Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

@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.

Sorry but this talk about primitive or more advanced armour is nosense.

You should not forget that against APFSDS pure steel is more efficient than composite armour. Fact is that Soviet armour could afford to employ greater amount of steel in structure, having better thickness protection equivalence.

Because role of composite armour was different does not mean either of them is more advanced or more primitive.

Soviets had no necessity to use Western composite armour with their additional elements and configuration, because protection was sufficient already (at time of appearance of T-72B, it's turret met all cumulative protection requirements without ERA according to Nii Stali), even more with Kontakt. Composite armour was intented to retain acceptable weight, and provide more uniform protection against APFSDS and cumulative rounds.

In fact semi-reactive armour of T-72B (plate interaction) and T-80U/UD (incidence of hydrodinamic waves), were fully at modern level in terms of performance, no needing to make sacrifice for greater cumulative protection, and decrease APFSDS protection as Western composite.

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.

Soviet turrets provided sufficient protection already without ERA. Even assuming that APFSDS protection was similar (despite greater amount of steel in Soviet composition), with Kontakt-5 effect and vast protection increase (not just little) against cumulative rounds surely surpassed Western composite efficiency, it was well above all contemporary rounds, while same could not be assured for Western adversary at late 80s with appearance of Soviet Wolframium and DU rounds.

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.

Since Soviet hulls were protected in great part by steel, they gave notably higher protection than Western composite block against APFSDS. With ERA protection matched that of turret, while this performance was not possible for composite block of 600-650 mm thickness.

 

[Damian]

Sorry but this talk about primitive or more advanced armour is nosense.

You should not forget that against APFSDS pure steel is more efficient than composite armour. Fact is that Soviet armour could afford to employ greater amount of steel in structure, having better thickness protection equivalence.

Because role of composite armour was different does not mean either of them is more advanced or more primitive.

Soviets had no necessity to use Western composite armour with their additional elements and configuration, because protection was sufficient already (at time of appearance of T-72B, it's turret met all cumulative protection requirements without ERA according to Nii Stali), even more with Kontakt. Composite armour was intented to retain acceptable weight, and provide more uniform protection against APFSDS and cumulative rounds.

In fact semi-reactive armour of T-72B (plate interaction) and T-80U/UD (incidence of hydrodinamic waves), were fully at modern level in terms of performance, no needing to make sacrifice for greater cumulative protection, and decrease APFSDS protection as Western composite.

Complete nonsense is talk that western composite armors can't provide sufficent protection against both APFSDS and HEAT types of ammunition.

In fact it can, which was prooved during tests with superior western APFSDS ammunition in many countries.

Lidsky, stop advertising Russian products, it's looks silly. Facts are facts, and bashing western solutions won't help You much.

Soviet turrets provided sufficient protection already without ERA. Even assuming that APFSDS protection was similar (despite greater amount of steel in Soviet composition), with Kontakt-5 effect and vast protection increase (not just little) against cumulative rounds surely surpassed Western composite efficiency, it was well above all contemporary rounds, while same could not be assured for Western adversary at late 80s with appearance of Soviet Wolframium and DU rounds.

This is pure propaganda. The only tank that reached protection levels represented by M1A1HA and late production Leopard 2A4's was T-80U/UD.

Since Soviet hulls were protected in great part by steel, they gave notably higher protection than Western composite block against APFSDS. With ERA protection matched that of turret, while this performance was not possible for composite block of 600-650 mm thickness.

Wrong. Soviet protection was insufficent, this is why they started to use ERA, there was no other way to improve protection with this silly size and weight limit.

 

[hest]

Complete nonsense is talk that western composite armors can't provide sufficent protection against both APFSDS and HEAT types of ammunition.

In fact it can, which was prooved during tests with superior western APFSDS ammunition in many countries.

Lidsky, stop advertising Russian products, it's looks silly. Facts are facts, and bashing western solutions won't help You much.

Nobody says they were not. But given thickness limitations it was not possible to achieve atleast for hull. It is just not possible just with composite block for anyone.

Now they start to incorporate additional armour as many Leopard users.

This is pure propaganda. The only tank that reached protection levels represented by M1A1HA and late production Leopard 2A4's was T-80U/UD.

This is show of ignorance with no argument.

Wrong. Soviet protection was insufficent, this is why they started to use ERA, there was no other way to improve protection with this silly size and weight limit.

