Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

And what is seen in modern APFSDS? hmm?
It's no way to saw segmented structure of the penetrator. It can be visible only in rod cut photo. How many that photos have you seen yet?
Or draw?
DM13, DM23, DM33, PELE (DM33), DM43. M829, BM15, BM22, BM26, BM42, BM32, OLF-F1 trening, and korean clon of DM43. It's all. There is no cut-photo of more modern penetrator.
Why?

I guess everything is possible, howewer it was never described or mentioned.

Then values should be reconsidered... And there is still another question, how will penetrator with several segments maintain it's integrity whille interacting with composite armour ? As semi-active effect is focused on providing destabilisation, thus there will be some lateral impulse to some point which could take out the segment ?

Probably as described in american patent, most optimal solution would be 1 initial segment, though there would still be destabilising effect (second plate).

About Katktu diffrent patent -tehy are two more patent with shown modernisation T-xx concpet by cut part of turret armour (and hull) and placed i that space whole Kaktus module.

Yes, it is required to mess with most of turret structure, that is why modernisation was costly and relatively complicated and it was then only intended for new production.

No.
Oginally Burlak was conspet of turret bustle autoloader whit ammo store. It was fast-changed or rejected after hit. And there are RU patent about that solution fter that there was idea modernisation T-xx series by placed Burlak module like in T-72-120, or ukrinian "Kern". But it was impossible due to turret balanse problem. And agiain tehre is RU patent whit that. The third option connected whit completly new "uniwersal tank turret" simmilar to Ob.640. And you are writing ony about the last solution whit "Burlak".

I am talking about Burlak programme which was initiated by the the Ministry of Defense with a set of requirements of protection, crew safety, firepower, etc on which KBTM was chosen, result which you see.

Earlier developements were made at own initiative and are not related with Burlak.

Not extly.Those valyes are for sabot+penetrator. Completly diffrent thing is how big MJ value have penetrator during free flight after relese SABOT. For example DM53 can have only 9MJ during free flight when M829A3 due to using extremly expensive ultralight composit sabot can have for example 11,5MJ. And what in that way?
Those values are for sabot + penetrator. Only penetrator take part in penetration so MJ only for it are important.

It is guess, and still energy difference would not be high and there are no arguments to claim that it will defeat modern ERA just because of it.

Rather first segment after made hole in first plate will be hit in second ones. In fact moving ~1600m/s sgment will hit first plate and second one in ERA casette. In that scenario there is no "hal lenght" lost.

Second plate projects over rest of segments after a time and would still affect their integrity with projectile, residual segment is irrelevant.

In general it would be loss of atleast 2 segments (1/3 in your drawing) and effect on main projectile, or to overcome everything, 3 segments, with result of half penetrator. It is for a reason why in patent there is one which is relatively optimal.

Want german patent whit using NERA inside armour? Or US decribe inner ERA placed between armour plates?

It is not same working method which is destabilisation and space needed for effect, than semi-active armour block.

 

[militarysta]

Better draw how segmented penetrator vs ERA may work:



In fac they are two otpion -both poor for ERA:

1) as on draw - first one-two segments made hole in first ERA plate and becouse they are solid metal parts (~6-10cm eacht one) -like 30mm cannon FAPTS slug so they are moving foward and hit second ERA plate and made some damage too. Of course those segments will be heave damage after hit first plate, but V drop equal to ~1650m/s and fact they can by heavy must give them ability to hit whit quite bige energy in second moving ERA plate.
Its first option.

2) soecond -if ERA must heave anti-dual warhed abylities then there is need some time interval between first plate and strat moving second plate -yes? In that scenario second plate will be hit by two first segments before it will start moving. So in fact nothing is changed and secodn plate will be damage even before action.

In both scenarios ERA abilities just must be drastically reduced...

 

[Damian]

I guess everything is possible, howewer it was never described or mentioned.

Then values should be reconsidered... And there is still another question, how will penetrator with several segments maintain it's integrity whille interacting with composite armour ? As semi-active effect is focused on providing destabilisation, thus there will be some lateral impulse to some point which could take out the segment ?

Probably as described in american patent, most optimal solution would be 1 initial segment, though there would still be destabilising effect (second plate).

You forgot that penetrator core can be segmented and ecnased in steel, to improve restistance against armor working mechanism. It is not that simple and both USA and Germany took great effort to design ammunition capable to defeat composite armors protected by heavy ERA.

It is for a reason why in patent there is one which is relatively optimal.

Patents do not show every solution, in such way there would be no need to make this technology classiefied, because everyone would just need to read patents.

It is not same working method which is destabilisation and space needed for effect, than semi-active armour block.

