Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

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.

Provide something usefull, than figures from nowhere ??

 

[Damian]

Ha ha, when you will grow up and provide something usefull, than funny figures from nowhere ??

Listen I said from where they are, from Paul Lakowski, he wrote his calculations few years ago under title "Armor Basics". As I said, he collected informations from many sources, among them Vasily Fofanov and Colonel Victor Murakhovski.

Only because they contradicts Your fantasies, does not mean they are not closer to truth than Your fantasies.

And You actually prooves wide spread opinions about Russians and their servants like You. Allways butthurted, when someone disagree's with them and provides different data, that disproves their fantasies about their superiority. Which is sad.

 

[hest]

You do not provide anything of value at all, or talk about figures without correct context or with strong concept ignorance.

This funny chart will go where ? Certainly stupid for serious discussion.

You support your fantasy on some figure about 1.5 weight efficiency which has no relation with weight-volume and volume efficiency.

 

[Damian]

You do not provide anything of value at all, or talk about figures without correct context or with strong concept ignorance.

So GTFO, You do not need to discuss with us if You don't like it.

This funny chart will go where ? Certainly stupid for serious discussion.

Certainly I do not need discuss with such ignorant like You. Just admitt that the only truth You respect is Your truth that means - "Russians are superior to everything".

You support your fantasy on some figure about 1.5 weight efficiency which has no relation with weight-volume and volume efficiency.

1.5 efficency figure is from documents in British archieve related to Burlington program development, that are currently unclassified, are meant for one of armor configurations tested in 1970's, that data was collected by Pavel Przezdziecki for his article about Burlington.

These are goddamn documented by the British facts, from their own development program. If You don't like the reality, then just kill Yourself and stop wasting our time...

 

[militarysta]

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

Lidsky -there is no simple answer. In front Leopard-2A4 armour model looks that:



A layers are made by RHA stell
B layer is "special armour" block
C layer is non metalic layer propably kevlar or aramid
D layers is ceramic or polymer
E layers is RHA or THS layers inner citadelle.

The only "mystery" is what is in those 50cm thick "special armour" module. Image (just image!) that this 50cm block include about 20 NERA layers at 30 degree. What will be protection given by this block? Propably bigger then ERA. Just think about this, ans about problem about relatio between thicknes and RHA equivalence.

while this is utterly ridiculous

It's the same ridiculous as claiming that ERA can provide protection like RHA block at the same LOS thicknes
Do You see the diffrence?

In fact nobody will agree, that current composite armour block with lower weight will surpass steel equivalence by thickness

Had you been reading what I posted about Burlinghton armour in 1978? Please do it.
Those two articles are written using unclassified documents about Burlinghton developmend process since 1965 to circa about 1978. Those values are facts based on bibliography and found documents and they are not take from space. Just try to translate them ising google transate (especially second part) -most answer for your doubts is placed there.

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

Both are know for erly A4 and A3 Leopard-2. And as I posted here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-252.html#post585476
And check how it's looks in compare to the T-64B or T-72B armour without ERA.
In fact using ERA is saving resistance issues for soviet tanks in compare to western ones...

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

Remember about that what I posted abound found material about Burlinghton from 1978.
If special armour is 1,5 better as RHA plate (not cast steel!) and 3 times better against CE whit the same weight as RHA block then it can be placed in layer whit 1/3 (at least) smaller weight whit the same protection. Or even more. Do You consider that?


And if You want you can compare those weight efficiency 1,5 vs KE and 3 vs CE for Burlinghton from 1978 whit known facts about Leopard2A3/4 armour (gun mantled mask weight -630kg and whole special armour in cavity weight - 8900kg; turret dimensions etc) and Soviet AT weapons perforation between 1985 and 1993. The data are consistent with each other for all parts.
Of course there is simpler way - just read those two articles...


BTW: until 1990 there was no reson to using better hull armour protection on wetsern tanks due to smaller perforation for soviet APFSDS and HEAT warhed. It's seems that max for 600mm LOS Leopard-2 hull thicknes resistance was about 500mm RHA vs APFSDS, and the possibility of introducing better soviet APFSDS in erly 90 forced program for up-armouring front hull whit NERA modules.
Americans whit their slighty bigger (650mm LOS) hull don't decide that propably due to additional protection given by fuel tanks, and sad period between 1991 and 2005 in russian military complex when no new APFSDS where intorduced and in fact all AT Russian weapons stay at 1985-1991 level. So APFSDS whit 500mm at 2000m was max.

 

[methos]

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.

Weight is not equal to thickness. How thick is a Burlington block equaling 600 mm steel armour in terms of weight? Just take a look at the Leopard 2 mantlet figure from militarysta.

