Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[methos]

C1 Ariete development started in the 1980s. A lot of troubles in technology and budget lead to a very late adoption, but it is designed as "Cold War warrior".

 

[militarysta]

The ansver for question why on newest Leopard-2A5-A7 there is NERA armour even on hight sloppeed upper glastic plate:



And "immposible" perforations achiven on T-62, and T-55 turrets:

 

[Damian]

These are T-72 turrets and single T-62 turret.

 

[militarysta]

These are T-72 turrets and single T-62 turret.

Yes indeed

 

[hest]

The ansver for question why on newest Leopard-2A5-A7 there is NERA armour even on hight sloppeed upper glastic plate:

Well, in particular NERA performance against APFSDS is notably dependant on projectile with serious differences.

Leopard 2 add on hull armour looks like steel plates, but maybe it's what you show.

And "immposible" perforations achiven on T-62, and T-55 turrets:

Why "impossible" ?

 

[syncro]

Italy has had two socialist neighbors (Albania and Yugoslavia). And if the first country to have the old T-55 (62), the Belgrade was one of the best tanks of the 72nd series (M-84). Yes, and when they started to produce C1, was no socialist countries in Europe. And he on general characteristics probably inferior tank to the same period Pt-91.

In the '80 the main italian opponent of Warsaw Pact was Hungary with 6 divisions (1 armored and 5 motorized) with 1200 T 54/55 + 100 T-72... + 4 Soviet divisions (2 armored + 2 motorized) with around others 1000 tanks (mainly T-72) always in Hungary.

Italian Army had on front line around 1700 tanks: 900 Leopard 1/A2, 300 M-60/A1, 500 M-47 (plus around other 1000 M-47 in reserve) and 8 fully armored/mechanized divisions with 3000+ M113 and 1100 artillery howitzers.

The M-47 was junk at that time, but overall better of T-54/55.

 

[Akim]

In the '80 the main italian opponent of Warsaw Pact was Hungary with 6 divisions (1 armored and 5 motorized) with 1200 T 54/55 + 100 T-72... + 4 Soviet divisions (2 armored + 2 motorized) with around others 1000 tanks (mainly T-72) always in Hungary.

Italy have buffer from Austria and Yugoslavia (which was not part of the Warsaw Pact). But it does not matter to what to live ago. I repeat my first question. You do not know whether the planned modernization of C1 "Ariete"?

 

[syncro]

There was plan of some minor update in 2001 and 2005, but.. (is a long way so I use google translator)

1) additional armor package;
http://www.ferreamole.it/images/ariete_upa/varie/future_corazze.jpg
http://www.ferreamole.it/images/ariete_upa/parigi/ariete07.jpg

2) a update of engine.
The current engine was much criticized especially in relation to the lack of power and excessive production of smoke when accelerating. In particular, the low power penalizes the vehicle in its dynamic performance and forces the engine to work more at higher RPM so compromising reliability. To address these problems the technical organizations of the Armed Forces issued a specification for the purchase of a new engine capable of delivering the power of 1600 HP and no smoke . The IVECO has concentrated its efforts in the direction of increasing the capacity to adopt a new injection system and engine management system, introduce a new system of turbocharging. The increase in capacity from 25,800 cm3 a 30,000 cm3 was achieved by increasing the stroke of the pistons, passing in this way from 2.15 liters / cylinder 2.50 liter / cylinder. The injection system has been completely revised by adopting "Common Rail" technology that ensures a constant pressure of the oil supply regardless of the speed of rotation of the motor. This technology, fully electronically controlled, allows the reduction of the smoke of the engine. The new overboost system has allowed carrying the maximum torque at the limit imposed by gearbox at 5,500 Nm (the new engine would be able to reach the 6,000 Nm). Particular secondary is not that the management has allowed us to maintain the pair impressed in the range of rotation from 1000 to 1800 RPM, the apex of which is also the maximum power output.
The adoption of the engine, which was announced in the bulletins WEAG relating to contracts of the Ministry of Defense in late 2001, is in place and their installation is to take place on the individual vehicle on the occasion of their first overhaul.

