Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

It still don't make them better than western tanks. May I remind You that western tanks use rolled armor that is by 5 to 15% more protective than cast armor.

This means that at the 1980's, KE protection was not worse for western armor.

And today when Russians still use developments from 1970's and 1980's in terms of composite armors, NATO and some other countries are pursuing new lightweight and very strong materials mentioned in previous posts.

Overall conclusion is still the same, Russian tanks have obsolete and inferior protection.

Even the simplest carbon nanotubes are stronger than any steel, and lighter than any steel.

You can be excited with a book by NII Stali, but facts are facts, with each year, Russia is way and way behind west in terms of materials development for armor protection.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012mcsc/Shrader.pdf

 

[Damian]

The USMC M1A1's upgrade program is interesting, AFAIK some or even all of it's elements are introduced in to US Army/ARNG M1A1's as well.

This program in a cost effective way, bring these tanks to the M1A2SEP level.

 

[methos]

The T-90 glacis will likely be able to resist APFSDS with some 700 - 750 mm penetration level (even more with Relikt).
For reaching the protection level of this glacis, the frontal composite armour block would need to be 50% more protective than RHA of the same weight, if it would have the same weight as the T-90 glacis. My personal impression is that the hull armour on Western tanks weighs less, based on weight difference of models, known armour layouts, known weight values, thickness estimations and weight estimations. IMO it seems more probably that the glacis armour weighs only 70% (or even less) of it's thickness. For reaching the same level of protection the armour would require a mass efficiency of ~1.7 - 1.8. If such armour would exist (better protection than steel against KE (and far more protective against CE) on both weight and volume basis), it would be extremly senseful to use this armour at all places. The 70 mm roof armour would then be immune to EFP and artillery ammunition, while the highly sloped two inch glacis could have a protection level equivalent to 900 mm RHA or more. This isn't reasonable and every sane man having knowledge of the topic should agree with me.
Furthermore there is simply not enough space for having composite armour which is resistant to "modern" HEAT and KE rounds in the glacis.

 

[Damian]

The T-90 glacis will likely be able to resist APFSDS with some 700 - 750 mm penetration level (even more with Relikt).
For reaching the protection level of this glacis, the frontal composite armour block would need to be 50% more protective than RHA of the same weight, if it would have the same weight as the T-90 glacis. My personal impression is that the hull armour on Western tanks weighs less, based on weight difference of models, known armour layouts, known weight values, thickness estimations and weight estimations. IMO it seems more probably that the glacis armour weighs only 70% (or even less) of it's thickness. For reaching the same level of protection the armour would require a mass efficiency of ~1.7 - 1.8. If such armour would exist (better protection than steel against KE (and far more protective against CE) on both weight and volume basis), it would be extremly senseful to use this armour at all places. The 70 mm roof armour would then be immune to EFP and artillery ammunition, while the highly sloped two inch glacis could have a protection level equivalent to 900 mm RHA or more. This isn't reasonable and every sane man having knowledge of the topic should agree with me.
Furthermore there is simply not enough space for having composite armour which is resistant to "modern" HEAT and KE rounds in the glacis.

Too many assumptions, and too less real data.

Especially that there is more secrecy for western composite armors than for soviet ones.

Also do You consider the use of lighter yet stronger than steel materials? or this is just based on pure steel estimations? Because seems that both of You ignore materials other than steel, which are better than steel.

It is known that in western tanks there is wide spread of titanium, that is stronger and lighter than steel. We know that Americans use graphite coating, which seems to be carbon fiber or carbon nanotubes layers, again at least the carbon nanotubes are lighter yet stronger than steel.

Carbon nanotubes are stronger than diamond, yet not so fragile as it is widely known, making them perfect armor material. It is not unlikely that DARPA developed additional layer added to existing armor, especially that research and development work for such materials are existing in USA for a long time.

Without knowing exact composition and characteristics of discussed composite armor, none of You are capable to be credible by saying that armor is not efficent. And in this case I belive more manufacturers that claim that this type of armor is efficent to protect both against KE and CE threats.

Oh by the way, steel and ceramics based CAWA-2 armor developed in my country was capable to gain protection against projectiles with penetration capabilities of approx ~500mm in a module in a size of T-72M1 front hull plate and inclined at the same angle.

