Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

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.

All right then.

 

[Damian]

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

This is how you sound

To the contrary. Simple analize of composite armor design and materials used is enough to say something about it.

Let's take some examples.

T-72B turret armor, what is is? A several spaced layers of simple NERA armor, made from simple steel (RHA) and rubber... and that's all.

What we know about western composite armors? The overall design is similiar, a NERA array but... the key are materials.

And they varies from RHA, SHS, HHS, DHS, THS steel types to Titanium, polymers (for example poliurethane) and heavy metal alloys like Tungsten or Depleted Uranium encased between one of the previously mentioned types of armored steel.

Western armors are more advanced.

I see all your knwoledge and arguments.

This is a simple fact. A linear shaped charge will be more efficent against any type of projectile than a plate type ERA, simple as that.

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.

You do not know this. If You belive in official statements, then You are very naive. All of that, especially what was told about Burlington in the west was a simple disinformation to confuse soviets... and it succeed as I can see. In the same time teams like British BRIXMIS just send their agents that were making photos, messurements of soviet tanks, and they even actually stole a full documentation of Combination K armor.

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

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

Only because Germans done that this way, does not mean other didn't find different solution.

You seems to belive that there is only one, single rightfull way to improve vehicle protection, which is not smart.

It is conventional ERA.

No, multilayer ERA, did You even seen it's internal structure, fool?

So I understand I should not expect serious reply.

This is serious answer, as it is truth, reality, just deal with it.

 

[hest]

On the matter of ATGM against conventional reactive armour

It is aknowledged from earlier discussion of Javelin, Spike against modern turret top with Relikt elements, than in case of interaction starting from 30 degrees from normal, given severe reduction in performance of atleast 600 mm to main warhead, and 70-100 mm armour (from angle) it will not be capable to neutralise tank.

Another known fact, angle of incidence between 0 to 30 degrees from plate normal is dangerous for tandem warhead configuration.

When about half of missile is projected on ERA surface, detonation and action of plate on missile will result in destruction of critical internal components as cumulative jet channel, or damage to still inactive main warhead resulting in important reduction of performance in the order of 60 %. Another situation is destruction of main warhead without initiation.

This effect is described on scheme

 

[Damian]

On the matter of ATGM against conventional reactive armour

It is aknowledged from earlier discussion of Javelin, Spike against modern turret top with Relikt elements, than in case of interaction starting from 30 degrees from normal, given severe reduction in performance of atleast 600 mm to main warhead, and 70-100 mm armour (from angle) it will not be capable to neutralise tank.

Another known fact, angle of incidence between 0 to 30 degrees from plate normal is dangerous for tandem warhead configuration.

When about half of missile is projected on ERA surface, detonation and action of plate on missile will result in destruction of critical internal components as cumulative jet channel, or damage to still inactive main warhead resulting in important reduction of performance in the order of 60 %. Another situation is destruction of main warhead without initiation.

This effect is described on scheme

If only there would be any hard proof, like photos from actuall tests...

The best thing is that west tested Russian and Ukrainian ERA, also against top attack missiles like Javelin... and of course Lidsky still will post some drawings, but without any hard proof, only theory, and as experience teach us, theory is many times far from reality.

Russians used similiar theory about ammunition storage in their tanks... which in the end and real world, prooved to be in efficent and dangerous.

 

[hest]

To the contrary. Simple analize of composite armor design and materials used is enough to say something about it.

Let's take some examples.

T-72B turret armor, what is is? A several spaced layers of simple NERA armor, made from simple steel (RHA) and rubber... and that's all.

It is ignorant statement made with no understanding on working method and performance.

In fact there is no thing as more advanced.

This configuration is of higher density, higher amount of steel in composite designed to retain significant performance against APFSDS, and improve protection against cumulative jet.

Different configuration with numerous layers of different material with overall less density would result on increased cumulative protection. But there was no argument to use such design. On western tanks composite block as requirement needs to give higher cumulative protection, but it is sacrifice.

What we know about western composite armors? The overall design is similiar, a NERA array but... the key are materials.

And they varies from RHA, SHS, HHS, DHS, THS steel types to Titanium, polymers (for example poliurethane) and heavy metal alloys like Tungsten or Depleted Uranium encased between one of the previously mentioned types of armored steel.

Western armors are more advanced.

