Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[asianobserve]

@ Damian

Can you make a drawing of what you think would be an ideal MBT? This would be interesting.

 

[asianobserve]

Have a break for few minutes,


please continue.............

Hahaha! Nice. Cost effective anti-IED.

 

[Damian]

@ Damian

Can you make a drawing of what you think would be an ideal MBT? This would be interesting.

Unfortunetly my drawing skills are poor.

However I can describe a perfect MBT in my opinion.

Overall design:

Perfect MBT in my opinion should be a compact vehicle, with compartments (crew, weapons, powerpack) that are isolated from eachother to improve safety and survivability. Crew should sit in a hull so the vehicle size and weight could be reduced. The problem here that's need to be solved is crew situational awareness, for their frontal arc it is not a problem, they can have periscopes, for 360 degrees vision commander should have his own CITV + a good set of very small cameras around the hull.

Protection:

Protection should be modular, the base should be a steel made construction with attachements for modular armor (the base steel construction can also be made from a steel manufactured with nanotechnology, I think there are rumors that Japanese are experimenting with such, and Germans from IBD). If we assume that new materials like fullerene's or ADNR's can be used, then we can have here some interesting possibilities.

The new materials can be encased within a boxy modules made from steel, this still to increase protection can be of types like SHS, HHS, DHS or THS, the internal plates made from materials like ADNR also can be separated in to layers encased inside more steel plates. Now the question is if such armor should be a passive type of a reactive type. The passive type of such armor will more efficently use space inside a module, while reactive type needs some free space to properly work.

However because of characteristics of ADNR like materials, this means things like the fact that ADNR is harder than a diamond, but in the same time it is not brittle like a diamond or ceramics, it is more flexible in the same time, could mean that we can abandone reactive armor... at least for a some time.

Such armor can be also lighter, and with it's characteristics we should remember it can be less bulky providing same or higher protection than currently used, heavier and bulkier armor types.

So if we assume modularity of vehicle, we can gain with such materials a more flexible modularity.

I wrote some time ago that with modularity we can adjust the vehicle protection and weight to the mission needs and most possible threats that can be faced during mission.

If we assume that all of the above requirements are meet, we possibly can achieve a new quality and capabilities within different armor packages.

Let's assume that there will be 4 basic armor packages:

Level 1 - Most lightweight package, designed for assymetrical warfare where enemy have only RPG's and IED's, and the threats are not very advanced. If we assume the new materials will be avaiable, we can assume the weight of vehicle at a 30-40 tons level, perhaps even less.
Level 2 - It is a medium package, designed for most common threats during assymetric operations or conventional warfare with enemy that is not very advanced, projected weight level should be around 40-50 tons.
Level 3 - It is a heavy package, designed for a full scale conventional warfare, or assymetric conflicts where insurgents have capability to obtain more powerfull weapons, it is also more bulky armor package, projected weight level should be around 50-60 tons.
Level 4 - It is a improved heavy package with additional protection in form of any addon armors in form of ERA, NERA or NxRA or even just additional modules with armor made form the same materials like the basic modular armor, the projected weight should be within the limits of 60-65 tons, but if it will be possible to make it lighter, then it should be.

And because such armor can be lighter and stronger than currently used technology, additional protection can be added for both vehicle top and belly, and as well rear.

Additional protection should be gained from the use of:

- Active Protection System, such system should work in to ways, first is a soft kill countermessure that will jamm guidance of any guided ordnance, the second should be a hard kill mechanism that will destroy projectile if it is invurnable to jamming or the soft kill mechanism failed.
- New camouflage means, first the IR camouflage paint that can efficently mask vehicle thermal signature, the second is a camouflage netting that can provide additional camouflage against human eye and day optics, as well as additional thermal signature camouflage and isolation from the outside temperatures for additional interior cooling.
- The engine exhaust can also be provided with additional cooling and sound mufflers.

