Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

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.

As I said - L-55 is more accurate then L-44, E-WNA is for better then WNA-H22.
And the WNA-H22 is better then Jasmine from T-72BA, or T-90S.

There is still many bullshit, or taken out of context statements repeated by anyone, for example (...), 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,

"erly" 140mm APFSDS had under 900mm RHA - it was in fact level todey DM53 LKEIII and M829A3. It was between 750 and 850mm RHA.
So it's possible that today modern armour can deal with that rounds.
And whole late 80's armour upgraes on West (Dorhester, DU in Abrams, and KWS in Germany-Swizterland) where developed against FSTI and FSTII.

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.

E-WNA was developed for L-55.


About Trophy:

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.

What??!!
Sweet Jesus holly crap, "tarasenko-goebbels forever alive".
Those bullshit was writen by Tarasenko on his blog many yers ago when Trophy mehanism where don't known.
Many persons in those yers think that Trophy works like Arena - using explosion to set into target direct pellets or debits parts.
But the problem is that Trophy (ASPOR-A vel Meli Raucha, vel Windbreaker) use MEFP - Multi EFP.

- 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 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.

No, it's not true.
MEFP haven that problems:
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/WM02_563.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a394848.pdf
www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/WM17_679.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionI/02_Fong_Multi_Mode_War_Heads.pdf
Please read those pdfs -they explain why Trophy haven't problem even when hit ATGM from the front


And Trophy use MEFP. - eacht small EFP have perforation bigger then 0,8 diameter, in fact there is not tandem warhed which can deal whit even small EFP. The main SC will be damage.
And BTW: eacht SC (HEAT) warhed need some optimum distance do focus SC and made cumulative jet - if warhed will be detonated to fast (or to late) then it will be not effective. It's old story about HEAT.

 

[militarysta]

BTW:
Using MEFP in C-RAM
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009psa_arm/wedluciano.pdf

 

[militarysta]

Uniqe in internet scale photos AMAP-ADS DIME before destroy RPG-7:




btw:
http://www.eurosatory.mod.gov.il/pdfs/SOD_Rafael.pdf

TROPHY – Active Protection System Trophy Situational Awareness and APS Hard Kill system operates in three major stages: Threat detection, threat tracking followed by Hard Kill (HK) countermeasure (Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrators – MEFP) activation and threat neutralization. The neutralization process takes place only if the threat is about to hit the platform. Trophy was declared operational by the IDF on August 2009. Trophy systems are being supplied and are integrated at Merkava 4 production line. Merkava 4 tanks integrated with Trophy Active Protection System are currently combat proven and deployed in combat areas along Israel's borders. The Trophy-HV system weights 850Kg and is adaptable to heavy (>30 ton) and medium (>15 ton) weight platforms. Once a platform is chosen, a short trade study would be completed to work out any integration issues that may arise. Numerous elements are taken into consideration for each vehicle variant or type. The Trophy-MV system For vehicles with relatively thin basic structure/protection (as Stryker) Trophy will provide full protection against (at least) all types of RPG since Trophy will kill these types of threats without detonation.
The Trophy-LV offers superior performance at a fraction of the weight.

 

[hest]

As I said - L-55 is more accurate then L-44, E-WNA is for better then WNA-H22.
And the WNA-H22 is better then Jasmine from T-72BA, or T-90S.

This statement about more accurate says absolutely nothing.

Because to say more accurate in general does not imply at all that stabilisator is better.

Of course in conditions of ideal terrain or static fire it can give better result, because of increased projectile velocity, which has nothing to do with stabilisator.

Even assuming that acurracy increase due to velocity will overcome any additional stabilisator error, it may well be that due to stronger oscillation effect it may take more time to stabilise armament when aquiring target.

"erly" 140mm APFSDS had under 900mm RHA - it was in fact level todey DM53 LKEIII and M829A3. It was between 750 and 850mm RHA.
So it's possible that today modern armour can deal with that rounds.
And whole late 80's armour upgraes on West (Dorhester, DU in Abrams, and KWS in Germany-Swizterland) where developed against FSTI and FSTII.

It is an example of statement taken out of context to prove some incorrect point. In fact it would be correct to say, that improvement of fielded armament led to new protection requirements.

E-WNA was developed for L-55.

It was first adopted for L/44.

Was it designed to adapt to different armament ? Probably

Will E-WNA perform equally with L/44 than with L/55 (stabilisation error, time to aquire target) ? Here arguments are needed.