Such layer design and use of encased heavy metal is aimed mainly to improve cumulative protection. But while there may be need of such requirement for Western tanks, Soviet with available ERA had no such need, and retained more efficient design against APFSDS to achieve truly universal protection.

This is a simple fact. A linear shaped charge will be more efficent against any type of projectile than a plate type ERA, simple as that.

It all depends on situation. But advanced ERA based on plate interaction provides protection against most or all weapons, be it APFSDS or tandem warheads as figures show.

You do not know this. If You belive in official statements, then You are very naive. All of that, especially what was told about Burlington in the west was a simple disinformation to confuse soviets... and it succeed as I can see. In the same time teams like British BRIXMIS just send their agents that were making photos, messurements of soviet tanks, and they even actually stole a full documentation of Combination K armor.

Only you believe in all those figures which your friends state, even though there is nothing significantly special.

Only because Germans done that this way, does not mean other didn't find different solution.

Everybody did in that way, because composite block by itself cannot be sufficient.

There are different solutions, but it is aknowledged that it is not possible to achieve just by composite armour.

No, multilayer ERA, did You even seen it's internal structure, fool?

Yes, and ??

 

[methos]

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.

Not all his statements. That the late T-72B armour looks like described by him is known, because images of the T-72S production shows this armour array.

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.

Just because we don't know the variant used it is not impenetratable. If 55 - 65 cm Burlington armour would be enough to deal with all weapons, then why are the turrets having 75+ cm thick armour? ERA (or heavy NERA) is a force mulitplier not used on NATO tanks because of other reason than protection increase. If the armour utilizes NERA layers, then there has to be a reasonable amount of empty space (in T-72B the empty space has the thickness of NERA layers and is still considered too less) - if the NERA layers are aligned at different angles (which will lead to better performance), then the empty space has to be even greater (probably some 4 times the layer thickness at least). If the armour contains ballistic liners or ceramic armour, then there is a low density material with very small protection capability (kevlar or polymer). Burlington composite armour is not known for being very effective per thickness.
Weight increase on hull was insignificant, given the turret weight claimed on various places.

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

And I would be careful with ridiculous claims. I know that you have a very high opinion on the M1 and militarysta has a similar high opinion on the Leopard 2. But this doesn't make these tanks impenetratable or superior bar logic.

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".

Are you sure? I have read that they used HHS on the glacis in German sources (afaik Hilmes).

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.

No. This has absolutely no conection to the topic and is furthermore wrong. A thick backplate was required on the early Soviet hull layout used on T-64, early T-72 and early T-80. But this is due to how the armour works - the stekloplastika had only a minor role when it came to defeating KE, because of it's physical characteristics. The main defeat mechanism of the early hull layout was that of spaced armour. Thick sloped front layer weakened projectile, inner layer absorbed rest energy. Only the 20 mm layer of the early glacis design was unsuitable, because it was too thin. So later models got thicker armour.
The T-72A and T-72B (early and late) have backing plates as thick (and with slope even thicker) than that of NATO tanks.

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

1. Even against more modern ammunition Kontakt-5 will still offer quite good performance - not the original ~25 - 30% reduction, but just via bending the armour perforation of longrods can be lowered by 10 - 15%. An APFSDS with 700 - 750 mm penetration could then be reduced to just above 600 mm, enough for the glacis to take it. Obsolete is first generation ERA against tandem charges, Kontakt-5 is not obsolete.
2. The exact design and the working mechanism of Relikt are not known, so it cannot be described as obsolete.

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

The glacis does not really need uparmouring because it simply bounces the enemy shells of. But the lower hull front is still only ~600 - 650 mm thick.

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

No. There is no real source which says that Burlington includes SHS, HHS or layered steel per se. Regarding the Leopard 2 it was claimed by German sources to use a combination of steel of different hardness and ductily and it is known that the Leopard 1A3 used DHS/THS. When it comes to the Challenger, we can see that it has three steel layer at the turret front (and not the glacis/hull front), while Paul L. mentioned research papers about British THS. But it is not said to be part of Burlington nor do we know that it is also used on the hull front of these tanks.

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.

You know how Relikt works? Btw. Burlington (in 1970s at least) was also less effective against tandem warheads.

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.

You are aware that the exact special armour box is not shown in militarysta's drawing and the source of this?

 

[hest]

If only there would be any hard proof, like photos from actuall tests...