3) new software/hardware system and update library for the RALM (Laser Warning Receiver)

4) adoption of a eletric mechanism of rotation of the turret instead of hydraulic, the operation which will eliminate the risks connected with the use of hydraulic systems in pressure inside the chamber of combat.

5) improving the performance of the CPU of the firing system.computer Marconi COSMO MP501.

 

[syncro]

C1 Ariete update plan 2011 - upgrade 2001 plus

passive protection
- Increase protection bottom hull anti IED
- New energy/shock absorbing seats

active
- Anti IED jammer

other improvements
- Introduction into the turret of a stop command for the vehicle
- Engine (no replacement)
- Wider tracks
- New generation thermal cameras
- Improvement of communication equipment (same as VMB "Freccia")
- full implementation SICCONA system (is italian digital network C4)

with the no replace of engine there was 2 packages armor

- light package armor called "WAR" for symmetric conflict (the kit "WAR" allows back, as standard guidelines NATO, the front/tower of C1 Ariete to resist at any kind of shot fired from a 120 mm western gun at 2 km range)

- heavy package armor called "PSO" for asymectric conflict/peacekeeping/urban warfare

kits "WAR" for all C1 flee and kits "PSO" for half C1 fleet

 

[Damian]

- light package armor called "WAR" for symmetric conflict (the kit "WAR" allows back, as standard guidelines NATO, the front/tower of C1 Ariete to resist at any kind of shot fired from a 120 mm western gun at 2 km range)

Very brave statement if we consider that this addon armor package is nothing more than ~100mm thick addon plating of unknown type (probably SHS/HHS/DHS or THS plates) bolted to the turret front, and no word about upgrading basic armor that is considered to be optimized against 115mm APFSDS ammunition + HEAT.

I very, very doubt that this can protect against all NATO 120mm APFSDS ammunition, and especially not such monsters like DM53 or M829A3.

 

[militarysta]

Leopard 2 add on hull armour looks like steel plates, but maybe it's what you show.

99,9% its NERA:

Why "impossible" ?

Still mane peopels calim that very slopped plate is impossible to perforate by APFSDS. IMHO since ~1990 when penetrator whit biger then L 30 ratio entaire service it's not true. And those turret in T-62 from Iraq is qood example. So this "impossible" whas whit ironic.

 

[Damian]

Yup, it definetly looks like layered structure.

As for sloped plates penetration. I think that the problem is not how to prevent penetration and possible perforation but how to minimize the damage.

There are different methods, installation of ERA, NERA, good especially for manned turrets roof, and in case of hull, a some sort of spaced armor.

Militarysta previously shown some graphics with penetration of such sloped plate. There is shown that approx half of penetrator had been damaged, and approx half was intact. IMHO a good idea is more complex hull design like in M1, where glacis plate will damage some part of penetrator, and what will left can be catch and stop by the internal fuel tanks that are some sort of spaced armor (possible internal bulkheads are very likely).

The NERA on Leo2 is another good solution.

Another possibility is thicker glacis plate with composite armor in cavity.

IMHO it is possible to design a front hull design that can combine all 3 of these solutions, or at least 2 of them.

 

[methos]

Very brave statement if we consider that this addon armor package is nothing more than ~100mm thick addon plating of unknown type (probably SHS/HHS/DHS or THS plates) bolted to the turret front, and no word about upgrading basic armor that is considered to be optimized against 115mm APFSDS ammunition + HEAT.

I very, very doubt that this can protect against all NATO 120mm APFSDS ammunition, and especially not such monsters like DM53 or M829A3.