If such a simple protection was capable to achieve such protection, then claiming that much more advanced western composite armor are non capable to do so, sounds just silly.

 

[Damian]

About CAWA-2 tests.

The projectile used in tests was tungsten APFSDS of calliber 125mm with energy of 5,7 MJ, if it was tungsten 125mm APFSDS it was most probably Pronit APFSDS that is estimated to have ~500-560mm RHA @ 2,000m.

CAWA-2 inserts were placed in steel boxes of dimensions 1000x700x230mm.

CAWA-2 is mostly based on ceramics and other non metallic materials.

Now the best part. There were 3 models of CAWA-2 armor, that were used in ballistic tests, each armor model was hit by this APFSDS ammunition from 100m, armor was inclined at 60 degrees. Behind CAWA-2 models, there was a witness plate of dimensions 1000x1000x100mm.

Militarysta probably have more details because he have a book with detailed informations about development of our composite and explosive reactive armors.

 

[methos]

Too many assumptions, and too less real data.

[...]

Without knowing exact composition and characteristics of discussed composite armor, none of You are capable to be credible by saying that armor is not efficent. And in this case I belive more manufacturers that claim that this type of armor is efficent to protect both against KE and CE threats.

And here is the problem. You simply say "Western composite armour is unknown, but it will be as strong or even stronger" as the heavier T-90 glacis with Kontakt-5 or Relikt. You didn't provide anything to back-up your claims, instead you said "it is more advanced" and "it's composition is unknown". And when I disagree with the protection level you suppose would a NATO tank have with the glacis, you simply say "you are wrong, the composition is unkown". This is the only argument you have provided so far, and you use it for both supporting and refuting.

 

[Damian]

And here is the problem. You simply say "Western composite armour is unknown, but it will be as strong or even stronger" as the heavier T-90 glacis with Kontakt-5 or Relikt. You didn't provide anything to back-up your claims, instead you said "it is more advanced" and "it's composition is unknown". And when I disagree with the protection level you suppose would a NATO tank have with the glacis, you simply say "you are wrong, the composition is unkown". This is the only argument you have provided so far, and you use it for both supporting and refuting.

We know that materials used in western composite armors are better, some of them definetly better than steel, like Titanium, we know that there are also different steel types used.

In worst case, both types of protection provides the exactly same levels of protection.

Besides this I wonder how many times I will need to repeat myself.

The weight of western composite armors are in fact unknown, neither their density.

The materials used aren't completely known, but we still know that there are used materials better than steel, as Titanium, and it is not very unlikely that there are attempts to use of, let's call them nanomaterials, lighter but stronger than steel.

We do not know everything, but assuming that protection is worser only because we do not complete data, and because someone here have obsession with pure steel and ERA.

 

[methos]

Nobody is talking about steel alone, but about both weight and thickness. There are various estimates for weight (including pretty detailed ones) and there is known weight data for some armour blocks (and so density is known).
You just ignored the space factor, using titanium only will not result in a protection level high enough to be on par with the T-90's glacis + ERA. The hull of the NATO tanks needs to offer protection against shaped charges and KE on it's own. This means that there is probably some sort of space-requiring anti-CE component (NERA, polymere or ceramic) which will require more space than it offers protection against KE.
Nanomaterials are something nice, but not old enough to be used in majority of the current generation of tanks.

But hey, let's ignore the fact that everybody who did make RHAe-estimations in the past years assumed that the glacis is penetratable by modern APFSDS.

 

[Damian]

Nobody is talking about steel alone, but about both weight and thickness. There are various estimates for weight (including pretty detailed ones) and there is known weight data for some armour blocks (and so density is known).
You just ignored the space factor, using titanium only will not result in a protection level high enough to be on par with the T-90's glacis + ERA. The hull of the NATO tanks needs to offer protection against shaped charges and KE on it's own. This means that there is probably some sort of space-requiring anti-CE component (NERA, polymere or ceramic) which will require more space than it offers protection against KE.
Nanomaterials are something nice, but not old enough to be used in majority of the current generation of tanks.