Soviet hull armour was thicker with about 700 mm and heavier, densier due to greater composition of steel, so what limitation ? In fact it is the opposite with thinner Western composite block of 600-650 mm with less efficiency (against APFSDS).

 

[Damian]

Nobody says they were not. But given thickness limitations it was not possible to achieve atleast for hull. It is just not possible just with composite block for anyone.

Now they start to incorporate additional armour as many Leopard users.

1) You says, You are promoting only inferior UVZ products, that were inferior to anything both in west and Soviet Union.

2) Only Leopard 2's have additional frontal protection. Other nations choose to improve basic composite armor, different approach, but not knowing anything about history of improvements, how many improvements there were and the details of improvements as well as design details is ignorance, Your ignorance.

This is show of ignorance with no argument.

This is a fact. T-72B was nothing more than a cheap mobilization tank. Whole T-72 series are abomination of soviet tanks design school, as well as it is a stolen and redesigned Kharkiv design, these are historical facts.

Soviet hull armour was thicker with about 700 mm and heavier, densier due to greater composition of steel, so what limitation ? In fact it is the opposite with thinner Western composite block of 600-650 mm with less efficiency (against APFSDS).

1) How do You know it was heavier and densier? Steel, especially used by Russians is inferior, so there is limitation.
2) 700mm is only Your invention, Methos made calculation of glacis plate, it is ~600-640mm thick.
3) Did You messured western tanks front hull armor? Militarysta made estimation and only estimation that front hull armor of the M1 series range from ~600mm to ~700mm, and for that we also do not know how heavy is the front hull beak armor and how dense it is, besides Your occasional fantasies.

You know absolutely nothing about western tanks, neither their history, neither their design details.

 

[hest]

You and your Polish friend give discussion, but continously avoided to comment on this issue

Aproximate thickness, 600-650 mm and composite armour block (hull).

It is known that thickness efficiency of composite does not surpass, and at that time was significantly less, than steel against APFSDS.

So what funny protection equivalence ratio you should give to correspond with sufficient protection ??

Soviet hulls consist in great part of steel, high hardness steel elements, giving protection equivalence of about 600 mm against APFSDS, heavier and more dense composition, and with steel there is no argument.

 

[Damian]

You and your Polish friend give discussion, but continously avoided to comment on this issue

We avoid? You are just not capable to understand in english it seems what we are writing here whole the time.

Aproximate thickness, 600-650 mm and composite armour block (hull).

Which same in Soviet tanks.

So what funny protection equivalence ratio you should give to correspond with sufficient protection ??

Me? None, because contrary to You I do not belive in all these silly estimations with RHAe that are good for children and fanboys like You.

RHAe is completely useless protection level equivalent value for modern composite armors. It can only give idea at what level protection can be but not exact values that are classified.

Soviet hulls consist in great part of steel, high hardness steel elements, giving protection equivalence of about 600 mm against APFSDS, heavier and more dense composition, and with steel there is no argument.

Soviet hulls do not use high hardness steel, only simple RHA and semi hardness steel.

There is no proof it is heavier or more dense, do You have any data for weight of western composite armors? Or how much steel they use? No I do not, But I know one thing, for Burlington the basic material used was steel, same as in any other type of armor, so on what basis You say Burlington and it's descendants are less dense or heavy?

And there is argument with steel. There is a known fact of wide use of titanium in western armors, that is lighter yet stronger or at least as strong as certain types of steel. It is a known fact that Americans use Depleted Uranium, in the latest improved versions they use graphite coating for DU, which is most probably carbon fiber or carbon nanotubes layer, and this is very strong material despite it's low weight, well carbon nanotubes are called the strongest known material on earth, maybe besides diamonds.

So You want compare a simple steel to such combination of very strong, some very light yet very strong, and very dense materials?

Even person without a basic knowledge about tanks, knowing above facts can conclude that western composites armors are just better.

 

[hest]

So as there is no answer and only avoidance, I assume that all arguments relating to that issue are not sustained by any base.

For composition of steel layers + ERA it is clear, while your points are given without any facts or explanation.

 

[Damian]

So as there is no answer and only avoidance, I assume that all arguments relating to that issue are not sustained by any base.

For composition of steel layers + ERA it is clear, while your points are given without any facts or explanation.

Well I'am not here a naive person from Moscow that expects that on internet forum he will recive a full documentation about what protection values have discussed armor.

While I'am exactly explaining where strong points of western composite armors are.