The best thing is that west tested Russian and Ukrainian ERA, also against top attack missiles like Javelin... and of course Lidsky still will post some drawings, but without any hard proof, only theory, and as experience teach us, theory is many times far from reality.

Russians used similiar theory about ammunition storage in their tanks... which in the end and real world, prooved to be in efficent and dangerous.

Fact is that such top attack missiles do not account double plate interaction of modern reactive armour, and were tested against blocks corresponding to older ERA as Kontakt-1 with 250 mm dimensions (surface).

 

[Damian]

It is ignorant statement made with no understanding on working method and performance.

In fact there is no thing as more advanced.

This configuration is of higher density, higher amount of steel in composite designed to retain significant performance against APFSDS, and improve protection against cumulative jet.

Different configuration with numerous layers of different material with overall less density would result on increased cumulative protection. But there was no argument to use such design. On western tanks composite block as requirement needs to give higher cumulative protection, but it is sacrifice.

So for You Titanium, DU, Tungsten + very high hardness steel gives less density, than a simple steel + rubber?

May I ask You... are You ----in sane?

Such layer design and use of encased heavy metal is aimed mainly to improve cumulative protection. But while there may be need of such requirement for Western tanks, Soviet with available ERA had no such need, and retained more efficient design against APFSDS to achieve truly universal protection.

You still do not understand.

Armor array is NERA, within this NERA we have higher hardness types of steel than used in Russian tanks, we have different other materials like Titanium (which is lighter yet stronger than steel), we have polymers acting as non explosive reactive layers, an we have encased between steel plates, heavy metal alloy elements.

It is more efficent than ERA and have real multi hit capability.

It all depends on situation. But advanced ERA based on plate interaction provides protection against most or all weapons, be it APFSDS or tandem warheads as figures show.

It is nothing more than Russian propaganda... and as history prooves, Russians are masters of lies.

Only you believe in all those figures which your friends state, even though there is nothing significantly special.

To the contrary, many people belive in these, and less and less people belive in BS spreading by Russians and their humble servants like You.

Everybody did in that way, because composite block by itself cannot be sufficient.

There are different solutions, but it is aknowledged that it is not possible to achieve just by composite armour.

1) Who is everybody? Russians are not everybody.
2) Acknowledged only in Russia, which is not the smartest nation in the world, and there are better composite armors, made from better materials than Russians do... jeez even Ukrainians surpassed Russians in armor technology despite poorer funding of their R&D programs!

Yes, and ??

And it is multilayer ERA, which makes it more efficent than Kontakt-1 for example. it is not unviersal heavy ERA yet tough.

Fact is that such top attack missiles do not account double plate interaction of modern reactive armour, and were tested against blocks corresponding to older ERA as Kontakt-1 with 250 mm dimensions (surface).

Seems that only You belive in this BS.

But we seen from where You take Your knowledge, form a people that thinks that simple steel block is ERA?

It is amusing, this Russians obsession with ERA.

 

[Damian]

Not all his statements. That the late T-72B armour looks like described by him is known, because images of the T-72S production shows this armour array.

But this does not change a fact that old statements might not be fully correct.

Just because we don't know the variant used it is not impenetratable. If 55 - 65 cm Burlington armour would be enough to deal with all weapons, then why are the turrets having 75+ cm thick armour? ERA (or heavy NERA) is a force mulitplier not used on NATO tanks because of other reason than protection increase. If the armour utilizes NERA layers, then there has to be a reasonable amount of empty space (in T-72B the empty space has the thickness of NERA layers and is still considered too less) - if the NERA layers are aligned at different angles (which will lead to better performance), then the empty space has to be even greater (probably some 4 times the layer thickness at least). If the armour contains ballistic liners or ceramic armour, then there is a low density material with very small protection capability (kevlar or polymer). Burlington composite armour is not known for being very effective per thickness.
Weight increase on hull was insignificant, given the turret weight claimed on various places.

As I said, we do not know about Burlington armor. Most sources are about the early R&D phase, not about what was actually put inside tanks.

And I would be careful with ridiculous claims. I know that you have a very high opinion on the M1 and militarysta has a similar high opinion on the Leopard 2. But this doesn't make these tanks impenetratable or superior bar logic.

Of course it does not make tanks impenetrable, this is why armor was changed during whole production process and in later modernizations.