Automotive systems:

Suspension - if possible it should be a hydrogas type that have advantages as more comfortable ride for crew, more stable platform for a weapon system, lower weight, smaller suspension units, that can be mounted by use of bolts completely outside hull, that saves space inside hull, as well as enables easier maintnance and replacement if needed, also in the field.
Powerpack - modern compact powerpack (integrated engine + transmission in to a single block) that is light, and can be quickly replaced if needed. Because of fuel efficency it should be initially Diesel, and if possible for the long term, a hybrid engine or even fully electric one.

Fuel storage - for safety and additional protection for the hull sides, fuel tanks can be placed inside a cavities formed from welded side hull sponsons, method used also today in some designs.

Armament - the basic question here is if we need to increase calliber, and where are the limits? Perhaps as with the armor the main armament can be also manufactured from materials made with nanotechnology, so we could increase their service life and a pressure limits for the main gun, we could also design a new more efficent propelants for ammunition. This would permitt to stick with smaller calliber, lighter gun and overall bigger ammunition capacity for the autoloader.

In the USA, GDLS with some other companies created an autoloader for a TTB test tank, with a capacity for 44 120mm rounds, which is a good result.

We should think about this because the bigger the gun, the lesser ammunition You can take, and better accuracy does not mean that You will have enough ammunition for the performed task.

In a longer term a rail gun or coil gun designs can be used, there are currently problems with weapon service life, but as in case of classical designs, a new materials and nanotechnology can provide a solution, the more difficult problem is the power source, how a small vehicle like a tank can generate enough power to power up not only it's armament but also all electronics? And how to efficently store this energy in small and light batteries?

The additional armament should be a coaxial machine gun, and additional commander weapon (heavy machine gun or something like Mk19) connected to it's CITV, so the CITV will not only be it's panoramic sight, but also remote weapon station.

What else should be added?

Oh I know, we can actually build two version of such MBT hull.

The specialized MBT hull, and universal hull, such universal hull will be similiar but woth front mounted engine and a space at back, so it can be used as a IFV, APC, SPGH, TD, SPAAGM, ARV, AEV etc.

The advantage of these solutions are also that that we can manufactre 4 of such platforms. The heavy one as descrive above, medium one, and light one.

The heavy and medium should be tracked, while the light platform could be wheeled, or tracked or even both (2 variants, one tacked and one wheeled, maybe something similiar in concept to the Swedish SEP).

That is in what we should aim in a long term, but will not be possible if someone decide to screw R&D funding to research new nanomaterials for armor as well as other solutions.

Of course everyone can add here his own ideas and solutions.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

I wouldn't be so confident on values given in army manuals as they have "motivations" and they are not necesarily real, some of these values are higher than those of actual performance.

For example?

PRONIT has worse characteristics than Mango ?

Well it's depend on data as You see. Accoding to the polish army sources:
3BM42 -P0:580 P2500:460
PRONIT -P0:560 P2500:460
It have thq same performances on large distance, and slighty lower on P0 dstance. For the other sides - other sources give for 3BM42 guaranteed perforaton for 2000m ~450mm RHA and achaivble perforation 500mm RHA, when pronit had guaranteed 520mm for 2000m.
So You can choose

It is not correct about "NATO 1984-1986 level"

You don't understand me. Im not talking that T-90A or SA or S have only 560mm RHA vs APFSDS. It's too low of course.Those value and about "NATO ~1985 level" was about that Ajrun and Indian T-90S test where done by using obsolete ammo, and not very modern Israeli CL Mk.2 - Polish PRONIT is clone of this ammo. And if Ajrun and T-90S windstand that ammo means nothing becouse ammo was obsolate. So this whole talks build on sentense "Ajrun have super-duper armour becouse windtsand all 120 and 125mm ammo" is bullshit becouse Indian haven't really modern ammo for test. It's all. It's the same shit like talking that T-90A have brilliant armour becouse windtand on tests BM42. Or Leopard-2A4 have brllant ammo becouse after DDR fail on test 2A4 windstand 3BM22 for 150m distance. Thos two examples are real but talks nothing about armour becouse both round where obsolate - 3Bm22 in Leo2A4 tests, and BM42 in T-90A tests. The same is now about Ajrun test when Cl Mk.2 was used.

