Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Now you show your understanding...

No, I'am just not vurnable to propaganda.

Late Soviet tanks solved the problem with use of new active defeat methods, as you see in armour composition, and whom which you are not familiarised ( I showed article), which are not implemented anywhere else at this level.

ERA have it's limitations, neither ERA is active protection but reactive protection.

Active protection is active protection system that for example shoots down projectiles.

Conclusions - ERA is obsolete and redundant for top protection, incapable to protect against tandem shaped charge warheads. The only solution is active protection system.

ERA show even more limitations because there were experiments with even triple shaped charge warheads with two precursors before main warhead.

So there is another conclusion.

Russians due to limited budget, and obsession in ERA, do not seek any alternatives, do not have any research and development program for new armor materials, in coming years they in fact will still work on obsolete concepts for vehicles protection.

Which means that in the long term, the potential of heavy platforms like "Armata" might be just wasted.

 

[hest]

Just look at increase of efficiency of modern reactive armour



First generation ERA, Second generation ERA, Improved Second generation ERA, Third generation ERA, Fourth generation ERA, or electric reactive armour.

In rest of countries second generation ERA still does not reached such maturity level, while Russia already works on third and fourth generation.

 

[hest]

No, I'am just not vurnable to propaganda.

You have no understanding, so you cannot say anything more.

ERA have it's limitations, neither ERA is active protection but reactive protection.

Active protection is active protection system that for example shoots down projectiles.

Conclusions - ERA is obsolete and redundant for top protection, incapable to protect against tandem shaped charge warheads. The only solution is active protection system.

ERA show even more limitations because there were experiments with even triple shaped charge warheads with two precursors before main warhead.

So there is another conclusion.

Russians due to limited budget, and obsession in ERA, do not seek any alternatives, do not have any research and development program for new armor materials, in coming years they in fact will still work on obsolete concepts for vehicles protection.

Which means that in the long term, the potential of heavy platforms like "Armata" might be just wasted.

You ignore concept of active defeat method, in fact you have no knowledge about anything on this subject...

 

[Damian]

Just look at increase of efficiency of modern reactive armour



First generation ERA, Second generation ERA, Improved Second generation ERA, Third generation ERA, Fourth generation ERA, or electric reactive armour.

In rest of countries second generation ERA still does not reached such maturity level, while Russia already works on third and fourth generation.

Electric Reactive Armor was first developed in UK. So yeah, UK was there sooner than Russia. And yes, there are countries that have better ERA than Russia, for example Ukraine.

And ERA have it's limitations, there are better alternatives than ERA, only Russians do not have money to even start R&D programs... damn Russian MoD barely can purchase tanks and in the same time fund any R&D programs.

You have no understanding, so you cannot say anything more.

I have understanding, I'am just not so naive and stupid like You.

You ignore concept of active defeat method, in fact you have no knowledge about anything on this subject...

There is nothing active there, this is ERA, explosive reactive armor. This is first thing. Second is that there are limits for ERA, and that there are better alternatives, like advanced materials for advanced composite armors, and active protection systems.

Russia is just focused so on ERA because of lack of money, so they just focus on the cheapest thing they can get.

 

[average american]

Technology has reached the point where its much easier and cheaper to build weapons to destroy tanks then its to improve armour an tank defense. There may be a place in modern warfare for tanks if you have superior air power, other wise they are nothing but targets.

 

[Damian]

Technology has reached the point where its much easier and cheaper to build weapons to destroy tanks then its to improve armour an tank defense. There may be a place in modern warfare for tanks if you have superior air power, other wise they are nothing but targets.

Oh stop, this idiotic claims fool.

Technology have no limits, only some people minds are completely limited.

The problem is that we allready have the needed materials to design next generation protection with much higer protection levels than anything used today. The only one real problem needed to be solve is to make them easy to be manufactured in form of plates, to be manufactured cheaply and on the mass scale. That's all.

In fact if we solve these problems and start to use a next generation composite armors with these new materials, perhaps the only way to defeat them will be rail gun or coil gun. However both have their limitations now, first is the energy storage, and how to create enough energy to give projectile enough velocity. Second problem are barrels service life, current rail guns have a very short life barrels unfortunetly... but perhaps where new materials are good for armor, they can be also used with ammunition and main guns barrel to improve both penetration and service life.

 

[hest]

Electric Reactive Armor was first developed in UK. So yeah, UK was there sooner than Russia. And yes, there are countries that have better ERA than Russia, for example Ukraine.

And ERA have it's limitations, there are better alternatives than ERA, only Russians do not have money to even start R&D programs... damn Russian MoD barely can purchase tanks and in the same time fund any R&D programs.

Your cry and child mentality does not matter here, so if you do not understand subject, do not disrupt rest of members.

Without arguments or provided material nobody will expect an answer.

 

[Damian]

Your cry and child mentality does not matter here, so if you do not understand subject, do not disrupt rest of members.

You call me a child ----er? You came here from nowhere and started to troll and disturibing any discussion. So shut up and GTFO. You are lucky that we are not talking face to face...

Without arguments or provided material nobody will expect an answer.

What no arguments? There are preaty good arguments, just You are not capable to comprehend them. Russia is not capable to design modern composite armor, they focus on ERA, ERA have limits, tandem shaped charges are efficent in defeating ERA, ERA efficency depends on what is behind ERA. Russian tanks have only max ~70-80mm thick turret roof armor, there is no sufficent space between ERA and turret roof armor, so main shaped charge from tandem warhead will go through it like knife through butter.

Because Russians are not even capable to design top attack ATGM, they spread propaganda about how superior their ERA are... which is nothing more than propaganda.

Jesus Christ Your beloved Russia don't have even the money to replace Kontakt-5 with Relikt on existing tanks.