1) Who says about Titanium only, this is a package of different materials that cooperate to stop projectile.
2) NERA against penetrators works in similiar way as ERA, it will induct yaw, bend, will break penetrator and change it's path of penetration reducing it.
3) Nanomaterials are young, but in NATO countries (well at least USA), Army wants to improve armor as often as possible. Graphite coating in the latest M1 series armor package might indicate use of nanomaterials (carbon nanotubes), and this is not something unlikely, DARPA and other US Armed Forces defence organizations are working on such materials from the 1990's at least.
4) ERA have it's limitations, it is not a magic armor, and both Germany and USA developed ammunition capable to defeat ERA and composite armor behind it. In such case i bet my money on advanced composite armors, not some simpler composite armors protected by ERA.

But hey, let's ignore the fact that everybody who did make RHAe-estimations in the past years assumed that the glacis is penetratable by modern APFSDS.

Oh definetly we should.

And hey, Indians rejected Russian composite armor, and place in their T-90's their own Kanchan armor, earlier I ignored this fact mostly, now it sheds some interesting options.

 

[methos]

2.) No. NERA is far less effective against APFSDS. For having any substantial advantage in mass efficiency compared to steel, it needs a lot of more space.
3.) There is no source indicating that the graphite should refer to carbon nanotubes; this is just your wishful thinking.
4.) Still it will bend the penetrator or damage it, this means that penetration capability is still significantly reduced. It is not "We have DM53/M829A3, we don't need to care about ERA", but rather "thanks to our DM53/M829A3, the ERA will be less effective". And against Relikt DM53 and M829A3 are still untested.

Oh definetly we should.

We should ignore all other people having a dfferent than you?

And hey, Indians rejected Russian composite armor, and place in their T-90's their own Kanchan armor, earlier I ignored this fact mostly, now it sheds some interesting options.

Read the Indian part of the forum. The Russians did not send them the proper information about how to manufacture the armour of the T-90. And also the Arjun has a far greater surface and armoured volume, putting there armour tailored for another vehicle will result in sub-standard results (weightwize for example). The Arjun also was not designed to mount ERA or use it from the beginning.

 

[Damian]

2.) No. NERA is far less effective against APFSDS. For having any substantial advantage in mass efficiency compared to steel, it needs a lot of more space.
3.) There is no source indicating that the graphite should refer to carbon nanotubes; this is just your wishful thinking.
4.) Still it will bend the penetrator or damage it, this means that penetration capability is still significantly reduced. It is not "We have DM53/M829A3, we don't need to care about ERA", but rather "thanks to our DM53/M829A3, the ERA will be less effective". And against Relikt DM53 and M829A3 are still untested.

2) No You do not understand, single layer of NERA is less effective than single layer of ERA, but several layers of NERA are more effective than single layer of ERA, simple as that.
3) Of course, I never say it is a 100% certain thing, but a pure graphite do not give much advantage, however graphite or carbon is one of carbon variations, so there is probability that graphite coating can be carbon fiber (means carbon fiber with some sort of polymer), carbon nanotubes, it can be even Fullerene. It is rather obvious that if there was a breakthrough in materials use, someone will say this openly, especially for armor that is not exported, more likely is that for desinformation someone will give sort of codename or false name... be it Burlington or "Graphite Coating".
4) Sure... but hey, there is M829A4 in the final R&D phase. Besides this, knowing how "well" Russians guard they secrets, I would not be surprised if some day full documentation of Relikt will be brought to US by CIA, or even Relikt cassettes themselfs, the only thing Americans need is a foreing customer that will bought tanks with Relikt or Relikt alone.

These are possible options, but ignoring them is not wise.

We should ignore all other people having a dfferent than you?

No, we should ignore all estimations, and leave it at this point.

Read the Indian part of the forum. The Russians did not send them the proper information about how to manufacture the armour of the T-90. And also the Arjun has a far greater surface and armoured volume, putting there armour tailored for another vehicle will result in sub-standard results (weightwize for example). The Arjun also was not designed to mount ERA or use it from the beginning.

But lack of ToT does not mean Indians needed to manufacture armor on their own, it could had been imported for a while, there were alternatives, I doubt that Indians didn't tested both armor packages, and knowing their focus on having the best possible solutions, if Russian armor would have been better, they would stick to it, try to achieve ToT or even copy it if possible.