We know from several different sources, that newest composite armor for M1 Abrams tanks have DU encased in graphite and steel.

Graphite itself is nothing special, but we should not understand graphite as graphite, it is more probably carbon fiber or carbon nanotubes layer.

For carbon fiber there are many applications, actually if this is a carbon fiber layer, it is not a carbon fiber alyer per se, but most probably sort of laminate. Carbon fiber is for example used as element of high quality epoxy resins, and we know that epoxy resins are used in vehicles armor protection.

There is also option for carbon nanotubes, very strong material that can increase protection against KE threats. The M1 composite armor is made from several layers, that are most probably a mix of such highly advanced materials, like Titanium, different high hardness steels, carbon based materials, DU etc.

The advantage of carbon based materials is that they are light and very strong, so their layers might be very thick, without significant increase in vehicles weight.

 

[methos]

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

Leclerc series 2 have uparmoured glacis compared to series 1.

In fact Soviet armour array was more simple then in western tanks, but thanks to using ERA finnal efect (in protection) where simillar.

We were talking about the glacis/hull front. The Soviet glacis design has similar thickness, but higher weight. So it seems to be pretty potent against KE. Based on Fofanov's description and claims about the Soviets using SHS/HHS (even though Damian categorically rejects this because of some Ukraine claims not known to me) this glacis layout can offer similar (or even higher) protection than Western hull armour excluding the ERA. With ERA it should be better than the average NATO hull armour.

You should not forget that against APFSDS pure steel is more efficient than composite armour. Fact is that Soviet armour could afford to employ greater amount of steel in structure, having better thickness protection equivalence.

Simple steel is better than the average "composite armour" on weight basis, but layered steel without any space between the plates (as used on Leclerc according to TankNet) is more efficient.

1) How do You know it was heavier and densier? Steel, especially used by Russians is inferior, so there is limitation.

On M1 and Leopard 2 weight of hull increased by less than two tonnes. If the whole weight would be located on the hull armour (and not in new digital stuff), then the weight per thickness will be lower than on T-90, unless we assume that the glacis/hull armour weighed as much or more than the early turret armour.

Soviet hulls do not use high hardness steel, only simple RHA and semi hardness steel.

Why don't you provide a source for that? Whole TankNet and a German book claimed they use HHS for glacis.

 

[Damian]

Another interesting thing. There is a type of carbon nanotubes called Fuleryt, it have very interesting characteristics. It's hardness is similiar to diamond but, Fuleryt type carbon nanotubes are not in structure similiar to diamond, so they are not fragile like diamond or other very hard materials (like ceramics or very hard steel).

Seems to be perfect candidate for composite armor material.

And here is one more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregated_diamond_nanorod

Also seems to be good armor material.

Leclerc series 2 have uparmoured glacis compared to series 1.

Where?! You mean it is thickened? But there is no addon armor, this was the point.

We were talking about the glacis/hull front. The Soviet glacis design has similar thickness, but higher weight. So it seems to be pretty potent against KE. Based on Fofanov's description and claims about the Soviets using SHS/HHS (even though Damian categorically rejects this because of some Ukraine claims not known to me) this glacis layout can offer similar (or even higher) protection than Western hull armour excluding the ERA. With ERA it should be better than the average NATO hull armour.

How do You know how heavy or dense is western composite armor?

Simple steel is better than the average "composite armour" on weight basis, but layered steel without any space between the plates (as used on Leclerc according to TankNet) is more efficient.

Again, from where You know the density and weight of western composite armors? You have opprotunity to messure their weight?

Also there are light materials that ar at least as strong like steel, or stronger, like Titanium, Paul Lakowski said that Americans were using Titanium.

On M1 and Leopard 2 weight of hull increased by less than two tonnes. If the whole weight would be located on the hull armour (and not in new digital stuff), then the weight per thickness will be lower than on T-90, unless we assume that the glacis/hull armour weighed as much or more than the early turret armour.

As above.

Such simple thinking is not responsible without knowing the exact composition of armor package.

Why don't you provide a source for that? Whole TankNet and a German book claimed they use HHS for glacis.

You have it on BTVT, Tarasenko himself in one of hist articles written clearly that T-90A use "medium hardness steel", search there.

As he definetly is making some fantasy talk about NATO tanks, he is definetly well informed about soviet, russian and ukrainian tanks, and he have access to some of documentation.