As for superiority, western tanks are superior in their overall concept. Soviets had chance to change that with Object 187, unfortunetly some idiot decided to go on with Object 188.

Are you sure? I have read that they used HHS on the glacis in German sources (afaik Hilmes).

Only SHS. Ukrainians have very low opinion about steel used in T-90A, as they long time ago switched to high hardness ESR steel.

No. This has absolutely no conection to the topic and is furthermore wrong. A thick backplate was required on the early Soviet hull layout used on T-64, early T-72 and early T-80. But this is due to how the armour works - the stekloplastika had only a minor role when it came to defeating KE, because of it's physical characteristics. The main defeat mechanism of the early hull layout was that of spaced armour. Thick sloped front layer weakened projectile, inner layer absorbed rest energy. Only the 20 mm layer of the early glacis design was unsuitable, because it was too thin. So later models got thicker armour.
The T-72A and T-72B (early and late) have backing plates as thick (and with slope even thicker) than that of NATO tanks.

As I said, back plates in T-XX series are too thin. The known opinions about for example M1 backplates says about approx ~100mm thick backplates in turret front and probably hull front armor.

1. Even against more modern ammunition Kontakt-5 will still offer quite good performance - not the original ~25 - 30% reduction, but just via bending the armour perforation of longrods can be lowered by 10 - 15%. An APFSDS with 700 - 750 mm penetration could then be reduced to just above 600 mm, enough for the glacis to take it. Obsolete is first generation ERA against tandem charges, Kontakt-5 is not obsolete.
2. The exact design and the working mechanism of Relikt are not known, so it cannot be described as obsolete.

1) Kontakt-5 is obsolete against modern ammunitions designed to defeat it.
2) Relikt is considered as obsolete, in this case I agree with Ukrainians.

The glacis does not really need uparmouring because it simply bounces the enemy shells of. But the lower hull front is still only ~600 - 650 mm thick.

Both Lower Front Hull and Glacis can be up armored, both by increasins their thickness or adding ERA, so there is really no problem.

No. There is no real source which says that Burlington includes SHS, HHS or layered steel per se. Regarding the Leopard 2 it was claimed by German sources to use a combination of steel of different hardness and ductily and it is known that the Leopard 1A3 used DHS/THS. When it comes to the Challenger, we can see that it has three steel layer at the turret front (and not the glacis/hull front), while Paul L. mentioned research papers about British THS. But it is not said to be part of Burlington nor do we know that it is also used on the hull front of these tanks.

Neither we can say such armor is not used. By pure logic, there were at least attempts to use such armor.

We know that Americans use steel of higher hardness (or used one) for tanks production, it is not very unlikely that they use in composite armor as it increase it's protection values.

You know how Relikt works? Btw. Burlington (in 1970s at least) was also less effective against tandem warheads.

No, but I belive Ukrainians more than Russians, Russians have agenda to defend their product, Ukrainians do not.

As for Burlington, it is known that design was evolving whole the time... hell and what if Burlington have inside integral ERA cells? There was such variant tested by British, what then?

You are aware that the exact special armour box is not shown in militarysta's drawing and the source of this?

Yes, but in the same time, the composite armor "box" is encased in a lot of steel plates.

 

[hest]

Not all his statements. That the late T-72B armour looks like described by him is known, because images of the T-72S production shows this armour array.

It is correct description.

Are you sure? I have read that they used HHS on the glacis in German sources (afaik Hilmes).

Steel layers used in glacis armour of T-72B are high hardness steel (сталь повышеной твердости).

No. This has absolutely no conection to the topic and is furthermore wrong. A thick backplate was required on the early Soviet hull layout used on T-64, early T-72 and early T-80. But this is due to how the armour works - the stekloplastika had only a minor role when it came to defeating KE, because of it's physical characteristics. The main defeat mechanism of the early hull layout was that of spaced armour. Thick sloped front layer weakened projectile, inner layer absorbed rest energy. Only the 20 mm layer of the early glacis design was unsuitable, because it was too thin. So later models got thicker armour.
The T-72A and T-72B (early and late) have backing plates as thick (and with slope even thicker) than that of NATO tanks.

Additional protection consisting of plate of high hardness steel was implemented hull for older tanks (отражаемость).

It is not related to posterior T-72, T-80 versions.