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

Something about Fullerene, interesting material, and there was enough time to made proper research and development for this material to our days.

We should consider that armor developers were interested in these materials, but only because we didn't heard about use of them, does not mean it isn't used, of course it might still not be useable as a standalone material, more likely as a part of used materials, still ignoring possibility of such materials usage is not smart.

 

[militarysta]

You should not forget that against APFSDS pure steel is more efficient than composite armour.
(...)
It is known that thickness efficiency of composite does not surpass, and at that time was significantly less, than steel against APFSDS.

It's not true.
Onces again - please read and use google translator on both articles about Burlinghton here:
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf
We have some data there (with bibliography of course). In 1978 Burlinghton special armour had mass Efficiency like 1,5 vs APFSDS and 3 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel of the same weight.
So 1kg Burlinghton armour shoud offer protection like 1,5kg homogeneous steel armor vs APFSDs and 3kg homogeneous steel armor vs HEAT (of course it is only example).

So in fact -in reality - Burlinghton style multialyer armour had better efectivness then RHA plate at the same weight. 1kg Burlinghton armour works as 1,5kg RHA plate.
So Your sentence is not true.

heavier and more dense composition, and with steel there is no argument.

Yes they are - when we have 1000kg RHA plate it's still 1000kg RHA plate, when we have 1000kg Burlinghton armour (for 1978) then its act against APFSDs like 1500kg RHA and agains HEAT as 3000kg RHA. For that reson in western tanks there is very little pasive RHA, HHS, and SHS plates -less then other pasive material (ceramics, kevlar, others). In estern tanks most of LOS thickenss and weight takes cast steel and RHA plate. Two module with those reflecting plates in T-72B weight 781kg, for 11550kg turret weight...
And If you want to talk about armour mass please tak a look that if for erly burlinghton 1Kg Burlinghton armour = 1,5kg RHA vs KE and 3kg RHA vs HEAT then Leopard-2A4 turret with weight 16000kg (without crew, ammo, attachments) whit "special armour" weight equal 8900kg is like: 13.350kg RHA vs APFSDS and 26700kg RHA vs HEAT and it's the lowest ratio for 1978 not 1985. in reality it could be even better.

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

I know for erly Leopard-2A4 gun mantled mask volumen, armour weight and others. And what?
Dimensions leopard-2 gun mantled mask are known, the same dimensions of blanks for L-44, FERO, and MG. And we know mass of gun mantled mask - 630kg. Rest is rather simple math base on qustion- how thick will be homogeneous steel armor block "inside" gun mask dimensions if it will be weight 950kg (630kg x1,5 vs APFSDS) and 1890kg (630kg x3 ve HEAT). The answer is:
a) 272 mm
b) 542 mm

So this protection offer by gun mantled mask should be:
a) 270 mm vs APFSDS
b) 540 mm vs HEAT
For 42cm thick gun mantled mask -it's weight (630kg) is only 7% whole leopard-2A4 turret "special armour" (8900kg)!
And try to consider if double thick (84cm) front armour on turret can be as 540mm vs RHA and 1084mm vs HEAT - becouse mass is fully posible in that volumen like in Leopard-2A4 turret. And if you have any doubt if so hight protection level against HEAT was avaible then go back to the article and ratio between KE and CE protection. Secon value was 1: 2,09 and as we can see -it's fully possible for leopard-2A4. For lower ratio mentioned in article for 1978r it was 1: 1.36 so protection can be like 540mm RHA and ~750mm vs HEAT as lower values.
And propably ineffectiveness Soviet HEAT warhed was reson why thre was rapid growth penetartion possibilities soviet AT weapons in late 80s -and it's very easy how APFSDS and HEAt warhed developers try to catch up the growth of armor protection:

Leo2A1; 1979- november 1984
380 (I batch) + 450 (II batch) + 300 (IIIbatch)

APFSDS since 1976 to 1984.
115mm:
3БМ28 - 380mm RHA
ЗБМ21 - 330mm RHA
125mm:
3BM22 (1976) - 380mm RHA
3БМ26 (1982) - 410mm RHA
3БМ-29(1983) - 430mm RHA

