

Thus adoption of additional armour in modern tanks, as Leopard 2A6

As for this type of ERA, it is not that simple as You think, it is a multilayer ERA, not a simple single or double layer like Kontakt-1.

It is conventional ERA.

Maybe less advanced Russian composite armors do not, West long time ago surpassed You in military science and technology. When You are still playing with primitive steel and ERA, west is moving towards advanced armors developed with nanotechnology... but You can delude yourself further and think You are some sort of superpower.

So I understand I should not expect serious reply.