BTW:
Lindsky please remembert that Soiet and now Russian ammo norm are beter (harder to achive) then NATOs ones. In NATO some round have some "value" when in tested round's group is peforation on some level for 50% rounds +1. In Russia it is 80%.
So in fact russian 450mm for 3BM42 means "80% tested rounds had 450mm RHA for 2000m" and NATO ~520-540mm for DM33 means "50% +1 rounds had those value for 2000m. And when polish WITU tetsed DM33A1 using Russian/Soviet norms then those round have not 540mm RHA but...470mm RHA for 2000m for 80% rounds.
Second problem is that perforation achivable is always better then guaranteed: for BM42 it is 450mm for 2000m and 500mm RHA for 2000m. It's chuge diffrence. The same about all western ammo. Next problem is that - RHA norm in not norm. It's huge diffrence in HB scale, on one plate on stack plates, and NATO tetsed heir round on "NATO tripled heavy target" not on RHA plates.
So this whole "mm RHA for roundXX" are really risky. There is big diffrence on west and on est in norms, testing ammmo, and other.

 

[hest]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

For example?

Normally latest rounds are represented with higher performance, for example DM-53 and M829A2 (which is not even in operation by said army )

Most rational values given for M829A2 are from point blank from 750 mm (max) and under...

Authors of these publications do not necessarily have any access to classified information and they have no need to represent really true figures. They take much information from open sources and make modifications to suit them.

You can see in such official manuals

http://uvc.omgtu.ru/index.php?option=com_booklibrary&task=view&id=26&Itemid=68&catid=263

Mentioned information about armament, guns is widely available, and you can see some creativity.

Well it's depend on data as You see. Accoding to the polish army sources:
3BM42 -P0:580 P2500:460
PRONIT -P0:560 P2500:460
It have thq same performances on large distance, and slighty lower on P0 dstance. For the other sides - other sources give for 3BM42 guaranteed perforaton for 2000m ~450mm RHA and achaivble perforation 500mm RHA, when pronit had guaranteed 520mm for 2000m.
So You can choose

I hear much talk about Russia losing market in favour of Poles, Israelis and whoever because they reportedly do not offer APFSDS with increased lenght up to 680 mm (allowed by old autoloader), but PRONIT which If I am correct is longer and supposed to be more modern does not achieve anything but sligthly better parameter in penetration loss per distance.

And I guess performance would be similar in same test conditions.

You don't understand me. Im not talking that T-90A or SA or S have only 560mm RHA vs APFSDS. It's too low of course.Those value and about "NATO ~1985 level" was about that Ajrun and Indian T-90S test where done by using obsolete ammo, and not very modern Israeli CL Mk.2 - Polish PRONIT is clone of this ammo. And if Ajrun and T-90S windstand that ammo means nothing becouse ammo was obsolate. So this whole talks build on sentense "Ajrun have super-duper armour becouse windtsand all 120 and 125mm ammo" is bullshit becouse Indian haven't really modern ammo for test. It's all. It's the same shit like talking that T-90A have brilliant armour becouse windtand on tests BM42. Or Leopard-2A4 have brllant ammo becouse after DDR fail on test 2A4 windstand 3BM22 for 150m distance. Thos two examples are real but talks nothing about armour becouse both round where obsolate - 3Bm22 in Leo2A4 tests, and BM42 in T-90A tests. The same is now about Ajrun test when Cl Mk.2 was used.

T-90A tests are performed every year with higher requirements and it is not correct to say it is with old ammunition. From NII Stali we know for example that they use new round Svinets-1.

About Indian T-90S, initial test was performed by Russian delegation reportedly with modern Western ammunition (M829A2 or such), certainly they would not show capabilities with Mango.