1. Even against more modern ammunition Kontakt-5 will still offer quite good performance - not the original ~25 - 30% reduction, but just via bending the armour perforation of longrods can be lowered by 10 - 15%. An APFSDS with 700 - 750 mm penetration could then be reduced to just above 600 mm, enough for the glacis to take it. Obsolete is first generation ERA against tandem charges, Kontakt-5 is not obsolete.
2. The exact design and the working mechanism of Relikt are not known, so it cannot be described as obsolete.

He does not understand anything about ERA interaction and working principle...

The glacis does not really need uparmouring because it simply bounces the enemy shells of. But the lower hull front is still only ~600 - 650 mm thick.

But this was only true until 90s, given modern projectile ricochet properties. I showed earlier

Required increment of mass m (volume) 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

50 mm and angle of 82 degrees is not enought to cause ricochet to modern APFSDS rounds.

 

[Damian]

Steel layers used in glacis armour of T-72B are high hardness steel (сталь повышеной твердости).

Ukrainians do not agree. They say that T-90A use medium hardness steel, I doubt that T-72B use better armor than T-90A.

Additional protection consisting of plate of high hardness steel was implemented hull for older tanks (отражаемость).

Preatty embarrasing that a Israeli 105mm M111 APFSDS forced your designers to do this eh? And there are better 105mm APFSDS rounds like M900.

He does not understand anything about ERA interaction and working principle...

I understand, only I am not blinded, and I see better solutions than ERA.

But this was only true until 90s, given modern projectile ricochet properties. I showed earlier



Required increment of mass m (volume) 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

50 mm and angle of 82 degrees is not enought to cause ricochet to modern APFSDS rounds.

Can You use something more credible than Russian sources? For example American, British, Israeli or German? I doubt.

 

[hest]

So for You Titanium, DU, Tungsten + very high hardness steel gives less density, than a simple steel + rubber?

May I ask You... are You ----in sane?

You have no understanding of their function.

Here is simplified scheme, encased DU elements against cumulative jet

When cumulative jet interacts with DU element at velocity of about 7 km/s it starts shock-wave process of explosive character, resulting in fragmentation and damage of cumulative jet. Process repeats after each element.

DU is used in thin, spaced layers, which due to about 2.5 greater density than steel have "explosive nature"

This armour is designed in general to provide cumulative protection. Performance against APFSDS will be greater with densier armour as Soviet, with greater usage of steel.

- Hull of 700 mm, elements of high hardness steel.
- Composite armour block of 600-650 mm.

Against APFSDS thickness efficiency of armour based on steel is superior.

 

[hest]

Ukrainians do not agree. They say that T-90A use medium hardness steel, I doubt that T-72B use better armor than T-90A.

Ha ha... what ??

I do not even know what are you trying to say, because if I take this statement directly it is funny nosense.

 

[Damian]

You have no understanding of their function.

Here is simplified scheme, encased DU elements against cumulative jet

When cumulative jet interacts with DU element at velocity of about 7 km/s it starts shock-wave process of explosive character, resulting in fragmentation and damage of cumulative jet. Process repeats after each element.

DU is used in thin, spaced layers, which due to about 2.5 greater density than steel have "explosive nature"

This armour is designed in general to provide cumulative protection. Performance against APFSDS will be greater with densier armour as Soviet, with greater usage of steel.

- Hull of 700 mm, elements of high hardness steel.
- Composite armour block of 600-650 mm.

Against APFSDS thickness efficiency of armour based on steel is superior.

This drawing is nothing more than a silly fantasy of some Russian. I ask where they get this, well definetly not from Americans that kept armor design as a secret, and nobody knows how thick are DU plates inside.

As for density. I don't know if You ever had chemistry in school but DU have density of 19.1 g/cm3 ( 1.7 times densier than lead) and is encased inside steel plates, density for steel is avarage 7,86 g/cm3. Which means the whole composite armor package is densier in the M1 series, not in T-72B or any of the russian death traps.

Also soviet tanks hull is not 700mm thick. Methos provided proper thickness calculation. It was also something around ~600-640mm thick, so don't lie.

Besides this, someone here completely forgots that western composite armors works exactly like ERA by inducitng yaw in to penetrator, breaking it in to pieces, increasing erosion, changing it's penetration path to increase distance it needed to reach vehicle interior etc.

It is not a simple design that only try to stops projectile within it's occupied space.

