Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

If I remember correctly, the old stabilization system for L44 was WNA-H22, while new stabilization system for L55 is E-WNA.

 

[hest]

Not to shown in public. I can post only L-44 figures.
In fact L-55 is about 15% more accurate then L-44.

But this statement says nothing without details. Improvement in accuracy can be given by increment in projectile initial velocity, we do not know about conditions, if test was stationary or at reduced velocity, it will exlude or compensate stabilisation error, which may accentuate in conditions of speed and rought terrain, thus stated increase in accuracy may not be uniform.

Yes, in 90% Leo-2 monography EWNA is desribe ad system for L-55 so it's "not confirmrmed"?
LOL It's not my problem that rusian sources haven't bigger idea abour Leopard-2 and are full of nonsense like smaller LOS (btvt) or "monlith steel armour in gun mantled mask (vladimir). Change sources men.

There is still many bullshit, or taken out of context statements repeated by anyone, for example about 140 mm gun, when even Leopard 2A5 structure could not mount it without serious modifications, or add on armour wedges protection against 140 or 152mm APFSDS caliber when even early 140 mm munition had penetration value well over 1000 mm of RHA, and for West Soviet 152mm did not even existed.

It's not like I accept everything I read on those pages, but there is such possibility thus I asked.

I will assume that EWNA was designed to adapt both to L/44 and L/55, but still there could be some difference in stabilisation error.

I based not on autoloader but on T-72 Hull widh. You can't overpass that detail - T-72 hull have to small widh to handle longer APFSDS projectile in carosselee style autoloader. In Ob.188A2 it's limit - 740/750mm long.

And it's exatly the same as red line on my draw. And need change hull in new tanks. And As I posted - in Ob.1888A2 is max lenght. There is no possibility to put longer penetrator in horizont carrossele autoloader.

Autoloader for 2A46-M5 gun was modified, in scheme which I showed you can see further changes, so it may be able to host some additional ten of mm, >750 as compared to previous, of course not a meter ))

Here is composition of Armata, common with Ob. 195

And autoloader (it is shown for 152 mm but idea is the same), there is no longer limitation.

 

[hest]

If I remember correctly, the old stabilization system for L44 was WNA-H22, while new stabilization system for L55 is E-WNA.

Since Leopard 2A5 it was adopted E-WNA (electric), and it still had L/44 gun. WNA-H22 (hydraulic) was for older versions.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Do Ukrainian ERA are welded over turret ?

Very odd of so..

 

[Damian]

Leopard 2A5 had L44 only due to economic reasons. This is why KWS program was splited in to KWS-1 and KWS-2.

I think that Militarysta is right, Russian language sources about western tanks are very poor in terms of quality, credibility and how correct they are.

Do Ukrainian ERA are welded over turret ?

Very odd of so..

No, ERA cassettes are not welded, only their attachements are, like in all ERA.

 

[hest]

In Bulat modernisation ERA is placed over an additional steel plate to improve protection

 

[hest]

Leopard 2A5 had L44 only due to economic reasons. This is why KWS program was splited in to KWS-1 and KWS-2.

I think that Militarysta is right, Russian language sources about western tanks are very poor in terms of quality, credibility and how correct they are.

I do not take anything I read, but problems may well be possible.

Even if stabilisator can be adapted to longer gun, still it cannot be assured that it will have same performance.

Due to longer gun's higher oscillation effect it may take more time for system to stabilise it when aiming at target, or stabilisation error may increase in dependance of velocity, terrain conditions as compared with older gun.

 

[methos]

Leopard 2A5

 

[Damian]

I do not take anything I read, but problems may well be possible.

Even if stabilisator can be adapted to longer gun, still it cannot be assured that it will have same performance.

Due to longer gun's higher oscillation effect it may take more time for system to stabilise it when aiming at target, or stabilisation error may increase in dependance of velocity, terrain conditions as compared with older gun.

Yes, but it does not mean that problems weren't solved.

