Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

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

Well reson for not posting smth is as I had wrote earlier. Other resons will be ridiculous.
And Damian have right becouse somethimes I'm posting too many facts or rather - "assumptions". Writing about weak spots in M1, CR2, T-90A, etc is not a problem. But for Afgan war reson I don't post nothing new or interesting about wheel IFV - Patria AMV "Rosomak" becouse 140 of them are using in combat in A-stan. Greate wheel IFV whit greate protection (mucht bigger then known in most public sources) but it have sme weak spots. And writing about them will be stupid and risky. So I had wrote about them only 2-3 times here and always using Offcial sources from polish military press -so somehing known well for the enemy

 

[militarysta]

"Leopardy w działaniu!" "Leopards in action!"

Photos from "Anakonda -12":

Leopardy w działaniu!


Take a loog from WBG-X thermo. It's 25 yers old technolofy and...still good:

Tk I in action:

From here:
Niewidzialne wsparcie 10BKPanc

uniqe photo:

replecing hydraulic pomp in field (it's takes less then 30min):

 

[militarysta]

More polish Leopard-2A4 photos:


..:: 10BKPanc :: GALERIA ::..
"Tanks support ater the massive use"

..:: 10BKPanc :: GALERIA ::..
"Maintenance chassis ..."

Photos from "Badger 2012" whit Germans tanks (2A6):

 

[militarysta]

Passive armor assembly including an armor member made of a brittle material

US Patent:
Patent US20100011947 - Passive armor assembly including an armor member made of a brittle material - Patenty Google

 

[militarysta]

Kinetic energy penetrator
Patent US6662726 - Kinetic energy penetrator - Patenty Google
able to defeted ERA base on segmented penetration mehanism.



ps. Damian -it will be intersting, very interesting for You

 

[militarysta]

Combined protection system - GEKE Technologie GmbH

Combined protection system
European Patent EP1517110

Söltenfuss, Dirk Christian (Patentanwaltskanzlei Söltenfuss, Zweibrückenstrasse 6, 80331 München, DE)


Very interesting pdf. but due to language problem propably only Methos here is able to translate or write most important parts ;-)




Armour in particular for vehicle
Armour in particular for vehicle - Diehl Stiftung & Co.


A combined reactive and passive armour
European Patent EP0379080
A combined reactive and passive armour

Abstract:
Abstract of EP0379080
Reactive armour elements each holding at least one reactive assembly (8;8 min ) of the kind in which an explosive layer (10; 10 min ) is sandwiched between two metal plates (11,12;11 min ,12 min ), which is paired with a passive assembly (9;9 min ) comprising a layer of swellable material (13;13 min ) sandwiched between two metal plates (14,15;14 min ,15 min ). In each such pair the reactive assembly is outermost. Various structural and geometrical configurations are disclosed.

 

[hest]

Kinetic energy penetrator
Patent US6662726 - Kinetic energy penetrator - Patenty Google
able to defeted ERA base on segmented penetration mehanism.

Segmented penetrator has many advantages, it's improvement is based on reduced effect of single flying metal plate, howewer it is still not so reliable against more modern ERA (Relikt) where there is double interaction with frontal and back plate, and the second damages and destabilises penetrator with already lost segment, also loss of segment implies a sacrifice of penetration ability, but against reactive armour it is justified.

Against more modern developements there are another problems apart from described multiple interactions. Modern reactive armour block has significantly greater plate surface which projects well to main segment, destabilising it from the start.

Реактивная броня, способ ее испытания и стенд для осуществления способа

 

[Damian]

"Burlak" turret is completely idiotic idea with such ERA installation... how to even use a main gun sight without obscuring it's view, especially when main gun is in minus elevation. No wonder that project was cancelled.

 

[hest]

"Burlak" turret is completely idiotic idea with such ERA installation... how to even use a main gun sight without obscuring it's view, especially when main gun is in minus elevation. No wonder that project was cancelled.

Designers know better than your premature conclusion.

Reactive armour is interesting. All that great plate surface moves and incides against projectile. Upper part contains less amount of explosive material, but there is additional plate which moves backwards giving anti-tandem properties and increased damage to APFSDS. Lower part contains a bigger amount of explosive which moves bigger, heavier plate with more energy. Defeat of tandem warheads and of segmented penetrators is realised by large plate projection.