 

[hest]

This drawing is nothing more than a silly fantasy of some Russian. I ask where they get this, well definetly not from Americans that kept armor design as a secret, and nobody knows how thick are DU plates inside.

As for density. I don't know if You ever had chemistry in school but DU have density of 19.1 g/cm3 ( 1.7 times densier than lead) and is encased inside steel plates, density for steel is avarage 7,86 g/cm3. Which means the whole composite armor package is densier in the M1 series, not in T-72B or any of the russian death traps.

It is in fact working principle of armour with DU elements. These elements consist of thin encased DU plates arranged in spaced configuration to exploit their semi-reactive properties.

Overall, such armour is more effective against cumulative jet, effect will not be that great against APFSDS. And with spaced configuration, it is lighter armour, less dense.

Also soviet tanks hull is not 700mm thick. Methos provided proper thickness calculation. It was also something around ~600-640mm thick, so don't lie.

It is protection equivalence to thickness. It is rather high against APFSDS because most of thickness consists of steel, high hardness, which is densier composition.

 

[Damian]

It is in fact working principle of armour with DU elements. These elements consist of thin encased DU plates arranged in spaced configuration to exploit their semi-reactive properties.

Overall, such armour is more effective against cumulative jet, effect will not be that great against APFSDS. And with spaced configuration, it is lighter armour, less dense.

1) How the hell You know how thick are DU plates? Only because experiments in Russia were done with thin DU plates, does not mean that in USA these plates are thin.

2) As a bove, if You do not know how American armor is designed, how You even dare to make such conclusions?

Because it can't be better than Russians solutions?!

It is protection equivalence to thickness. It is rather high against APFSDS because most of thickness consists of steel, high hardness, which is densier composition.

As above, You don't know anything about western armors, neither any russian source knows anything (the famous "ERA" on MBT-70)... so please, shut up troll.

 

[hest]

1) How the hell You know how thick are DU plates? Only because experiments in Russia were done with thin DU plates, does not mean that in USA these plates are thin.

2) As a bove, if You do not know how American armor is designed, how You even dare to make such conclusions?

Because it can't be better than Russians solutions?!



As above, You don't know anything about western armors, neither any russian source knows anything (the famous "ERA" on MBT-70)... so please, shut up troll.

Rationale behind use of DU is its "explosive effect", which to be properly exploited, needs space between interacting element with optimal dimensions.

Such configuration achieves high efficiency against cumulative jet, and less weight (because space is provided between elements, with material of lower density).

Howewer against APFSDS it is not so great, because DU element interaction will be significantly less effective, and most of thickness, between elements generally consists of less dense material.

Thus for composite block of 600-650mm thickness with less efficiency than steel it is not possible to provide protection against APFSDS.

For Leopard 2, Abrams hull it is not possible to provide protection with composite block alone.

Modern Western tanks employ additional armour, so how do you want to discuss ?

 

[Damian]

Rationale behind use of DU is its "explosive effect", which to be properly exploited, needs space between interacting element with optimal dimensions.

Such configuration achieves high efficiency against cumulative jet, and less weight (because space is provided between elements, with material of lower density).

Howewer against APFSDS it is not so great, because DU element interaction will be significantly less effective, and most of thickness, between elements generally consists of less dense material.

Thus for composite block of 600-650mm thickness with less efficiency than steel it is not possible to provide protection against APFSDS.

This is nothing more than your own fantasy. You never saw a composite armor of M1, and still You are making completely idiotic claims!

How You can even belive such foolishness when nobody besides Americans know something about this armor? And only they know the working mechanism of their armor, and the thickness of plates made from different materials, used in this armor.

And there is more, actually western sources claims that DU is used not as a main projectile defeating element, but is a backing plate for other materials (steel, ceramics, other types). So the Russian model is completely different and irrelevant for American armor.

For me You are nothing more than a troll and forum parasite.

And there is more, the newest type of this armor is said to be encased not only in steel, but also in graphite, most probably in form of Carbon Fiber or maybe inside a layer of Carbon nanotubes which is interesting concept.

Combine an armored steel of probably high hardness, carbon fiber/nanotubes layer with it's characteristics + high density DU alloy, and there is not a single layer of such arrangement, but probably more, this is interesting. And the funny thing is that most people focus on single material instead of trying to figure out how it is placed in a bigger array and how these materials cooperate with each other and how they interact with projectile.

Besides this, use of such highly advanced materials, might explain higher price of western tanks, well at least might be one of several reasons of such.