 

[hest]

Interesting test results of active protection system, Arena

Video

To measure residual cumulative jet penetration a control plate was employed

- RPG, up to 400 mm of perforation
No residual effect

- Fagot ATGM, up to 500 mm of perforation,
Residual effect penetrates about 20 mm

-Shturm ATGM, more than 600 mm of penetration
Residual effect penetrates 30 mm

This is normally not dangerous, but to note that Arena has a good working scheme, where elements destroy missile warhead from top

Howewer question arises, about another over-advertised systems, as Trophy, which have a rather innefective neutralisation method, were elements normally incide from front. Against modern ATGM they will not be able to deform main warhead significantly, or even do not affecting it at all, causing not destruction, but premature detonation with significant effect, especially for modern warheads with > 700 mm of perforation and better design, manufacturing method. So this system may not be effective on protecting rear, side projections, while it is unaceptable for protection of light vehicles.

 

[Damian]

So, for now You are making a black PR for a competetive system, that is actually fielded by military in active service and have actuall first combat use with success, am I right? Not to mention that during tests Trophy protected both tank like platforms as well as lighter platforms against both RPG's, ATGM's and HEAT rounds fired from tank main guns.

Trophy also destroys shaped charge liner inside, but from the front.

 

[hest]

Deficiencies of APS based on direct, focused neutralisation principle

According with advertisement of Trophy, controlled fragments ("peddles") are employed to reduce collateral damage, working on principle based not on destruction (as it is not enought) but damage of projectile elements to exclude it's detonation, this of course does not correspond with reality

Problems arise

- Modern warheads will react, causing premature detonation with residual effect
- This "peddles" inciding from front are not able to cause significant damage, deformation to main warhead, in some ocassions they will not affect it at all

As feature of this system, elements will incide directly in front of missile, or at some little angle from horizontal axis

Given system placement, due to angle and counter projectile limited extension it will not affect vulnerable missile zone, but at contrary, will result in inneficiency

Example of modern ATGM configuration

As can be appreciated, frontal incidence is not effective to cause significant damage to main warhead, while angled hit, in case of this example, Kornet missile, will hit secondary elements (engine, etc) hardly affecting main warhead.

 

[Damian]

Trophy do not use these as You call them "peddles" (what ever they are), but MEFP.

You argumentation is noting more than black PR to discredit competetive product. The real life, operational results and tests results are clear, Trophy protects tank and other platforms from RPG's, ATGM's and HEAT rounds fired from tanks main guns. Simple as that.

BTW You don't mind if I ask? Why You allways in every discussion try to discredit every non Russian development?

 

[hest]

Nobody able to think by himself should just believe in all advertisement.

I showed example of test used to measure residual penetration of deformed main warhead at premature detonation. As we know working scheme of system as Trophy, elements, projectiles and configuration of modern ATGM, we can conclude that in most situations it will just cause no more than premature detonation, thus I am interested, what will be the penetration of modern warhead of >100 mm diameter at range of some meters. Indeed it may be dangerous to weak zones, side, rear, some top projections (close to normal), while for protection of light vehicles it is absurd, anything bigger than monoblock RPG.

 

[Damian]

Nobody able to think by himself should just believe in all advertisement.

Well, then You see, I do not belive in Russian advertisement, and I'am very disgusted with Russians and yours habit to discredit everything non russian made.

I showed example of test used to measure residual penetration of deformed main warhead at premature detonation. As we know working scheme of system as Trophy, elements, projectiles and configuration of modern ATGM, we can conclude that in most situations it will just cause no more than premature detonation, thus I am interested, what will be the penetration of modern warhead of >100 mm diameter at range of some meters. Indeed it may be dangerous to weak zones, side, rear, some top projections (close to normal), while for protection of light vehicles it is absurd, anything bigger than monoblock RPG.