 

[hest]

You have it on BTVT, Tarasenko himself in one of hist articles written clearly that T-90A use "medium hardness steel", search there.

As he definetly is making some fantasy talk about NATO tanks, he is definetly well informed about soviet, russian and ukrainian tanks, and he have access to some of documentation.

Ahhh, ha ha, well, only problem is that you do not understand what does he say

And he only confirms what we are all saying

Бронирование ВЛД корпуса Т-72Б первых модификаций состояло из разнесенных преград из стали повышенной твердости. В дальнейшем применялся более сложный вариант бронирования с использованием «отражающих листов» по принципу функционирования аналогичных пакету применяемому в башне танка.

На башне и корпусе Т-72Б устанавливался ДЗ «Контакт-1». Причем контейнеры установлены непосредственно на башню без предания им угла обеспечивающего максимально эффективную работу ДЗ. В результате этого эффективность ДЗ установленной на башне была значительно снижена. Возможным объяснением служит то, что при проведении государственных испытаний Т-72АВ в 1983-ем году испытываемый танк был поражен по причине наличия участков, не перекрытых контейнерами ДЗ и конструкторы пытались добиться лучшего перекрытия башни.

Начиная с 1988 года ВЛД и башня была усилена комплексом ДЗ «Контакт-V» обеспечивающего защиту не только от кумулятивных ПТС а и от ОБПС.

 

[Damian]

http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-4484/18/47/475701/pdf/nano7_47_475701.pdf

Very interesting study for a carbon nanotubes as armor protection. In this case for a body armor. But conclusions are interesting, and definetly such type of material is desired for vehicles armor protection.

We can assume that perhaps Americans use such material in M1 series armor.

 

[Damian]

Now, it only shows You do not understand the context. He says in different article that T-90A use "medium hardness steel".

The context of above citation says about increased hardness, not that this is high hardness steel.

Glacis plate of T-72B first modifications consisted of barriers spaced steel with increased hardness. Continue to apply a more complex version of array using the "reflective sheets" on the principle of operation of a similar package that used in the turret.

The tower and the body of T-72B installed DZ "Contact-1." Where containers are mounted directly to the tower without the dedication they angle ensures maximum efficiency of the DMZ. As a result, the effectiveness of AR for the turret was significantly reduced. A possible explanation is that during the state trials of T-72AV in 1983 rd year, the test tank was hit due to the presence of areas not covered with containers DMZ and designers tried to achieve a better overlap of the tower.

Beginning in 1988, VFD, and the tower was reinforced complex CLE "Contact-V» protects not only against chemical and PTAs and the OBPS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And a bit more about advanced western solutions.

Advanced Modular Armor Protection (AMAP) is modular composite armour concept, developed by the German company IBD Deisenroth Engineering. According to IBD AMAP is a 4th generation composite armour, making use of nano-ceramics and modern steel alloy technologies.[28] AMAP is making use of new advanced steel alloys, Aluminium-Titanium alloys, nanometric steels, ceramics and nano-ceramics. The new high-hardened steel needs 30% less thickness to offer the same protection level as ARMOX500Z High Hard Armour steel.[28] While Titanium requires only 58% as much weight as rolled homogeneous armour (RHA) for reaching the same level of protection, Mat 7720 new, a newly developed Aluminium-Titanium alloy, needs only 38% of the weight.[28] That means that this alloy is more than twice as protective as RHA of the same weight.

AMAP is also making use of new nano-ceramics, which are harder and lighter than current ceramics, while having multi-hit capability. Normal ceramic tiles and a liner backing have a mass-efficiency (EM) value of 3 compared to normal steel armour, while it fulfills STANAG 4569. The new nano-crystalline ceramic materials should increase the hardness compared to current ceramics by 70% and the weight reduction is 30%, therefore the EM value is larger than 4.[28] Furthermore the higher fracture toughness increases the general multi-hit capability. Some AMAP-modules might consist of this new ceramic tiles glued on a backing liner and overlaid by a cover, a concept which is also used by MEXAS.[29] Lightweight SLAT armour is also part of the AMAP family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube_metal_matrix_composites

AMAP is only addon armor, but if we could use the same type of armor as a base armor with provision to install addon armor of such type, we can achieve weight reduction, without reducing protection, and even actually increasing it.

 

[hest]

Simple steel is better than the average "composite armour" on weight basis, but layered steel without any space between the plates (as used on Leclerc according to TankNet) is more efficient.