I think the armour module is thicker than you believe. If the image is for scale, the armour would be just above 200 mm thick, IMO it could be comparable to the 9 inches thicker armour of the M1A1 compared to the M1.
I don't know if it is true that the Ariete's armour was designed to resist 115 mm ammunition maximum (never have read this), but even if it's true we should take the time into account. In the 1980s when the Ariete was developed there were already stronger 115 mm APFSDS made of WHA or DU. And it would be somehow funny if the Italian tank designers didn't change protection level requirements in the long development until 1995. To resist a more modern 115 mm APFSDS at clsoe ranges (U.S. design aim for XM1 was protection against 115 mm APFSDS at 800 m, Soviets made the T-72A immune to 105 mm APFSDS at 500 m), the armour would need to offer something around 500 mm RHA equivalent protection.

 

[Damian]

It was discussed long time ago on TankNet, the general agreement from what I remember was that C1 was designed against 115mm APFSDS in mind.

We should also remeber the known issues with financing and the whole R&D work. Let's be honest, C1 is definetly not at the same level as NATO big 4, and nothing to ashame here, itis difficult to have proper R&D funding to design a really good modern MBT.

 

[hest]

99,9% its NERA:

Yes, it looks like. It also seems that add on armour is of low density (weight) relatively.

Still mane peopels calim that very slopped plate is impossible to perforate by APFSDS. IMHO since ~1990 when penetrator whit biger then L 30 ratio entaire service it's not true. And those turret in T-62 from Iraq is qood example. So this "impossible" whas whit ironic.

Same will happen in rest of tanks as well, for example Abrams hull.

Ricochet with a given angle will depend on steel thickness and on projectile, I showed earlier a graphic. When projected, T-62 turret angles were effective against munition of the time (in fact not all impacts on the picture penetrated into compartment), though there is no point in comparison with modern projectiles.

Today it is achieved through more dynamic means, NERA or reactive armour.

 

[hest]

Chinese new ZTZ-99 tank

It has all characteristics of a modern tank, far from just being copy of T-72... Chinese took Western approach in turret design and armour structure ( module reminds to Leopard composite armour ), but improved it with reactive armour

 

[Damian]

Same will happen in rest of tanks as well, for example Abrams hull.

In case of M1 as I said, most surface under glacis plate is occupied by fuel tanks. These fuel tanks were designed as additional spaced armor protection. Dr. Gilbert Harvey designed in 1960's and 1970's fuel tanks that were capable to provide protection for lighter vehicles, comparable even to basic protection of some heavy tanks of that or previous period.

Dr. Harvey's fuel tanks in some variants had additional angled steel plates inside, it is not immposible that M1 do not use such fuel tanks, to the contrary.

If we assume that ~50mm armor plate angled at ~80-82 degrees provides protection equivalent to ~300mm + fuel tanks without any additional protection means provides boost up to ~200mm then we have ~500mm protection equivalent for the glacis plate. However inside fuel tanks can be installed additional protection in form of angled armor plates. If we assume that plates inside fuel tank can be placed at 10 degrees from horizontal and are 50mm thick, then each plate will provide ~287mm of additional protection.

So if armor configuration is such:
Glacis plate - 50m@80-82 degrees = ~300mm + fuel tanks = ~200mm + additional 5 plates inside fuel tanks, each 50mm@10 degrees from horizontal = ~287mm protection for each plate, then You can achieve... 1,935mm of protection equivalent! It is a bit insane, but possible and should not add too much weight.

Ok let's reduce the number of possible armor plates inside fuel tanks to 3 and get them a different angle, maybe 30 degrees from horizontal.

Glacis plate - 50m@80-82 degrees = ~300mm + fuel tanks = ~200mm + additional 3 plates inside fuel tanks, each 50mm@30 degrees from horizontal = ~100mm protection for each plate, then You can achieve... 800mm of protection equivalent, this is more realistic and as we can see still achievable.

Such armor configuration is very possible, and should not be rejected only because it is against someone reluctance to non dogmatic design solutions.

If such case is true, then M1 glacis plate over fuel tanks will provide protection against ~800mm RHAe vs KE, but the weak point still will be driver compartment at the center with only ~300mm RHAe vs KE.

Of course everything will depend on hit angle, place of hit and the internal configuration of possible armor plates inside fuel tanks. However such spaced armor array is entirely possible, and was done allready at least for tests purposes in the west.