ATGM's, and GLATGM's:
9М 111-2(Fagot -1975) - 460mm RHA
Konkurs (1974) - 600mm RHA
9М111М (Fagot 1983) - 600mm RHA
9М112М (Kobra GLATGM ppk 1976) - 600mm RHA
9M112M (mod. Kobry from 1985) - do 700mm RHA

In this period propably Soviet inteligence haven't bigger idea about burlinghton - perforation level enought for APFSDs was around 450mm RHA (for typical 1300m max fire range) and for HEAT warhed about 600mm RHA (-150mm RHA up armor level necessary to kill tank) so 450-500mm RHA vs HEAT.
That protection level was expected by Soviet developers. But it was propably very underestimated against HEAT wathed (different specificity Burlihton armour then all older armours) -for the other side - protection level vs KE is in accordance with the fact what we know aboit erly M1 and Leopard-2 armour.

But propably after ~1984 some infos went to the east and we can see very fast and huge growth penetartion possibilities for Soviet AT weapons -the same we can assume that soviet developes finds how really good was Burlinghton armour and they try to catch up those problem after miss a of them:

Leo2A3;december 1984-december 1985
300 (IV batch)
Leo2A4; december 1985-marc 1992
370 (1985-1987 marc; V batch)
150 (1986-1989may; VI batch)
100 (1989-1990 april;VII batch)
75 (january 1991-marc 1992; VIII batch)

APFSDS since 1985 to 1990:
3BM32 (1985) 500mm RHA
3BM42 (1986) 450mm RHA
3BM48 (1990) 600mm RHA

ATGMs and GLATGM's since 1985 to 1994:
9M120 (1985) 800-950mm RHA
Wichr-M (1990) 1000mm RHA
9M115-2 (1992) 980mm RHA
9M133-1 (1994) 1200mm RHA

In that level on typical distance in western europe soviet developers suspected to find western tanks whit about more then ~550mm RHA vs KE and more then 850-1000mm RHA vs HEAT.
Hmm it looks that those value looks simillar to thats values:

And try to consider if double thick (84cm) front armour on turret can be as 540mm vs RHA and 1084mm vs HEAT - becouse mass is fully posible in that volumen like in Leopard-2A4 turret.

??
All is connect with each other - knowing leopard-2A4 (erly) mass and Burlinghton evectivness, Soviet AT weapons perforation etc.

And If we consider angle and LOS thickness then protection for that Leopard2A3 and 2A4 (erly) will be as ~430-480-540mm vs KE and 850-954-1084mm vs HEAT (turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front ad 30. - turret front at 0.)
For 2A4 since 1986 it will be slighty bigger:
500-550-630mm vs KE and -1000-1150-1300mm vs CE ((turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front ad 30. - turret front at 0.)

And If you think that more then 1300mm vs HEAT was impossible then remember about case when AGM114 hit M1A1HA turret during ODS. SC warhed whit perforation bigger then 1100mm (170mm diamtere x 6,5) was unnable to perforate those armour.
In 1991.

 

[militarysta]

BTW: those works in boths sides -when we try to estimatous western AT weapons perforation level we can assume what protectio they suspected...

And if nacked T-72B had on turret 470-540mm vs KE and 560-640 vs CE then whit Kontakt-1 it was still 470-540vs KE but about 960-1040mm vs HEAT (or in diffrent way: less then 60% for most SC warhed - main armour - 150mm RHA up armor level necessary to kill tank) .
etc

 

[hest]

And still funny discussion while avoiding most obvious and determinant fact.

What is the protection equivalence in RHA against APFSDS to thickness of composite armour block ??

Given hull armour dimensions of 600-650 mm, today to achieve necessary protection of atleast 700 mm it has to have an equivalence higher than steel (in the order of atleast 1.2) (!) while this is utterly ridiculous.

In fact nobody will agree, that current composite armour block with lower weight will surpass steel equivalence by thickness (actually best case is equivalence of 0.9 maximum for Leopard, Abrams or T-90).

For Leopard 2A4 and Abrams in late 80s, they'd need to have an efficiency comparable to modern composite armour to be enought for hull, which is completely unrealistic.