About Trophy:

What??!!
Sweet Jesus holly crap, "tarasenko-goebbels forever alive".
Those bullshit was writen by Tarasenko on his blog many yers ago when Trophy mehanism where don't known.
Many persons in those yers think that Trophy works like Arena - using explosion to set into target direct pellets or debits parts.
But the problem is that Trophy (ASPOR-A vel Meli Raucha, vel Windbreaker) use MEFP - Multi EFP.

Against modern rockets, ATGMs it causes premature detonation, it does not counter it.

For comparison Arena neutralisation method destroys warhead.

Question is, what are the consequences ? I provided results from test of Arena showing residual penetration. Find what penetration will have main warhead from distance of some meters and then you'll have the answer. It is not to be taken lightly...

 

[Damian]

It was first adopted for L/44.

Was it designed to adapt to different armament ? Probably

Will E-WNA perform equally with L/44 than with L/55 (stabilisation error, time to aquire target) ? Here arguments are needed.

Are You uncapable to read? E-WNA was developed for the L55, not L44, Leopard 2A5 had L44 only because due to economic reasons KWS program was split in to KWS-1 and KWS-2... I don't know, really such simple thing is hard to understand?

 

[hest]

Are You uncapable to read? E-WNA was developed for the L55, not L44, Leopard 2A5 had L44 only because due to economic reasons KWS program was split in to KWS-1 and KWS-2... I don't know, really such simple thing is hard to understand?

I said it may have been design to adapt to different guns, also that it was first deployed for L/44. There is no contradiction.

Howewer, it does not mean that performance with L/44 will be same as L/55.

 

[militarysta]

T
About Trophy:



Against modern rockets, ATGMs it causes premature detonation, it does not counter it.

For comparison Arena neutralisation method destroys warhead.

Question is, what are the consequences ? I provided results from test of Arena showing residual penetration. Find what penetration will have main warhead from distance of some meters and then you'll have the answer. It is not to be taken lightly...

It will not be able to perforate APC armour.
Read those damm pdfs about MEFP! There is answer for your questions!
And SC warhed after hit by even one EFP formed from MEFP will not be ale to made properly SC jet.

 

[hest]

About Trophy EFPs, it is not relevant because with frontal incidence they just trigger warhead detonation and do not affect it in any way

‫מערכת ×”×’× ×” אקטיבית "מעיל רוח" Trophy APS‬‎ - YouTube

Point is not to cause premature detonation, which is dangerous, but to deform, damage warhead before it's initiation.

 

[Damian]

I said it may have been design to adapt to different guns, also that it was first deployed for L/44. There is no contradiction.

Howewer, it does not mean that performance with L/44 will be same as L/55.

You better just purchase some book in german, that will with details describe whole history of that tank... all russian language sources about western tanks do not even deserve to be called sources...

About Trophy EFPs, it is not relevant because with frontal incidence they just trigger warhead detonation and do not affect it in any way

‫מערכת ×”×’× ×” אקטיבית "מעיל רוח" Trophy APS‬‎ - YouTube

Point is not to cause premature detonation, which is dangerous, but to deform, damage warhead before it's initiation.

Seems that real engineers in Raphael do not agree with You, it seems that also Israeli army do not agree. Just accept the fact that designers in Russia are not the smartest ones, and not everyones needs to follow them.

 

[militarysta]

About Trophy EFPs, it is not relevant because with frontal incidence they just trigger warhead detonation and do not affect it in any way

"«×ž×¢×¨×›×ª ×”×’× ×” אקטיבית "מעיל רוח" Trophy APS"¬"Ž - YouTube

Point is not to cause premature detonation, which is dangerous, but to deform, damage warhead before it's initiation.

It's not the point -the point is to disrupt the formation of cumulative jest from SC warhed. And even if thers is initiation and HE explosion - so what? It's not the point - the point is to made SC jet ineffective by:
a) damege copper disc inside SC warhed
b) initiation warhed before optimum distance point
In ASPOR-A both mehanism are using. And both are pretty effective.

 

[hest]

It's not the point -the point is to disrupt the formation of cumulative jest from SC warhed. And even if thers is initiation and HE explosion - so what? It's not the point - the point is to made SC jet ineffective by:
a) damege copper disc inside SC warhed
b) initiation warhed before optimum distance point
In ASPOR-A both mehanism are using. And both are pretty effective.

There are test result about Arena, where there is no normal jet formation as main warhead is deformed due to incidence from above, there are still serious residual effects.

Fagot

Residual effect penetrates about 20 mm of steel plate.