But it is worth to look at this materials, as they might be also element of modern western composite armors.

For Leopard 2, Abrams hull it is not possible to provide protection with composite block alone.

It seems that real tank designers disagree with You.

Modern Western tanks employ additional armour, so how do you want to discuss ?

How many western tanks?

Challenger 2 have bolt on composite armor on the lower front hull, because there is simply no composite armor there, it is placed in two cavities on glacis plate.

Leclerc do not use any addon armor on the hull front, neither on turret.

M1 series also no, Americans when feel they need more protection just improve composite armor.

Germans? Only Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Spain and Canada (for Leo2A4's) use additional protection from hull.

C1 Ariete does not use any frontal addon armor.

Neither other countries use it, Japan? No, South Korea? No, Israel? No, and there are plenty of example.

So what will be next argument? That Russians are smarter than rest of the world?

 

[pmaitra]

Damian, please keep tabs on your ad hominems. Make your point without attacking other members.

 

[militarysta]

@Damian

Calm down. There is no reson to be agresive. And it's look not very well.


@rest users:

In fact Soviet armour array was more simple then in western tanks, but thanks to using ERA finnal efect (in protection) where simillar.
The Soviet way where cheapest, but of course have some falitures:
a) weak coverated by ERA on T-72 serie
b) "one shot" ERA working mehanism
Besides that soviet armour array where mucht simpler then on western tanks. I post about that - more then 60% is pure cast steel in T-72B and simple (very simple) NERA plates (or even reflecting plates). Afther them was 40mm thick HHS plate, and again cast steel.
Simple? Yes. Primitive? Exept simple NERA plates - yes.
But finnaly effect was for turret about 470-540mm RHA vs APFSDS for T-72B (before ERA) (1985-1988), and in Leopard-2A3/4(ery) it was. IMHO ..480-540mm RHA vs APFSDS (1983-1986). Looks similar? Yes, becouse on both barricade sites protection was simmilar but with diffrent accent - on West Burlinghton gives better protection agains HEAT, on East - less spohisticated main armour gives the same protection against APFSDS (as Burlinghton) but more less against HEAT. But, after added Kontakt-1 prtoection agains HEAT whas almoust the same agians SC warhed as for western tanks. And since 1986 (T-80U) and 1988 (T-72B(M) again was balnace in protection, but for 1988-1994 western deveroples had obvious problem whit ERA and to weak APFSDS round (DM33 and M829). They where afraid T-80U whit good ERA covered front, and they don't be afreid (but cerfully) about T-72B(M) -but only for one reson - therrible and weak ERA cover whit many gaps without it.
Of course Burlinghton style armour had two grate advanteges - the ability to withstand multihit by HEAT and APFSDS. ERA haven't it. But for the other hand - Soviets way were cheaper and simpler whit simmilar (but not the same!) effect - at least until the first hit in a tank
After big upgrading process in middle 1980. new generation Burlinghton clones armour has come. In US tank, in Germnas (since 1986) in Biritish.
About hulls - there is simple answers without this all shit from lat 5 pages (yes,,,part of it is my job).
Agains simpler and even primitive armour on estern tanks in result (and with ERA) where no whorse then sophisticated western armour. In fact hull potection in T-72B and Leopard-2A4 where simmmilar - 450mm RHA vs 470-500mm RHA. In late T-72B (1989) it was main protection like Leo2A4 or slighty better (500-530mm RHA) the same level where for T-90S. Bu thanks to ERA - protection level was slighty bigger for hull then for western tanks. If those armour was sufficient for Leo-2A4 and M1 in 1980-1989? IMHO almoust yes. Hull in M1 is very well protected and front fuel tanks give additional huge protection. So propably for all period is was fine - and as we can see - Yankee dont improved armour protection by NERA, SLERA, additional modules atc. Just 650mm cavity + those special fuel tanks, and in their oppinion it is enought even now. So knowing them - indeed it's enought.
In Leopard-2 it was slighty diffrent. When turret protection was enought then hull was possible to perforate by BM42 for less then 800-1000m, and for BM32 for slighty more.
And in KWS program hull upgrade (and turret) where done by NERA modules.

BTW: as I remember -in most western armour upgrade programs problem was in APFSDs protection not in HEAT. In almoust whole time soviet SC warhed where ineffective against Burlinghton armour.