Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

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.

Kyrle Elejson! :-/

 

[Damian]

YOu are overreacting, especially that it is not known how the new WPB will look like, what characteristics it will have. I rather want to wait and see how program will progress.

 

[hest]

Presentation of models representing new artillery developements of Burevestnik research institute, and something about rocket artillery (Splav)

Latest Self-Propelled Artillery Systems Exhibited By Russian Engineers | Video | RIA Novosti

100 mm naval artillery module on tracked and wheeled plattform, and about new MLRS Tornado (family Tornado-G, Tornado-S, Uragan-1M)

As engineer, representative commented: "Combat module is totally unmanned, to improve survivability"

It seems these will be the most advanced of such systems when fielded.

 

[Damian]

Unmanned artillery system is nothing new. USA developed similiar systems in the past.

First was XM2001 Crusader, it was ready for production, but it was big vehicle, as we know at that time man responsible for military aquisition was Donald Rumsfeld who was obsessed with making army lighter so he cancelled production of XM2001, even if vehicle passed all tests and was ready to go, this is how Future Combat Systems was created in a form most people know it today, where XM1203 NLOS-C also had unmanned artillery module.

XM2001 Self proppeled gun-howitzer and XM2002 re-supply vehicle.

XM1203 NLOS-C.

It seems these will be the most advanced of such systems when fielded.

No, they won't, Americans were first, as well as not when fielded, but if fielded.

 

[hest]

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

You like to read all short of documents, that is right, but you should remain in context.

Important is to afect main warhead before detonation, and it is not achieved.

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 .

1 In most it does not

You should learn about your beloved EFP, high velocity process, and vision, because it is weak, as discussion about working principle of ERA (no offence).

First EFP velocity in general varies from 1/2 to 2 km/s (and Trophy uses small projectiles). And this is irrelevant for main warhead detonation (given previous activation of trigger and cumulative jet of 7-10 km/s).

In practice you also can clearly make an idea about EFP relative velocity, and see how against RPG projectile it first incides on leading part, which starts explosion and activation of main warhead before any damage.

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

If incidence is not right, then it is irrelevant.

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.

This cannot be asserted, as it is subjective, without clear knowledge about rocket direction and warhead, cumulative focus.

Howewer, we know for sure, it is seen how EFP damages first leading part, and inmediate explosion starts of main warhead.

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

Only impact which is seen, is on RPG leading part, not on main warhead which detonated before hit.

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.

Debris damages warhead before detonation, EFP triggers detonator and does not deformate warhead.

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!.

1 It is notable, and in case of Trophy it will be higher. You still did not answered, what will be perforation of normally formed cumulative jet from distance, high for IFV...

2 That is how it is offered by designer, with a reason http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/1155.pdf

And tell me about your value of 150 mm required perforation, show me your error

 

[hest]

Unmanned artillery system is nothing new. USA developed similiar systems in the past.

First was XM2001 Crusader, it was ready for production, but it was big vehicle, as we know at that time man responsible for military aquisition was Donald Rumsfeld who was obsessed with making army lighter so he cancelled production of XM2001, even if vehicle passed all tests and was ready to go, this is how Future Combat Systems was created in a form most people know it today, where XM1203 NLOS-C also had unmanned artillery module.

XM2001 Self proppeled gun-howitzer and XM2002 re-supply vehicle.

XM1203 NLOS-C.

No, they won't, Americans were first, as well as not when fielded, but if fielded.

It is incorrect to talk about cancelled systems, besides you have no clue about who designed or had idea first, difference lies on reflection in reality.

New artillery, Koalitsia, shares a common aspect with Crusader, liquid refrigeration of gun barrel, to improve fire rate.

What measures were taken on these American systems to provide isolation of crew compartment ?

 

[Damian]

It is incorrect to talk about cancelled systems, besides you have no clue about who designed or had idea first, difference lies on reflection in reality.

Oh it is very correct. XM2001 was ready for mass production, it was cancelled only because Rumsfeld didn't liked heavy tracked vehicles, and Crusader was also very expensive.

And Americans got this idea as first ones and realized it as first ones.

New artillery, Koalitsia, shares a common aspect with Crusader, liquid refrigeration of gun barrel, to improve fire rate.

I suspect that Crusader was just inspiration for russian designers.

What measures were taken on these American systems to provide isolation of crew compartment ?

Same idea as on next generation MBT's, crew is separated from the rest of vehicle by armored bulkhead, crew sits in isolated compartment, crew compartment was also protected by composite armor from the outside, and turret roof had probably sort of anti bomblet protection.

XM2001 was very advanced system, even today it is the most advanced artillery system designed... preaty much ahead of our times.

As for XM1203 it is not known exactly how crew was isolated, because only one completed prototype was builded and nowhere are good interior photos, however the whole unmanned turret/weapon module and autoloader was based on solutions from XM2001, but in a smaller, lighter form.