BTW:
Lindsky please remembert that Soiet and now Russian ammo norm are beter (harder to achive) then NATOs ones. In NATO some round have some "value" when in tested round's group is peforation on some level for 50% rounds +1. In Russia it is 80%.
So in fact russian 450mm for 3BM42 means "80% tested rounds had 450mm RHA for 2000m" and NATO ~520-540mm for DM33 means "50% +1 rounds had those value for 2000m. And when polish WITU tetsed DM33A1 using Russian/Soviet norms then those round have not 540mm RHA but...470mm RHA for 2000m for 80% rounds.
Second problem is that perforation achivable is always better then guaranteed: for BM42 it is 450mm for 2000m and 500mm RHA for 2000m. It's chuge diffrence. The same about all western ammo. Next problem is that - RHA norm in not norm. It's huge diffrence in HB scale, on one plate on stack plates, and NATO tetsed heir round on "NATO tripled heavy target" not on RHA plates.
So this whole "mm RHA for roundXX" are really risky. There is big diffrence on west and on est in norms, testing ammmo, and other.

Yes, as I said earlier Soviet rounds were tested against special composite armour blocks which I described, as well as on steel.

 

[Damian]

but PRONIT which If I am correct is longer and supposed to be more modern does not achieve anything but sligthly better parameter in penetration loss per distance.

Wrong, PRONIT was designed to fit in to standard T-72 series autoloader, simply because we do not have modified one that can use longer rounds.

About Indian T-90S, initial test was performed by Russian delegation reportedly with modern Western ammunition (M829A2 or such), certainly they would not show capabilities with Mango.

It is a someone fantasy with M829A2 tests. M829 series are not exported by the US to anyone, GDLS manufactures export rounds of KEW series (KEW, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2), while M829 series are manufactured by ATK only for US Armed Forces.

 

[hest]

Wrong, PRONIT was designed to fit in to standard T-72 series autoloader, simply because we do not have modified one that can use longer rounds.

Read again. Standart autoloader allows improvement over Mango with lenght of about 680 mm.

It is a someone fantasy with M829A2 tests. M829 series are not exported by the US to anyone, GDLS manufactures export rounds of KEW series (KEW, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2), while M829 series are manufactured by ATK only for US Armed Forces.

It is not really difficult to get modern projectiles for test, of similar level. And purchase of M829A2 itself could also be possible.

 

[Damian]

Read again. Standart autoloader allows improvement over Mango with lenght of about 680 mm.

As far as I know, PRONIT was nothing special, and there were problems with penetrators because they were not manufactured in Poland but in Israel, 50% of manufactured there penetrators were low quality.

It is not really difficult to get modern projectiles for test, of similar level. And purchase of M829A2 itself could also be possible.

Purchasing of M829A2 is not possible, as I said, US Congress prohibited any exports of M829 series, the export ammunitions are KEW series, simple as that, what again You do not understand here?

 

[syncro]

I sometimes use the tables in this site for a quick reference on armor and ammo data

Tank Protection Levels

 

[Damian]

I sometimes use the tables in this site for a quick reference on armor and ammo data

Tank Protection Levels

This is nothing more than a fantasy for gamers.

You should rather look for better sources like for example some unclassified documents or literature on this subject.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Normally latest rounds are represented with higher performance, for example DM-53 and M829A2 (which is not even in operation by said army )

Of course latest rounds in normal caountry whit modern tank industry (Germany, USA, Russia, France) should have higher performance, but answer yourself for one question - is the task is to perforate tank armour or stack RHA plates? Maybe older rounds (upt to ~1995) are better in penetration RHA plates, and cast steel targets, and more modern are weaker in perforation stupid RHA plates but better in perforation multialyer armour, or armour protected by ERA? hmm?

Most rational values given for M829A2 are from point blank from 750 mm (max) and under...

Ths values are for 2000m, and this:
M829A2 -P0:770 P2500:660
Means that on 2000m round will have around 700mm not more. Sems to be "rational value"?

Authors of these publications do not necessarily have any access to classified information and they have no need to represent really true figures. They take much information from open sources and make modifications to suit them.

Well those values are used in polish 10TkBde (Leopard-2A4) during trening and in manuals, etc. I know thos values looks trange but IMHO they are correct.