On shown Burlak prototype it seems was implemented a variant of this element, that consists only of lower interacting part.

 

[Damian]

Designers know better than your premature conclusion.

Not allways, especially in Russia. Besides this explain how with such huge ERA plates You want not to obscure vision from the gunner and TC sights? Did You ever thinked about such things like ergonomics, user friendly design? Probably not, as it is typical from where You are that such important factors are ignored, and many more.

Reactive armour is interesting. All that great plate surface moves and incides against projectile. Upper part contains less amount of explosive material, but there is additional plate which moves backwards giving anti-tandem properties and increased damage to APFSDS. Lower part contains a bigger amount of explosive which moves bigger, heavier plate with more energy. Defeat of tandem warheads and of segmented penetrators is realised by large plate projection.

But this is not practical, I ask again how do You want to do this practucal without obscuring the vision of the crew sitting in turret?

You can't just place sights higher as this makes them more vurnable to enemy fire and mechanical damage during manouvering in difficult terrain, sights might hit the tree, or something else.

There are so many issues, but You seems to be so happy with this bizzare design, without seeing it's weak points, this makes You nothing more than a fanboy.

----------------------------------------------

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/content/pdf/IDR 10 Sept 2012.pdf

Interesting read, especially fragment about Afghanistan, where were 19 IED attacks on USMC M1A1's, these M1A1's are after FEP upgrade and have some of the TUSK components like the belly addon armor that is increasing protection against mines and IED's. The document says that from these 19 attacks only 2 attacks done more serious damage, so vehicles needed higher echelon maintnance work, work was performed in Afghanistan and vehicle were put back in to service. As well as there was only one crewmen WIA by a shrapnel that hit his hand that was outside a vehicle.

Seems that TUSK is a very successfull design, increasing M1's survivability.

 

[hest]

Actually you have nothing than your words to criticise a design which you have no knowledge of, and lecture designers

Projection of this "elevated armour" in fact does not obscure sights placed on top of turret.

 

[Damian]

Actually you have nothing than your words to criticise a design which you have no knowledge of, and lecture designers

Projection of this "elevated armour" in fact does not obscure sights placed on top of turret.

In my opinion You are complete idiot if You do not see that sights are obscured by the ERA cassettes.

Do You even know how tanks are used during combat in the field? Do You know tactics used? Like hull down position (which is a problem in T-xx series even now due to their size and the minimal minus elevation of the gun) in the field, not in prepared positions?

No of course You have no idea about such issues. So shut up, and go back to Your native language forums, where more of fanboys like You sit there.

The typical Soviet tank had a range of elevation of -5 to +15 degrees, about two thirds that of Western tanks with a range of about -10 to +20 degrees.

Which means not only problems with hull down position, but also means that in hull down position, such tank is more exposed to the enemy fire.

Add to this that bizzare ERA design, and more problems emerge, because You can't see with a maximum depressed gun due to ERA cassettes placed that way, and You need to expose Your vehicle more.

But what Lidsky the fanboy can knew about such issues.

 

[hest]

In my opinion You are complete idiot if You do not see that sights are obscured by the ERA cassettes.

Do You even know how tanks are used during combat in the field? Do You know tactics used? Like hull down position (which is a problem in T-xx series even now due to their size and the minimal minus elevation of the gun) in the field, not in prepared positions?

No of course You have no idea about such issues. So shut up, and go back to Your native language forums, where more of fanboys like You sit there.

The typical Soviet tank had a range of elevation of -5 to +15 degrees, about two thirds that of Western tanks with a range of about -10 to +20 degrees.

Which means not only problems with hull down position, but also means that in hull down position, such tank is more exposed to the enemy fire.

But you ignore dimensions, placement of sights and figures and attempt to lecture designers with your ideas with no base to serve as argument.

 

[Damian]

But you ignore dimensions, placement of sights and figures and attempt to lecture designers with your ideas with no base to serve as argument.

Are You even capable to read?!

If You pretend to be a smart ass then read it all over again to the point when Your blockhead starts to understand.