Shturm

Residual effect penetrates 30 mm

Trophy as you can see on video does not even prevent normal formation of cumulative jet, against much better warheads residual effect will have worse consequences.

 

[militarysta]

There are test result about Arena, where there is no normal jet formation as main warhead is deformed due to incidence from above, there are still serious residual effects.

Fagot

Residual effect penetrates about 20 mm of steel plate.

Shturm

Residual effect penetrates 30 mm

Trophyas you can see on video does not even prevent normal formation of cumulative jet, against much better warheads residual effect will have worse consequences.

And in those videos you can see that there is normal formation of cumulative jet?
You have eyes like falcon
Those videos don't proof even normal jet formation from SC. In both case (RPG-29 and TOW) you have ignition without proper formation of cumulative jet. And even small SC warhed damege, even one micro damage give tottal SC warhed error.
BTW: In fact jet formed before optimum distance will not be able to perforate even typical APC armour.

 

[hest]

And in those videos you can see that there is normal formation of cumulative jet?
You have eyes like falcon
Those videos don't proof even normal jet formation from SC. In both case (RPG-29 and TOW) you have ignition without proper formation of cumulative jet. And even small SC warhed damege, even one micro damage give tottal SC warhed error.
BTW: In fact jet formed before optimum distance will not be able to perforate even typical APC armour.

I don't even need to see, you know why ? Because test was performed against Fagot and Shturm which are monoblock warhead missiles, thus there is direct damage to main warhead and deformation of cumulative jet (and here better incidence does not even matter).

And for deformed warhead, jet of nominal penetration of 500, 600 mm you have residual effect of 20, 30 mm respectively.

In video about Trophy it is clearly seen that jet is formed normally, and those are vulnerable RPG and TOW-2A.

So now discussion is about, what would be the perforation of normally formed jet of warhead diameter of >100mm and nominal perforation >700 mm from distance of some meters. It is serious for vulnerable zones and lightly armoured vehicles (which in fact need additional protection as photos show) so much for universal, all around protection... only against weak RPGs.

 

[militarysta]

And for deformed warhead, jet of nominal penetration of 500, 600 mm you have residual effect of 20, 30 mm respectively.

You know, teher are pdfs from ballistic symposium when those problem (deformed SC copper and perforation level) where tested. And damage SC by MEFP is not efectivnes anymore, but damege by small debrits (spalls) like form Arena - can made some problem.
Shortly: countrmessure in Arena (small debrits, spalls) is less effective then using MEFP.

It appears that for the impacts that are located close to the liner region, the impacted
charges have lost more than 70% of their penetration power as compared to the undamaged
charge performance

This is about small debrit's/spalls when their hit SC warhed. Like in Arena case.
No please back to the pdfs about EFP and MEFP and think how will work (or not) SC warhed when EFP (even small) hit it..

There is no compare between small 5mm CD debrits/spalls from Arena,and small EF from MEFP warhed.

In video about Trophy it is clearly seen that jet is formed normally, and those are vulnerable RPG and TOW-2A.

No, it's not true becouse even looks like normal/proper SC explosion can be damage only in forming jet part -and in result tottal uneffective.
And this does't looks like normal:


Center jet line is displaced (it's not explosion-axis). In fact those explosion is not propper for SC warhed...

So now discussion is about, what would be the perforation of normally formed jet of warhead diameter of >100mm and nominal perforation >700 mm from distance of some meters. It is serious for vulnerable zones and lightly armoured vehicles (which in fact need additional protection as photos show) so much for universal, all around protection... only against weak RPGs.

1. The jet is not formed properly so there is serious doubt if those jet can perforate even 5mm plate.
2. Damage made by Arena small debrits(spalls) are diffrent and less dangerous for jet forming then hit's taken from MEFP warhed.
3. Trophy ussaly damage target in distance bigger then 10m -so far far before optimum detonation SC distance. In fact SC jet will not be able to overcome armour from that distance.
4. HEAT warhed (SC) is uneffective even if it will perforate armour but haven't power to made behind-armour effect. To destroy tank is needed 150mm RHA perforation behind-armour.
5. Most APC and IFV (not mentioned MBT's) have armour strong enought to windstand 14,5mm AP for sides -check how thick it is protection in RHA plate equivalent. In fact protection is biger due to using ceramis and space armour in most modern APC and IFV (AMV, polish Rosomak, VBCI, etc.).