The only question is if americans used this solution, and if yes (which is very probable) how the internal configuration looks like.

It has all characteristics of a modern tank, far from just being copy of T-72... Chinese took Western approach in turret design and armour structure ( module reminds to Leopard composite armour ), but improved it with reactive armour

There is nothing western in this tank. Turret do not have turret bustle with isolated ammunition storage compartment, neither there is composite armor over turret sides. And there is definetly nothing similiar to Leopard 2... in fact comparing this thing to Leopard 2 is insult for German designers.

 

[hest]

In case of M1 as I said, most surface under glacis plate is occupied by fuel tanks. These fuel tanks were designed as additional spaced armor protection. Dr. Gilbert Harvey designed in 1960's and 1970's fuel tanks that were capable to provide protection for lighter vehicles, comparable even to basic protection of some heavy tanks of that or previous period.

Dr. Harvey's fuel tanks in some variants had additional angled steel plates inside, it is not immposible that M1 do not use such fuel tanks, to the contrary.

If we assume that ~50mm armor plate angled at ~80-82 degrees provides protection equivalent to ~300mm + fuel tanks without any additional protection means provides boost up to ~200mm then we have ~500mm protection equivalent for the glacis plate. However inside fuel tanks can be installed additional protection in form of angled armor plates.

Such armor configuration is very possible, and should not be rejected only because it is against someone reluctance to non dogmatic design solutions.

Fuel tank is today a joke as incentive of protection, and it will not contribute to ricochet of projectile, that is all about.

There is nothing western in this tank. Turret do not have turret bustle with isolated ammunition storage compartment,

And all Western tanks have ? It can't be confirmed nor denied...

neither there is composite armor over turret sides. And there is definetly nothing similiar to Leopard 2... in fact comparing this thing to Leopard 2 is insult for German designers.

Armour module structure looks similar, composite armour arrangement,which is most of volume, comparable to Western rather than Soviet structure (idea resembles Leopard 2A4 armour which was described).

 

[militarysta]

front turret LOS i mucht much smaller then in western tanks.

Better viev:

(work in progress)

 

[Damian]

Fuel tank is today a joke as incentive of protection, and it will not contribute to ricochet of projectile, that is all about.

Oh boy... Your mentality is complete mystery for me, why You do not understand that nobody want's to make any ricochet but to stop projectile inside a fuel tank.

You Russian types are such muffled heads... Then it is fair to say that Russian developments are a joke as incentive of protection for vehicles.

Glacis plate - 50m@80-82 degrees = ~300mm + fuel tanks = ~200mm + additional 3 plates inside fuel tanks, each 50mm@30 degrees from horizontal = ~100mm protection for each plate, then You can achieve... 800mm of protection equivalent, this is more realistic and as we can see still achievable.

Such armor configuration is very possible, and should not be rejected only because it is against someone reluctance to non dogmatic design solutions.

If such case is true, then M1 glacis plate over fuel tanks will provide protection against ~800mm RHAe vs KE, but the weak point still will be driver compartment at the center with only ~300mm RHAe vs KE.

Of course everything will depend on hit angle, place of hit and the internal configuration of possible armor plates inside fuel tanks. However such spaced armor array is entirely possible, and was done allready at least for tests purposes in the west.

The only question is if americans used this solution, and if yes (which is very probable) how the internal configuration looks like.

Read this again and this time try to use Your head... muffled head.

And all Western tanks have ? It can't be confirmed nor denied...

Only C1 Ariete do not have ammunition stored in turret bustle. In case of Challenger 1 and 2 it is a bit more complex, APFSDS rounds are stored there but propelant charges are in hull.

Armour module structure looks similar, composite armour arrangement,which is most of volume, comparable to Western rather than Soviet structure (idea resembles Leopard 2A4 armour which was described).

Nothing similiar to Leopard 2A4 neither any variant of Leopard 2.

PS. Militarysta, it is even less in front of gunner primary sight assembly.