I was talking about thickness efficiency (since that is what we measure). Weight will not say much, without knowing volume increase.

Since modern composite armour block per thickness does not reach equivalence with steel, point was that T-72, T-80 armour with greater deal of steel in relation with composite will give better protection against APFSDS.

 

[Damian]

Since modern composite armour block per thickness does not reach equivalence with steel, point was that T-72, T-80 armour with greater deal of steel in relation with composite will give better protection against APFSDS.

As I said, do not messure modern composite armors protection levels, by using data for obsolete protection of your beloved tanks.

We know at least some of very advanced materials used by western countries to develop their composite armors.

Be it by using titanium or other materials, and more wide spread of materials developed with a help of nano technology. This permitts to achieve superior protection, without significant weight increase. Also it permitts to use thinner plates with characteristics similiar to thicker ones.

There is no reason to belive that obsolete russian solutions are better, neither no point to use them because some Bellarussian from Moscow says us so.

 

[hest]

Now, it only shows You do not understand the context. He says in different article that T-90A use "medium hardness steel".

The context of above citation says about increased hardness, not that this is high hardness steel.

This increased hardness steel is same as used in turret composite with plates, what your friend called "high hardness".

About T-90A, it is citation of patent, which refers to manufacturing method of turret with use of medium hardness steel of welded elements. Nothing to do with rest of elements, employed in armour.

 

[Damian]

This increased hardness steel is same, or similar, as used in turret composite between plates, what your friend called "high hardness".

Now You are just making it up in to your favour. This is not high hardness steel, period.

About T-90A, it is citation of patent, which refers to manufacturing method of turret with use of medium hardness steel of welded elements. Nothing to do with rest of elements, employed in armour.

For your information, the materials from which turret is welded are also armor. The desired placement of high hardness steel is to place it as for example outerplates of frontal armor.

 

[hest]

Now You are just making it up in to your favour. This is not high hardness steel, period.

They are words from Nii Stali. It is what your friend called high hardness steel plate, located in T-72B composite. What is employed is in fact more efficient steel, not medium hardness as you said.

Rest of statements about glacis of T-80 tanks use direct term, high hardness (сталь высокой твердости).

For your information, the materials from which turret is welded are also armor. The desired placement of high hardness steel is to place it as for example outerplates of frontal armor.

Construction of turret base has nothing to do with employement of high hardness steel in armour cavity, composite or glacis.

 

[Damian]

They are words from Nii Stali. It is what your friend called high hardness steel plate, located in T-72B composite. What is employed is in fact more efficient steel, not medium hardness as you said.

Rest of statements about glacis of T-80 tanks use direct term, high hardness (сталь высокой твердости).They are words from Nii Stali. It is what your friend called high hardness steel plate, located in T-72B composite. What is employed is in fact more efficient steel, not medium hardness as you said.

Rest of statements about glacis of T-80 tanks use direct term, high hardness (сталь высокой твердости).

I doubt this. But even if so, it is still primitive protection, that needs ERA to be efficent even against older types of APFSDS ammunition.

Western composite armors do not have such problems as they use same materials + other advanced materials like Titanium and heavy metal alloys.

The two most useful properties of the metal form are corrosion resistance and the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any metal.[5] In its unalloyed condition, titanium is as strong as some steels, but 45% lighter.

Titanium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russian tanks do not use such materials, this their armor can be heavier, but is not densier neither gives more protection.

Construction of turret base has nothing to do with employement of high hardness steel in armour cavity, composite or glacis.

But it have with overall vehicle protection, which overall allways be lower due to obsolete design solutions.

 

[hest]

From book "60 years in the sphere of protection" by Nii Stali:

В башнях был использован принцип разнесенной и комбинированной преград в литом исполнении - с залитыми в литую основу песчаными стержнями. Дальнейшее развитие конструкции и технологии изготовления литых башен заключалось в том, что комбинированная броня лобовых и бортовых частей башни образовывалась за счет открытой сверху полости, в которую монтировался сложный наполнитель, закрываемый сверху приварными крышками (заглушками). Башни такой конструкции применяются на более поздних модификациях танков Т-72Б (с наполнителем в виде плоскопараллельных пластин и вставок из стали повышенной твердости) и Т-80У (с наполнителем из ячеистых литых блоков, заливаемых полимером, и стальных вставок).

In T-72B steel of increased hardness was used as part of composite armour.