 

[hest]

Lidsky -there is no simple answer. In front Leopard-2A4 armour model looks that:



A layers are made by RHA stell
B layer is "special armour" block
C layer is non metalic layer propably kevlar or aramid
D layers is ceramic or polymer
E layers is RHA or THS layers inner citadelle.

The only "mystery" is what is in those 50cm thick "special armour" module. Image (just image!) that this 50cm block include about 20 NERA layers at 30 degree. What will be protection given by this block? Propably bigger then ERA. Just think about this, ans about problem about relatio between thicknes and RHA equivalence.

So this composite block which makes most of armour consists of composite of semi-reactive type (NERA) with use of relatively thin plates with provided space in between to achieve effect. NERA plate and spaced arrangement makes it lighter (less dense), with increased effectiveness against cumulative jet. But this composition is significantly worse against APFSDS, less than steel, because it is aknowledged that NERA plate performance is limited.

While for Soviet hull angled steel plates of increased hardness and steel base which make most of composition will reflect better protection against APFSDS, though not against cumulative jet, but that was achieved by additional ERA.

It's the same ridiculous as claiming that ERA can provide protection like RHA block at the same LOS thicknes
Do You see the diffrence?

?

Remember about that what I posted abound found material about Burlinghton from 1978.
If special armour is 1,5 better as RHA plate (not cast steel!) and 3 times better against CE whit the same weight as RHA block then it can be placed in layer whit 1/3 (at least) smaller weight whit the same protection. Or even more. Do You consider that?

It is irrelevant as explained, because increased weight efficiency on this case implies bigger volume to achieve equivalent protection value.

It is known that NERA efficiency is much more limited against APFSDS, now even worse because it is not as easy to bend or destabilise projectile than 4 decades earlier, so there is no such effect as those old figures showed.

 

[Damian]

Weight is not equal to thickness. How thick is a Burlington block equaling 600 mm steel armour in terms of weight? Just take a look at the Leopard 2 mantlet figure from militarysta.

Mantlet have different structure than main armor.

So this composite block which makes most of armour consists of composite of semi-reactive type (NERA) with use of relatively thin plates with provided space in between to achieve effect. NERA plate and spaced arrangement makes it lighter (less dense), with increased effectiveness against cumulative jet. But this composition is significantly worse against APFSDS, less than steel, because it is aknowledged that NERA plate performance is limited.

While for Soviet hull angled steel plates of increased hardness and steel base which make most of composition will reflect better protection against APFSDS, though not against cumulative jet, but that was achieved by additional ERA.

1) How do You know how thin are plates in NERA array? And that complete composite array is NERA.
2) This type of armor without a problem stopped APFSDS projectile in tests in Germany and in Greece without addon wedge armor.
3) Soviet design is inferior in every aspect, this is the fact.

It is irrelevant as explained, because increased weight efficiency on this case implies bigger volume to achieve equivalent protection value.

It is known that NERA efficiency is much more limited against APFSDS, now even worse because it is not as easy to bend or destabilise projectile than 4 decades earlier, so there is no such effect as those old figures showed.

Bigger volume is not a problem, in fact lower volume in soviet tanks is problematic, makes armor inefficent, and make need for ERA.

Western NERA efficency against kinetic energy projectiles is bigger than primitive NERA from Russia.

As I said in west there was a wide spread use of advanced and lightweight materials like Titanium, far more efficent than steel.

And there is more how passive steel can be more efficent than reactive array consisting of plates made from the same steel be it SHS, HHS, DHS or THS and other materials like mentioned titanium, depleted uranium, tungsten that all combined offer superior protection to the primitive passive steel.

This just don't make sense, the only explanation is You obsession with making every soviet development better than especially western solutions.

We need to remember that this type of protection as I said above, provided sufficent protection against more than ~500-600mm penetrating APFSDS ammunition during tests in Greece, probably also Sweden tested armor without any additional protection. Challenger 2 survived in 2003 a F-F incident where M1A1 hit it with M829A1 or M829A2 (dunno which type was used, although in 2003 the basic combat munitions were M829A2), which is impressive for a tank without ERA, while in the same time T-72B would definetly not survive a hit of M829A2 penetrator, even with ERA.

 

[313230]

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.

Your scientific knowledge is very limited, Damian. You spreaded many mis informations. Titanium alloys is hardly stronger than steel, it is just a myth. Here is a part of table of ultimate tensile strength for reference:

Ultimate tensile strength - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maraging steel --- 2693 MPa
Titanium 11 --- 1040 MPa
Tungsten --- 1500 MPa

You can try to google, but I bet you can find a titanium alloy even the best modern one with UTS above 1500 MPa, while high grade steel can reach more then 3000 MPa. Just a note, maragin steel was found from 70s 80s of the last century, not a new technology, they used it in civil submarine. Some of titanium alloys (ceramics) maybe extreme hard and maybe is used against CE, but not KE. On the other hand, RHA is actually quite a hard and strong steel and steel is one of the best material with thickness equivalence (TE). Other materials are lower in TE, so if LOS is 800mm, RHA against KE is less than pure steel.