Besides this I do not need to lecture them, the Russian MoD lectured them by cancelling the whole deal, which was a good decision... besides this the Russian MoD and military overall seems to be more and more tired with national designs, and I do not blame them, after Soviet Union crumbled the only good designers that were in Kharkiv working in KMDB, stayed in Ukraine, why Russia need to keep that UVZ mafia... unfortunetly LKZ was closed and the Omsk was reduced to nothing more than a repair plant with limited capabilities to design anything decent.

 

[hest]

You did not even measured armour projection and inclination of turret roof and placement of gunners and panoramic sight, which are clearly not obscured for a good degree, also you will not be able to argue with anyone, especially cuestion designers with your deceitful thinking.

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/236/2366887.html

 

[Damian]

You did not even measured armour projection and inclination of turret roof and placement of gunners and panoramic sight, which are clearly not obscured for a good degree, also you will not be able to argue with anyone, especially cuestion designers with your deceitful thinking.

Seriously, You are just idiot. You are showing a drawing that have nothing in common with the ERA placement on the real thing, not to mention that nobody here is talking about TC panoramic sight, but about the gunner primary sight and eventually his auxiliary sights that have obscured vision by the ERA, especially when gun is depressed.

Are You even capable to use Your brain, and You will ever stop to praise failed designs made by incompetent leftovers of the soviet tank industry? The only competent design bureau back then was KB-60M vel KMDB from Kharkiv, and to some extend LKZ and Chelyabinsk.

KMDB again proved that they are capable to design much more ergonomic, better design in form of BM Oplot, which have real multilayer ERA that do not obscure vision from the gunner and TC sights.

That's are facts, just deal with them.

 

[hest]

Seriously, You are just idiot. You are showing a drawing that have nothing in common with the ERA placement on the real thing, not to mention that nobody here is talking about TC panoramic sight, but about the gunner primary sight and eventually his auxiliary sights that have obscured vision by the ERA, especially when gun is depressed.

It is drawing from official patent and it shows module placement in contrast with higher, inclination of turret roof where sights are placed.

Besides you have not given any facts or arguments which could be indicated on picture, so who will believe your emotional talk ?

 

[Damian]

It is drawing from official patent and it shows module placement in contrast with higher, inclination of turret roof where sights are placed.

And where do You see on these drawings the same ERA configuration like on photos of the real turret? Maybe a visit to the oculist would be a good idea eh?

Besides you have not given any facts or arguments which could be indicated on picture, so who will believe your emotional talk ?

What? You really wan't to make me wan't to just hit You in Your face do You?

Where do You not see arguments? Seems that Your education was preaty poor, especially in terms of learning how do read with understanding.

 

[hest]

And where do You see on these drawings the same ERA configuration like on photos of the real turret? Maybe a visit to the oculist would be a good idea eh?

On drawing it is shown projection of inclined turret roof on vertical plane and sights are placed on zone which is already higher than armour block.

On picture it is seen that ERA elements in height more or less match zone represented by armour block, and they also vary to some degree.

If you want to prove your point, measure projection of these elements and having in account turret roof inclination show how they obscure sights placed on it, because only thing you say are empty words for now.

But it is funny already how someone pretends to look knowledgeable and just criticise and pretend to know more than proffessional designers, so discussing would be irrelevant anyway.

 

[Damian]

On drawing it is shown projection of inclined turret roof on vertical plane and sights are placed on zone which is already higher than armour block.

On picture it is seen that ERA elements in height more or less match zone represented by armour block, and they also vary to some degree.

If you want to prove your point, measure projection of these elements and having in account turret roof inclination show how they obscure sights placed on it, because only thing you say are empty words for now.

It seems that You are unable to read, primitive form of live.

So maybe You will understand this.

Such placement of ERA cassettes obscures vision of the gunner sights, especially in the minus elevation of the main gun, this means that using effectively hull down position is immposible, especially for such designs as T-xx series that even with standard turret have problems with using hull down position due to their smaller minimal gun elevation. Also the decision to cancell this project means that there were problems with the turret design.

There is no reason to belive it was a good design, only You as typical fanboy, do not see the weak points in the turret design... well actually You do not see the weak points in any Russian made weapon system design, which makes You non credible, and only a fanboy.

Now it is understandable to You? Well I should not expect that from a guy with intelect of Paramecium...