 

[313230]

Did Crusader have liquid propellant?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It was originally planned to use a new liquid propellant; however, in 1996, this requirement was changed to the more familiar solid propellant.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25090219/XM2001-Crusader-155-mm-Self-Propelled-Howitzer-and--XM2002

Did Crusader have liquid propellant?

 

[militarysta]

You still did not answered, what will be perforation of normally formed cumulative jet from distance, high for IFV...

In this post I focus only about this staytsment. It's really interesting.
Typical jet velocity is 8500m/s. In one PHD about SC and cumulative weapons is whole part about air and jet velocity. Most important:
Through a linear regression calculation, it is found that the jet tip velocity in air decays with a linear rate of 36.45 m/s per CD standoff distance.

So for 105mm RPG-29 warhed we need how many CD standoff to have 0 velocity?
~233 warhed diameters -so about 24-25m to reduce jet V to around 0 m/s.

And in what distance Trophy (Windbreaker, or Meil Raucha, or ASPOR-A) should destroy target?
In half data it's between 25 and 30m before vehicle. Of course it's only in optimum case when targed is detected erlier.

In theory Trophy should destroy target from sucht big range then jet will losse almot whole velocity before hit target...
Of course this is only in case when froming jet process is not disturb. And it's almoust impossible after hit by EFP.

tbc.

 

[Damian]

Did Crusader have liquid propellant?

XM2001 used in tests modular solid propelant bag cases.

It means at different ranges, amount of propelant could have been changed per needs.

It was easier than liquid propelant for ETC gun, and ETC technology is still in a very early phase of development. Perhaps in nearest future ETC guns will be used, especially if problems with electromagnetic railguns and coilguns won't be solved.

 

[militarysta]

BTW
In another PDF out modern HEAT warhed in USA they give test result when SC warhed placed in 10 CD distance from target had "Average Penetration Reduction 17%". If its linear dependence the jet should loste whole penetration at 58CD distance. In RPG-19 case it's 105mmx58 = ~6m distance. Hmm interesting...
Or it's not linear distance and reducion will be not linear.

 

[militarysta]

It seems these will be the most advanced of such systems when fielded.

If those system entire service. It's not obvious in Russia today... And Russian SPHs wasn't advanced in 1980s. In fact when rocekt artilery was very modern then SPHs 2S3 and 2S1 rather not.
2S19 Msta-S was strange - tank chassis where finally not the same like in tanks, and guns system in huge turret had many problems. Finnaly when 2S19 Msta-S entire service it's ballistic where whorse then western analogs, the same BMS(artilery FCS) what is strange becouse Soviet Union was the precursor of using automated fire control systems for artillery (Maszyna, Maszyna-M, etc). Successor Msta-S -2S30 Isiet (whit better ballistic and better round per minute) never where ended.


In 1990s and 2000s the most advanced gun system is without doubt PzH2000. Accoding to US Army now the only gun system avaible to repalced canceled Crusarder is PzH2000.

 

[hest]

If those system entire service. It's not obvious in Russia today... And Russian SPHs wasn't advanced in 1980s. In fact when rocekt artilery was very modern then SPHs 2S3 and 2S1 rather not.
2S19 Msta-S was strange - tank chassis where finally not the same like in tanks

Chassis for artillery employs unified elements, but it does not need to be the same. In fact now as variant they looked for a new different plattform for artillery, but finally the have chosen Armata.

, and guns system in huge turret had many problems. Finnaly when 2S19 Msta-S entire service it's ballistic where whorse then western analogs, the same BMS(artilery FCS) what is strange becouse Soviet Union was the precursor of using automated fire control systems for artillery (Maszyna, Maszyna-M, etc). Successor Msta-S -2S30 Isiet (whit better ballistic and better round per minute) never where ended.


In 1990s and 2000s the most advanced gun system is without doubt PzH2000. Accoding to US Army now the only gun system avaible to repalced canceled Crusarder is PzH2000.

Most of this leadership was attained only due to unfavorable period between 1990s and 2000s, when promising projects and armament process completely stopped, so it is not surprising for new system to be best in characteristics on this context. Howewer with resumption of this activity in Russia, and start of new projects situation may well be the opposite.

Currently there is ongoing programme "Dilemma" (ОКР Дилемма, Дилемма-2) which includes modernisation of fielded artillery systems, "Msta-M" (improvement of FCS and fire rate) which passed state trials and is being performed, and of course totally new system "Koalitsia" which is unmatched in some technical aspects, as safety, isolation of crew, and new liquid refrigerated armament, so we will see.

 

[hest]

I suspect that Crusader was just inspiration for russian designers.

Or may be the opposite, or most likely it is example of not related paralell developement which is reflection of high technological level.

Same idea as on next generation MBT's, crew is separated from the rest of vehicle by armored bulkhead, crew sits in isolated compartment, crew compartment was also protected by composite armor from the outside, and turret roof had probably sort of anti bomblet protection.