 

[hest]

You know, teher are pdfs from ballistic symposium when those problem (deformed SC copper and perforation level) where tested. And damage SC by MEFP is not efectivnes anymore, but damege by small debrits (spalls) like form Arena - can made some problem.
Shortly: countrmessure in Arena (small debrits, spalls) is less effective then using MEFP.

This is about small debrit's/spalls when their hit SC warhed. Like in Arena case.
No please back to the pdfs about EFP and MEFP and think how will work (or not) SC warhed when EFP (even small) hit it..

There is no compare between small 5mm CD debrits/spalls from Arena,and small EF from MEFP warhed.

You are making important conceptual error.

You base base your argument on experiments of MEFP and damaged warhead, howewer what is important is attack profile, incidence, and frontal as in Trophy has serious problems (here effectiveness of EFP does not matter).

Problem with Trophy MEFP is that against tandem warhead configuration, as it incides directly at front, elements will only affect detonator, and cumulative jet will be formed before warhead will receive any deformation, so in another words, it is just premature detonation.

Arena uses focused fragments which deform and damage main warhead first, thus there is big difference, but still effects of deformed jet are notable, 20 mm and 30 mm of RHA penetration (for 600 mm nominal).

No, it's not true becouse even looks like normal/proper SC explosion can be damage only in forming jet part -and in result tottal uneffective.
And this does't looks like normal:


Center jet line is displaced (it's not explosion-axis). In fact those explosion is not propper for SC warhed...

It cannot be said if it is displaced or not, but it is clearly seen, confirmed that:

MEFP will affect only detonator and cumulative jet is formed before warhead is damaged by them.

For comparison have a look at damaged warhead of TOW, and note the difference of a deformed jet.

1. The jet is not formed properly so there is serious doubt if those jet can perforate even 5mm plate.
2. Damage made by Arena small debrits(spalls) are diffrent and less dangerous for jet forming then hit's taken from MEFP warhed.
3. Trophy ussaly damage target in distance bigger then 10m -so far far before optimum detonation SC distance. In fact SC jet will not be able to overcome armour from that distance.
4. HEAT warhed (SC) is uneffective even if it will perforate armour but haven't power to made behind-armour effect. To destroy tank is needed 150mm RHA perforation behind-armour.
5. Most APC and IFV (not mentioned MBT's) have armour strong enought to windstand 14,5mm AP for sides -check how thick it is protection in RHA plate equivalent. In fact protection is biger due to using ceramis and space armour in most modern APC and IFV (AMV, polish Rosomak, VBCI, etc.).

As theory, and facts, video confirm:

1 In tandem configuration, cumulative jet of main warhead is formed before any damage of EFP, they only trigger detonator. Residual effect of damaged warhead after ARENA still penetrate 30 mm for 600 mm nominal, for comparison normally formed jet after Trophy with increased performance will be much more dangerous, in fact lightly armoured vehicles are not suitable as they are offered with addon armour.

2 Arena focused fragments incide over vulnerable part and deform main warhead first, before detonation. Throphy EFP triggers detonator, main warhead detonates before any damage and jet is normally formed.

3 Look again at test results and situation

4 And from where this figure contradicting real facts ?

5 Residual penetration is serious, and designer confirms it, as vehicle with Trophy needs add on armour

 

[militarysta]

Anti bomblest roof armour on PzH2000 and SPz Puma. In fact hose thin layer is able to stop SC bomblets whit even 80-100mm diameter. Of course itwill be not working against RPG/ATGMs due to completle diffrent fuze and SC shape.

 

[militarysta]

You are making important conceptual error.

You base base your argument on experiments of MEFP and damaged warhead, howewer what is important is attack profile, incidence, and frontal as in Trophy has serious problems (here effectiveness of EFP does not matter).

Attack profile is the best in EFP case - from front target. Perforation between 0,8-1,3 EFP means that any warhed will be damege/destroyed.
EFP is not small debrits/spalls

Problem with Trophy MEFP is that against tandem warhead configuration, as it incides directly at front, elements will only affect detonator, and cumulative jet will be formed before warhead will receive any deformation, so in another words, it is just premature detonation.

1) in most case it hit main warhed
2) lol u mad? 1700-2000m/s EFP will be slower then forming jet? Read smth about SC warhed and forming jet proces...
BTW: photos shown how SC have time to formed jet -it haven't .

Arena uses focused fragments which deform and damage main warhead first, thus there is big difference, but still effects of deformed jet are notable, 20 mm and 30 mm of RHA penetration (for 600 mm nominal).