I hear much talk about Russia losing market in favour of Poles, Israelis and whoever because they reportedly do not offer APFSDS with increased lenght up to 680 mm (allowed by old autoloader), but PRONIT which If I am correct is longer and supposed to be more modern does not achieve anything but sligthly better parameter in penetration loss per distance.
And I guess performance would be similar in same test conditions.

Polish ex-PRONIT is 570mm lenght BM42 is 574mm long. So it's almoust the same.

About Indian T-90S, initial test was performed by Russian delegation reportedly with modern Western ammunition (M829A2 or such), certainly they would not show capabilities with Mango.

There was no way for M829A2. Max for western ammo maybe it was some like KWE so based on rejected by Germans DM43 whit obsolate monoblock penetrator.

 

[Damian]

Maybe older rounds (upt to ~1995) are better in penetration RHA plates, and cast steel targets, and more modern are weaker in perforation stupid RHA plates but better in perforation multialyer armour, or armour protected by ERA? hmm?

Max for western ammo maybe it was some like KWE so based on rejected by Germans DM43 whit obsolate monoblock penetrator.

I would be now quiet, do not tell him too much.

 

[militarysta]

Well eacht one person can compare:
1985 monobock DU 3BM32
1986 dual core WH BM42
;-)
but, yes puzzles are good so I'll be quiet.

or not:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/11441.pdf

for two segment penetration monolitic RHA target was better up to 10%. But autor and in WITU pdfs the bigest sucess of the "forced segmented penetration" is better possibility to penetrate multilayerd targets, or whit ERA.
So..?

 

[Damian]

IMHO You should not make a hints about possible internal configuration of the most modern ammunion, but do what You think is right. However the PDF from WITU shows preaty primitive and simple design, comparable to Russian developments in terms of design. Most modern NATO ammunition of this type is more complex, and here I once again want to say, we should stop discuss this.

 

[313230]

lol, damian think he can hide info from russian designers. I bet they know better than both of you and militarysta in topic weapon vs armor.

 

[Damian]

lol, damian think he can hide info from russian designers. I bet they know better than both of you and militarysta in topic weapon vs armor.

I'am more concerned about OPSEC rules of NATO countries than Russian designers, they definetly know better, but it does not mean, that if me or Militarysta knowing something unofficialy, we should talk about this, especially on internet forum.

But I bet that such things like OPSEC do not exist in Your country, so maybe You do not understand what consequences can be put on person that have some knowledge and spread here and there.

Heh... Vietnamese people are funny...

 

[Damian]

Some interesting shots, I made couple minutes ago.

 

[Damian]

Tank recovery training, two M88A2's are lifting in to the air M1A2SEP weighting 63,1 metric tons, impressive, I don't know if there are any other ARV's capable to do that.

 

[militarysta]

lol, damian think he can hide info from russian designers. I bet they know better than both of you and militarysta in topic weapon vs armor.

It's not about OPSPEC but law problem in Poland. Something may be known to designers, maybe all known facts. Why not? But the problem is law in Poland and OPSPEC rulles. Any post is censored by myself or Damian becouse some fact are know and included in pdfs or literature (ussaly I give sources) but other data should be not given in public forum -for example for Afghanistan war reson, when Leopard-2 (Dutch, Candian) and AMV-"Rosomak" (Poland) are usinig in combat. One world to many and someone can be killed by RPG in Paria-AMV. So I tryied to write post without (IMHO) danger facts about some vehicles. So indeed somethimes "big nice cup of shut the f*** up" is the best option.

Of course it was funny when I was banned by British media Officer on TankNutsDave page for give CR2 propper LOS thickness or other photos, but it's not so funny when I realize than many of my friends are using Leopard-2 in Poland and AMV-Rsomak in Afghanistan. So beeing cerfull is the best option. Ant the most secure for law reson. Nobody will judge me for writing about T-72, T-90, M1 Abrams, or CR2. But uncerfful writing about Leopard-2 and AMV (cose they are using in Polish army) is risky.

 

[313230]

Ok thanks for the explanation. I know OPSEC but you should cleared it out, you talked like you stop because of Lidsky.