So can you explain what was the configuration, placement of crew, and how isolation was achieved ?

This is for example how isolated compartment looks like in new Koalitsia (it is old turret, but same idea).

 

[Damian]

Or may be the opposite, or most likely it is example of not related paralell developement which is reflection of high technological level.

Yeah right, Russia achieved this level only after approx 20 years. Deal with it, on technological level You are 20 years behind at best.

So can you explain what was the configuration, placement of crew, and how isolation was achieved ?

What it is to explain here? Crew was in separated compartment in vehicle front, separated by armored bulkhead. Simple as that.

This is for example how isolated compartment looks like in new Koalitsia (it is old turret, but same idea).

In XM2001 it was a bit different. Crew was separated, and ammunition was stored in such way:
- Modular Propelant Charges were in turret bustle,
- Projectiles were stored in the hull.

The problem with Russian artillery systems is that they still use solid metal propelant cases instead of modular bag charges.

Good that BAe will upgrade M109A6 to M109PIM, M109PIM will have more automation like the new autoloading system derived from XM2001 and XM1203 vehicles. So rounds per minute ratio will improve, however what would be needed is a new gun with longer L52 barrel.

There are also informations that Pentagon considers new self propelled gun-howitzer designed withing the Ground Combat Vehicle program or separate program. We will see what future will brings. Honestly I would not be very surprised to see that they ressurect Crusader program under the new codename and with XXI century improvements.

 

[hest]

Yeah right, Russia achieved this level only after approx 20 years. Deal with it, on technological level You are 20 years behind at best.

But it is same for US and many countries. Crusader was cancelled well before deployement and US still operates old Paladin with weak characteristics.

In fact only new system, from 90s is German PZH-2000, until more modern ones will be deployed.

In XM2001 it was a bit different. Crew was separated, and ammunition was stored in such way:
- Modular Propelant Charges were in turret bustle,
- Projectiles were stored in the hull.

What was the placement of crew ?

The problem with Russian artillery systems is that they still use solid metal propelant cases instead of modular bag charges.

Modular charges are not new thing and are employed in new ammunition.

Good that BAe will upgrade M109A6 to M109PIM, M109PIM will have more automation like the new autoloading system derived from XM2001 and XM1203 vehicles. So rounds per minute ratio will improve, however what would be needed is a new gun with longer L52 barrel.

Even with this upgrade such old system will not remain on fair modern level.

 

[313230]

I don't see anything truly revolution in crusader program. Range, rate of fire, rounds capacity, weight, nothing is impressive
If it didn't have exotic things like liquid propellant, why cost per vehicle is so high? $25 million vs 5 million of pzh 2000, did they gold plate it?

 

[methos]

Good that BAe will upgrade M109A6 to M109PIM, M109PIM will have more automation like the new autoloading system derived from XM2001 and XM1203 vehicles. So rounds per minute ratio will improve, however what would be needed is a new gun with longer L52 barrel.

There are also informations that Pentagon considers new self propelled gun-howitzer designed withing the Ground Combat Vehicle program or separate program. We will see what future will brings. Honestly I would not be very surprised to see that they ressurect Crusader program under the new codename and with XXI century improvements.

M109PIM is still bad, not really competitive when you look at more modern vehicles from West and East. The M109 upgrade developed Rheinmetall using parts of the PzH 2000 (loading mechanism, gun, sights, etc.) would have been another alternative.

 

[Damian]

But it is same for US and many countries. Crusader was cancelled well before deployement and US still operates old Paladin with weak characteristics.

In fact only new system, from 90s is German PZH-2000, until more modern ones will be deployed.

Crusader was cancelled because of that idiot Rumsfeld. As for PzH2000, there also other new SPH's, like K9, T-155 or Krab.

What was the placement of crew ?

Are You unable to read? I said, isolated compartment in front of vehicle...

Modular charges are not new thing and are employed in new ammunition.

I didn't seen anyting like that in Russia.

Even with this upgrade such old system will not remain on fair modern level.

Of course not, this is why Pentagon is pursuing new artillery system, still in very early analize phase.

I don't see anything truly revolution in crusader program. Range, rate of fire, rounds capacity, weight, nothing is impressive
If it didn't have exotic things like liquid propellant, why cost per vehicle is so high? $25 million vs 5 million of pzh 2000, did they gold plate it?

Maybe read about the program, before You make more of such silly conclusions.

M109PIM is still bad, not really competitive when you look at more modern vehicles from West and East. The M109 upgrade developed Rheinmetall using parts of the PzH 2000 (loading mechanism, gun, sights, etc.) would have been another alternative.

M109PIM is a stop gap, and only thing it really lacks is longer gun barrel. Rest of components like autoloader are derivatives of solutions from XM2001 and XM1203, so they are newer and better than these from PzH2000.

In fact M109PIM is like internal components of XM1203 merged with powerpack and suspension from M2 IFV placed inside and outside of M109A6 hull and turret.