Trophy protected Merkava Mk4 against attack from elevated position with both RPG's and ATGM's. Palestinians have access to the more capable RPG's like RPG-29, as well as in the region, there are avaiable sources of 9M133 Kornet and 9M131M Metis-M ATGM's for insurgents.

For lighter vehicles like HMMWV's, there is lighter version of Trophy, as well as protection against ATGM's is not demanded, or protection against remnants of shaped charge jet can be achieved by installation of addon armor.

You conclusions are nothing more than mere speculations based on some weak assumptions not the test and combat use results.

 

[hest]

Well, then You see, I do not belive in Russian advertisement, and I'am very disgusted with Russians and yours habit to discredit everything non russian made.

It is ok as long as you have arguments and resources to criticise.

Trophy protected Merkava Mk4 against attack from elevated position with both RPG's and ATGM's. Palestinians have access to the more capable RPG's like RPG-29, as well as in the region, there are avaiable sources of 9M133 Kornet and 9M131M Metis-M ATGM's for insurgents.

No, these statements have origin only on silly journalist reports with no understanding.

In fact most RPG there are 70s level or cheap clones with poor performance for today's standart.

For lighter vehicles like HMMWV's, there is lighter version of Trophy, as well as protection against ATGM's is not demanded, or protection against remnants of shaped charge jet can be achieved by installation of addon armor.

Remnant of modern ATGM is powerfull enought to damage light vehicles, only real protection is against old RPG and missiles (Malyutka, etc)

You conclusions are nothing more than mere speculations based on some weak assumptions not the test and combat use results.

I actually posted and detailed test with specific results. Under such evidence I just won't believe in silly marketing claim.

 

[Damian]

It is ok as long as you have arguments and resources to criticise.

Yeah, sure if You have access to classified military data.

No, these statements have origin only on silly journalist reports with no understanding.

In fact most RPG there are 70s level or cheap clones with poor performance for today's standart.

I do not care about journalists statements but about the facts, facts are that Trophy protected vehicles both in combat situations and during tests. This is the fact, the Israeli Army that have very high standards and demands for their equipment, fielded Trophy, and is very happy with it.

The facts are also that due to poor customer choice and very poor OPSEC and overall security, modern Russian arms are in bigger and bigger quanitites in hands of insurgents and terrorists hands.

Remnant of modern ATGM is powerfull enought to damage light vehicles, only real protection is against old RPG and missiles (Malyutka, etc)

As I said, for lighter vehicles like HMMWV's, protection against ATGM's is not originally demanded, however, for these vehicles, had been developed several armor kits, some very heavy ones, so remnants of shaped charge jet can be or stopped, or any internal effects will be greatly reduced, increasing survivability of soldiers inside.

I actually posted and detailed test with specific results. Under such evidence I just won't believe in silly marketing claim.

No, You posted nothing else than a Russian advertisement for Arena, neither You have access to detailed Israeli Army tests results report of Trophy system.

 

[methos]

For lighter vehicles like HMMWV's, there is lighter version of Trophy, as well as protection against ATGM's is not demanded, or protection against remnants of shaped charge jet can be achieved by installation of addon armor.

This Stryker has been fitted with Trophy-L (light), but still needed what appears to be applique armour...

 

[Damian]

This Stryker has been fitted with Trophy-L (light), but still needed what appears to be applique armour...

Yes indeed, depending on vehicle base armor it will definetly needs some addons. But it does not mean that Trophy do not protect vehicle.

BTW Methos, isn't this supposed addon armor on Stryker with Trophy-L, a very similiar to the ERA kit developed for US Army Strykers?

 

[hest]

As seen, to provide protection against ATGM vehicle needs additional armour due to significant residual penetration, characteristic of Throphy (it is not simple upgrade and cannot be always realised)

But real problem is against modern heavy ATGMs.

BTW, all Israeli statements about Russian armament, Lebanon War, are mostly exagerations, or have no base, with the aim of disacrediting exports to neighbours (especially Syria). They should't be taken seriously.