And because Your obsession with bashing everything non Russian made, I'am completely sure that You are just insane.

 

[pmaitra]

Stop fighting Lidsky and Damian. Make your points and let each reader decide.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Ukrainian design..

Interesting layout..

 

[hest]

About composition of perspective tank, I made simple mark (will do better later) to explain turret design, based on premature conclusions.

This is general configuration of tank based on Armata. Combat module consisting of unmanned low profile turret.

Marked zone is "base" composed by structure with integrated reactive armour, providing protection as main hull armour, frontal level, against APFSDS projectiles of 140 mm caliber (> 1000 mm perforation), ATGMs, etc.

Proper gun, loading element is protected against atleast medium caliber automatic cannon (30 mm or more) and fragments. 2/3 of bore lenght is covered, protected against projectiles and secondary damage. Module may incorporate expendable bustle with additional ammunition, isolated, protected partly by turret projection.

Hull side protection is provided mainly by reactive armour, screen with anti-tandem properties, also providing safe manouvering angle of > 15-20 degrees from front against main anti-tank weapons due to strong lateral impulse and destabilising effect.

Top protection of crew compartment works on active method, composed by high hardness steel and reactive elements, as shown in example of 477 Molot

Thus probabilities of neutralisation from top are greatly reduced, being only chance a direct impact on crew hatches, which were reduced to 2.

More complete protection is provided by universal active protection complex, Afganit, from ATGMS from all directions, and providing protection against APFSDS.

Armament

- Main gun, 125 mm 2A82 of increased power, defeating any current frontal armour (and in perspective 152mm 2A83),

- Secondary gun of 7.62 to 12.7 mm, maybe also coaxial gun.

- Additional gun ranging from different automatic cannons.

More later ...

 

[average american]

During the Gulf war, US the Airforce and marine pilots effectively destroyed an entire Iraqi tank division, in about 3 hours. These were the finest main battle tanks that russia could make-not some cheap export model. However, without air cover, a $2 million tank is a sitting duck. The crews made no attemp to move the tanks as they wanted to be as far away from the tanks as possible. Theres no defense against DU shells and missiles that are going to defend tanks..

 

[Akim]

During the Gulf war, US the Airforce and marine pilots effectively destroyed an entire Iraqi tank division, in about 3 hours.

It is impossible will disagree. Without air DEFENCE,, tanks are practically powerless against an aviation. But in Iraq there was not good air DEFENCE zone.

 

[Damian]

During the Gulf war, US the Airforce and marine pilots effectively destroyed an entire Iraqi tank division, in about 3 hours. These were the finest main battle tanks that russia could make-not some cheap export model. However, without air cover, a $2 million tank is a sitting duck. The crews made no attemp to move the tanks as they wanted to be as far away from the tanks as possible. Theres no defense against DU shells and missiles that are going to defend tanks..

This is a complete nonsense written by a complete ignorant who don't even read the books.



This shows perfectly how pathetic is effectiveness of air forces against tanks, even if these tanks have even more pathethic air defense. And the source is official US Armed Forces magazine "ARMOR". So You can't say this is unreliable. So stop lie fool.

 

[hest]

It is not exact, but example of configuration of future active protection system Afganit (around turret)

 

[hest]

This is a complete nonsense written by a complete ignorant who don't even read the books.



This shows perfectly how pathetic is effectiveness of air forces against tanks, even if these tanks have even more pathethic air defense. And the source is official US Armed Forces magazine "ARMOR". So You can't say this is unreliable. So stop lie fool.

Problem with Iraq, they should have purchased armament, but went into war with unprepared forces.

It would have been different if invading forces faced decent resistance, but it is true that tanks are the most effective mean against land troops.

 

[Damian]

Oh the irony... this is the first time when we both agree in something.

However Iraqi Republican Guard tank units were a serious threat and they had a really fierce resitance there.

There is a several stories, for example tanki of I think Seargant Tony Steed. His tank stopped on the battlefield because of surrendering Iraqis, and was iluminated (it was night) by burning Iraqi tank, then the another hidden T-72 spotted American M1A1 and fired at it's side hull armor with a HEAT round, loader had been wounded by spall in the legs, and the M1A1 had been disabled. Crew get out and waited for support hidden behind a tank. They survived because of ammunition isolation, in any other tank, such hit could ended with immidiate ammunition deflagration and death of the whole crew.

There were many more interesting stories from both 1991 and 2003-2008 period on both wars in Iraq.

 

[Austin]

RF army to have combat equipment on unified platform in 3 years

MOSCOW, September 30 (Itar-Tass) — The Russian army will get combat equipment on three unified platforms in 2015, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces said.

"A program for the creation of heavy, medium and light brigades, which will be equipped with systems on the Armata, Kurganets-25 and Typhoon unified chassis," Colonel-General Vladimir Chirkin said on Echo of Moscow Radio on Saturday. Armata is a heavy tracked platform on which it is possible to place any combat and fire unit, turning it into a tank or self-propelled artillery and anti-aircraft guns, said the commander in chief.

In addition, according to General Chirkin, prototypes of the so-called capsular armour plating will be developed in Russia in two-three years that will significantly improve the level of protection of the crews of combat vehicles of various types. "The crew will be in a separate capsule, equipped with shock absorbers and springs. This is the second level of security," the commander said. From the capsule, the commander explained, the crew will be able to control all types of standard weapons, without touching them with the hands.

 

[Austin]

Do modern tanks advanced protection?
Valery Grigoryan - President and Scientific Director of JSC "Research Institute of Steel ( NII STALI )

 

[hest]

With apperance of Armata, they will come back to leading position on this field, unmatched for a time.