 

[Damian]

And still funny discussion while avoiding most obvious and determinant fact.

You are funny.

Given hull armour dimensions of 600-650 mm, today to achieve necessary protection of atleast 700 mm it has to have an equivalence higher than steel (in the order of atleast 1.2) (!) while this is utterly ridiculous.

It is said in documents that Przezdziecki used, (documents from British archieves) that Burlington in 1970's achieve efficency of 1.5 against APFSDS compared to the RHA of the same weight.

Only because people in NII Stali are incapable to achieve such results does not mean others are incapable.

In fact nobody while agree, that current composite armour block with lower weight will surpass steel equivalence by thickness (actually best case is equivalence of 0.9 maximum for Leopard, Abrams or T-90).

Western designers disagree with You. And who said that composite armor used in Leo2 or M1 is lighter, it is actually as Militarysta proved heavier than that used in T-72B for example.

For Leopard 2A4 and Abrams in late 80s, they'd need to have an efficiency comparable to modern composite armour to be enought for hull, which is completely unrealistic.

Oh to the contrary, it is completely realistic. As I said, only because You Russians aren't capable to do something, it does not mean others are not capable to do something.

 

[hest]

It is said in documents that Przezdziecki used, (documents from British archieves) that Burlington in 1970's achieve efficency of 1.5 against APFSDS compared to the RHA of the same weight.

Such figures are also given for Soviet composites, but weight efficiency is important to achieve reduction. But volume efficiency does not reach equivalence with steel.

Weight efficiency and volume efficiency are two different concepts

Western designers disagree with You. And who said that composite armor used in Leo2 or M1 is lighter, it is actually as Militarysta proved heavier than that used in T-72B for example.

Nobody ever claimed such fantasy figures which you support with no base.

 

[Damian]

Such figures are also given for Soviet composites, but weight efficiency is important to achieve reduction. But volume efficiency does not reach equivalence with steel.

Weight efficiency and volume efficiency are two different concepts

Still this does not proove Your silly argumentation. I'am 100% sure that if Militarysta would wrote that T-72B armor have 1,5 vs KE, You would even kiss him and would be happy... which is typical for our eastern neighbours, they will argue with anything, and any discussion must end with favour to them.

Nobody ever claimed such fantasy figures which you support with no base.

Oh to the contrary, many people claimed, and with a good base. Only You don't know them.

Paul Lakowski several years ago gave such TE values for tanks.

M1A1 - TE vs KE = 0.66, vs CE = 1.15
M1A1HA - TE vs KE = 1.0, vs CE = 1.54
M1A1HC/M1A2 - TE vs KE = 1.32, vs CE 1.88
M1A2SEP - TE vs KE = 1.41, vs CE 1.97

T-72B - TE vs KE = 0.41, vs CE = 0.34
T-80U - TE vs KE = 0.71, vs CE = 0.9

 

[hest]

Weight-protection efficiency will not say anything without knowing weight-volume.

Fact is that such weight efficient composite takes significantly more volume with same weight as steel

If you do not understand this important concept then there is no further argument from your part.

Today composite block will not surpass equivalence with RHA against APFSDS in protection to thickness.

 

[Damian]

Weight-protection efficiency will not say anything without knowing weight-volume.

Fact is that such weight efficient composite takes significantly more volume with same weight as steel

If you do not understand this important concept then there is no further argument from your part.

Today composite block will not surpass equivalence with RHA against APFSDS in protection to thickness.

These are just bollocks of frustrated Russians.

As posted above, Paul Lakowski estimated after research such values.


M1A1 - TE vs KE = 0.66, vs CE = 1.15
M1A1HA - TE vs KE = 1.0, vs CE = 1.54
M1A1HC/M1A2 - TE vs KE = 1.32, vs CE 1.88
M1A2SEP - TE vs KE = 1.41, vs CE 1.97

T-72B - TE vs KE = 0.41, vs CE = 0.34
T-80U - TE vs KE = 0.71, vs CE = 0.9

For soviet tanks he recived informations from Fofanov and Colonel Murakhovski. For western tanks he calculated this by basing on the known materials used and estimated armor thickness.