Yes, all research shows that focused fragments are less effective then MEFP. Deal with it.

It cannot be said if it is displaced or not, but it is clearly seen, confirmed that:

The jest is completly non linerar in compare to the blast after copper formed jet> In fact during formng jet copper was hit by EFP or debrits and formation was not effective -whit error.

MEFP will affect only detonator and cumulative jet is formed before warhead is damaged by them.

It's not true - copper was hit during process -even after hit and destroy precursor in RPG-29.

For comparison have a look at damaged warhead of TOW, and note the difference of a deformed jet.

In both cases MEFP hit and heavy damage SC copper during forming jet.

As theory, and facts, video confirm:

But You haven't any theory. You even don't have idea that Trophy work on MEFP idea not focus debrits...

1 In tandem configuration, cumulative jet of main warhead is formed before any damage of EFP, they only trigger detonator.

Bullshit -in both case copper disc was damege during forming jet process. It's efectivness will be ineffective.

Residual effect of damaged warhead after ARENA still penetrate 30 mm for 600 mm nominal,

Becouse small debrits/ spalls from Arena countrmessure is less efective then even small but heavy and whit very big (1500-2000m/s) EFP. There is no compare between both cases. Debrits always will be less effective.

for comparison normally formed jet after Trophy with increased performance will be much more dangerous,

In both cases on video jet is forme not properly - even in RPG-29 after completly destroy precursor main warhed was hit during forming jet from copper insert. Moving the axis of the flight jet path in relation to the warhed explosion trace show it clerly.

Arena focused fragments incide over vulnerable part and deform main warhead first, before detonation. Throphy EFP triggers detonator, main warhead detonates before any damage and jet is normally formed.

It's only yours fantasy. Debrits are not so effective as EFP. And warhed was hit during forming proces. In fact jet forming was ineffective. And it's possible to see at video.

4 And from where this figure contradicting real facts ?

Those needed 150mm RHA behind armour effect is taken from russian pages.

5 Residual penetration is serious, and designer confirms it, as vehicle with Trophy needs add on armour

1. In Arena case - yes, it's serious but only for really light vechicles. All IFV and wheel IFV had even side armour enought to stand 20-40mm perforation. In Trophy case - definetly there is not souch problem like in Arena ue to used MEFP not debrits.
2. Those photo is photoshoped...there is no stryker whit that armour and Trophy In fact photo showny stryker whit rafael add-on armour anti RPG. And it's not connected whit using Trophy!
I repeat: some Stryker had rafael add-on armour anti simple old RPG's. And usig it is not connected whit using Trophy!.

 

[methos]

Anti bomblest roof armour on PzH2000 and SPz Puma. In fact hose thin layer is able to stop SC bomblets whit even 80-100mm diameter. Of course itwill be not working against RPG/ATGMs due to completle diffrent fuze and SC shape.

The "steel cylinders" are made of rubber.

 

[militarysta]

The "steel cylinders" are made of rubber.

Interesting - so protection will be bigger:

Small cylinders
may disturb the jetting process to the point that no clean collapse of the liner material
takes place, resulting in a cloud of incoherent particles. Similarly, low density material
placed into the cone cavity perturbs the jet formation; according to our data, a density increase
(from 0.030 g/cm3 to 1.42 g/cm3) leads to a strong decrease of the jet performance.
At last, the most efficient way to destroy the shaped charge effect consists in bringing
some low density material with embedded metallic spheres in the cavity of the shaped
charge; the jetting process is then completely perturbed: the charge only produces a cloud
of liner material fragments having no penetration capability in a steel target.

EDIT:

I correct mistake:


My foult, in pdfs there where many studys about cylinders madye form RHA, ceramics and oter materials.
And those "other materials" where more effective then only RHA cilinders.

 

[Damian]

Some informations from Poland about WPB* Anders program.

As we know WPB ANders was technology demonstrator (not prototype or pre production vehicle). Currently OBRUM and Polish Army closed WPB Anders program, and prepares to start new R&D program for new WPB. To design new WPB, experience and developed components from WPB Anders program will be used. In fact the new WPB program is evolution of WPB Anders program.

Someone will ask why new WPB program instead of Anders? This is because Anders was developed solely by industry, currently it seems that Army finally completed it's requirements for WPB and new WPB will be designed per these requirements.

New WPB might much heavier vehicle than WPB Anders, better protected also because new WPB is required to be also platform for new Main Battle Tank.

*WPB - Wielozadaniowa Platforma Bojowa, in english Multirole Combat Platform.