 

[Damian]

Your scientific knowledge is very limited, Damian. You spreaded many mis informations. Titanium alloys is hardly stronger than steel, it is just a myth. Here is a part of table of ultimate tensile strength for reference:

Ultimate tensile strength - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maraging steel --- 2693 MPa
Titanium 11 --- 1040 MPa
Tungsten --- 1500 MPa

You can try to google, but I bet you can find a titanium alloy even the best modern one with UTS above 1500 MPa, while high grade steel can reach more then 3000 MPa. Just a note, maragin steel was found from 70s 80s of the last century, not a new technology, they used it in civil submarine. Some of titanium alloys (ceramics) maybe extreme hard and maybe is used against CE, but not KE. On the other hand, RHA is actually quite a hard and strong steel and steel is one of the best material with thickness equivalence (TE). Other materials are lower in TE, so if LOS is 800mm, RHA against KE is less than pure steel.

You again are making a typical mistake, as most people, You compare known alloys on civilian market, but nobody knows what alloys are used by the military, this is the first thing. Also please note that I was not talking about tensile strenght but on hardness.

Second is that titanium is a part ot the armor package, it does not work alone. This is the same mistake as people do with depleted uranium treating it as a standalone material, where in fact it is a part of armor package.

In all materials it is said that armor package is made from a DU plate encased in steel (what steel, it can be a very hard steel) + in the latest version in a graphite coating.

DU is densier than steel, cobined with hard steel we gain a very hard and very dense armor package, additional hardness can be gained from graphite coating, and thic coating can be made from pure graphite, from graphite based materials like carbon fiber, carbon nano tubes and other extremely hard and extremely light materials.

And there is not a single layer of such armor, but several layers.

How this can have lower protection than mostly pure steel armor?

Oh wait, i know, it is not Russian invented, neither Chinese invented eh?

Besides this, these are only several known materials used, nobody knows the full list of the used materials and their characeristics.

 

[Akim]

The same is a not stream of metallurgists and specialists of explosives. Let we will consider and exotic tanks. Write your comment of the NorthKorean tank the "Pokpung - ho". For to me so he excels К1А1.

"Pokpung - ho" 1series

 

[Damian]

The same is a not stream of metallurgists and specialists of explosives. Let we will consider and exotic tanks. Write your comment of the NorthKorean tank the "Pokpung - ho". For to me so he excels К1А1.

Actually this is one of Choonma-Ho variants, Pookpung-Ho is different tank. And in what he would be better than K1A1? I do not see in what it can be better.

 

[Akim]

I corrected. It is the first series, but it however he Pokpung - ho which it was begun to produce in the middle of 90th. To the second series pictures unclear.

 

[Damian]

Still I do not see here anything better than what K1A1 can offer.

The composite armor used by North Koreans is IMHO based on BDD armor for T-54/55 and T-62 tanks for Choonma-Ho, and on Combination K or "Sand Rods" from T-64, T-80 and early T-72 series.
Yet it might be interesting if possible to know about it's origins. Also ERA is interesting.

 

[Akim]

ЕRА looks like Chinese, and in general the Chinese did some work above him. At that rate we will push off from type 96. You will look at the South Korean tank. He is though and done with М1, however he is weak in protection. And a driver sits reclining, as in Chieftain tank, that very dangerously for mines.

 

[Damian]

ЕRА looks like Chinese, and in general the Chinese did some work above him. At that rate we will push off from type 96.

Perhaps yes, perhaps not. Chinese ERA looks more thin, especially on turret than North Korean design. After all it might be completely their own development.

You will look at the South Korean tank. He is though and done with М1, however he is weak in protection. And a driver sits reclining, as in Chieftain tank, that very dangerously for mines.

Why K1/K1A1 should have weak protection? There is any valuable argument for that? As for reclining position, it is a very good idea, and as for mine protection, soviet tanks are not better in this than any other tank.



As we can see, because of driver seating vertially, his station belly needs to be lowered, making it even more vurnable to mines, and difficult to install any addon armor for mine and IED protection.

Here You can see approx ~200mm thick addon belly plate. It can be made from steel or some sort of composite. But it is immposible to place similiar protection for hull belly in soviet tanks and tanks basing their design on them, due to this visible belly bulge under driver station.

I know it, in Poland our designers tried to do it with our T-55AM Merida, in the end tank crews said that additional belly armor makes movement in difficult terrain very problematic, sometimes making it immposible.

 

[methos]

I think the North Korean "Pokpung-ho" is a rather interesting tank. But there are many unkown variables.

Composite armour could be based on the T-72M1 with "ultrafarforov" rods inside the Combination-K. It is known that at least a single T-72M1 was imported from some third world country, but this technology might also have been transfered from Lybia or Iran (both countries with which the North Koreans traded arms). Alternatively, they could use the "reflecting foil" (NERA) armour of the T-72S, which could have been bought from the Iran or acquired from old Soviet tanks bought for scrapping from Russia. It seems harder to gain access to real BDD armour from the T-55AM or T-62M, because less countries actually use this tanks to which North Korea has relations. Maybe via Cuba or bought from Afghanistan (one theory says that the North Koreans got their T-72M1 from Afghan mujahideen).
North Korea also might have started to develop their armour themselves or got some technology from China.

Why K1/K1A1 should have weak protection? There is any valuable argument for that? As for reclining position, it is a very good idea, and as for mine protection, soviet tanks are not better in this than any other tank.

K1A1 is maybe good protected, but K1 is in sense of armour thickness and weight not very good situated. I was always under the impression that it was designed for the same protection level (and weight level) as the basic M1.

 

[313230]

You again are making a typical mistake, as most people, You compare known alloys on civilian market, but nobody knows what alloys are used by the military, this is the first thing. Also please note that I was not talking about tensile strenght but on hardness.

Second is that titanium is a part ot the armor package, it does not work alone. This is the same mistake as people do with depleted uranium treating it as a standalone material, where in fact it is a part of armor package.

In all materials it is said that armor package is made from a DU plate encased in steel (what steel, it can be a very hard steel) + in the latest version in a graphite coating.

DU is densier than steel, cobined with hard steel we gain a very hard and very dense armor package, additional hardness can be gained from graphite coating, and thic coating can be made from pure graphite, from graphite based materials like carbon fiber, carbon nano tubes and other extremely hard and extremely light materials.

And there is not a single layer of such armor, but several layers.

How this can have lower protection than mostly pure steel armor?

Oh wait, i know, it is not Russian invented, neither Chinese invented eh?

Besides this, these are only several known materials used, nobody knows the full list of the used materials and their characeristics.

No, I don't make that mistake.
You think that military stuffs are uber technologys, but in fact, it is in civil knowledge limit. Let us begin with carbon nanotube, no matter how hard military scientists are trying, they can't gain anything better than its theoretic UTS widely known. Steel as materials is deeply researched in many field, car manufacturing, aerospace, also other like titanium or composite as well. And quite the opposite, military stuff is hardly the best stuff because they need industry capacity and many other requirement. They can't put the best tech there.
You think carbon nanotube is hard, I don't know what to say with you.

All in all, it is not that hard when guessing about military techs like you imagined. You need a wider angle when viewing something. Even steel in micro scale can reach 10 GPa but at macro scale, they can't make it. Carbon nanotube is exactly similar to that, you are so naive about it. Civil scientist reseach in every materials, when you think there is something super uber in the military, is like there is a element military knows but not known in the periodic table.

Graphite is graphite, you think there is a super graphite civil researchers don't know? You think there are super uber titan alloy civil scientists don't know? Very unrealistic, but assume it exists, how do they work with thing like quality control, product quantity, safety margin? Or you think something just can pop out not nothing and just put it all on your tank?

Of course I don't know about real structure of armor, so do you. So to keep the best estimation, keep it close to known thing in reality, not your imagination. Armor tech is well known in many countries, but if you think there is really a revolution in armor design, they will put priority in AFV, but FCS failed badly. You love words like carbon, nano, but you know nothing about them more than words, your estimation about them are just hope and imagination.

 

[Damian]

Composite armour could be based on the T-72M1 with "ultrafarforov" rods inside the Combination-K.

Mistake, the T-72 series never used Combination K which is a cast steel armor with integral cavity for alluminium insert, in later variants this was ugpraded with ceramic material made spheres known as "ultrafarforov". The early T-72 series (pre T-72B) use armor known as "sand rods" which is probably simplified version of Combination K or something different, completely not connected.

 

[methos]

Mistake, the T-72 series never used Combination K which is a cast steel armor with integral cavity for alluminium insert, in later variants this was ugpraded with ceramic material made spheres known as "ultrafarforov". The early T-72 series (pre T-72B) use armor known as "sand rods" which is probably simplified version of Combination K or something different, completely not connected.

Zaloga calls the T-72A/T-72M1's armour also Combination K and the "sand rods" or "sand bars" are according to him "ultrafarforov" what according to him is the Russian word for "ultra porcelain". How are the sand rods hold in place?