Advanced composite armors are more complex, in fact their exact working mechanism is still not known.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Some posts moved to http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/42716-superiority-american-weapons-tactics.html

Edit: I'm not deleting posts but simply moving them to that thread. Please keep this thread clean

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Posters ensure that your posts add to the body of knowledge regarding the thread topic and are not simply personal opinions particularly if you have no actual experience of that which you speak, Any Member cannot follow these basic rules he / she run on high risks..

 

[hest]

Better draw how segmented penetrator vs ERA may work:



In fac they are two otpion -both poor for ERA:

1) as on draw - first one-two segments made hole in first ERA plate and becouse they are solid metal parts (~6-10cm eacht one) -like 30mm cannon FAPTS slug so they are moving foward and hit second ERA plate and made some damage too. Of course those segments will be heave damage after hit first plate, but V drop equal to ~1650m/s and fact they can by heavy must give them ability to hit whit quite bige energy in second moving ERA plate.
Its first option.

2) soecond -if ERA must heave anti-dual warhed abylities then there is need some time interval between first plate and strat moving second plate -yes? In that scenario second plate will be hit by two first segments before it will start moving. So in fact nothing is changed and secodn plate will be damage even before action.

In both scenarios ERA abilities just must be drastically reduced...

It still does not represent working method.

After explosive reaction frontal and back plates start moving at same time, but in opposite direction. Back plate bounces and turns to opposite direction replicating movement of first plate at a latter time. This interval to arrive at same position is enought for main warhead to detonate and cumulative jet to be disrupted by plate. APFSDS will deal with double interaction with both plates with longer duration.

Against segmented penetrator, first plate will cause strong destabilisation of atleast first 2 segments, especially first. Even if residual segment incides against second plate, it would still project against main projectile causing destabilisation, or affecting integrity of an additional segment if there is.

Here is shown destabilising effect against APFSDS

Segment after stronger destabilisation may not even inflict on second plate or it will be of reduced effect.

 

[Damian]

I found this, anyone know what engine it is? Photo is from AUSA 2012, so it is fresh photo.

 

[Damian]

It still does not represent working method.

After explosive reaction frontal and back plates start moving at same time, but in opposite direction. Back plate bounces and turns to opposite direction replicating movement of first plate at a latter time. This interval to arrive at same position is enought for main warhead to detonate and cumulative jet to be disrupted by plate. APFSDS will deal with double interaction with both plates with longer duration.

Against segmented penetrator, first plate will cause strong destabilisation of atleast first 2 segments, especially first. Even if residual segment incides against second plate, it would still project against main projectile causing destabilisation, or affecting integrity of an additional segment if there is.

Here is shown destabilising effect against APFSDS

Segment after stronger destabilisation may not even inflict on second plate or it will be of reduced effect.

It is rather not very mature to compare obsolete 3BM22 with more modern penetrators designed to defeat ERA and composite armor behind it... in short designed to kill T-xx series of tanks.

 

[hest]

It is rather not very mature to compare obsolete 3BM22 with more modern penetrators designed to defeat ERA and composite armor behind it... in short designed to kill T-xx series of tanks.

I am only talking about destabilisation of a segment (much easier than whole 3BM22 ) and how it won't affect second plate to perform further incidence, not of whole projectile, wich comes afterwards.

 

[Damian]

I am only talking about destabilisation of a segment (much easier than whole 3BM22 ) and how it won't affect second plate to perform further incidence, not of whole projectile, wich comes afterwards.

It is still not reasonable because of not knowing how exactly each penetrator is designed, and comparing it to the obsolete type of ammunition.

Besides this as I said, USA and Germany both purchased heavy ERA and tested it, it is also not unreasonable to assume that even newer developments were taken from Russia from tests, or at least documentation of them. I seen whole Tor AA system builded from scratch in USA after they obtained systems documentation, these Tor's are almost fully combat systems, they do not have only real weapons.

Also NII Stali was cooperating on ERA with Raphael and GDLS, it is possible that both companies obtained proper knowledge and documentation and provided it to their own goverments.

So on Your place I would be carefull with making statements about Russian ERA "superiority".

 

[hest]

These "US built systems" are in fact imitators of electronic signal which are not related with real system, as for example conversions made to resemble enemy tanks.

Also understanding does not imply knowledge of defeat mechanism without significant work and time...

It is also known from US request that Abrams turret side armour protection against CE is under 400 mm RHA.

 

[Damian]

These "US built systems" are in fact imitators of electronic signal which are not related with real system, as for example conversions made to resemble enemy tanks.

As I said, these US made "Tor's" are fully capable when it comes to the vehicle electronics, radar etc. They do not have however capability to fire missiles, they are used for training. And prooves that OPSEC in Russia is poor, if You pay enough You get what You wan't in Russia, and that it is more than probable that US get more of the current and perspective Russian technology for research. These are different than VISMOD's which You confused with these US made "Tor" systems.

Actually VISMOD's are more and more replaced with real vehicles if possible. US purchased significant numbers of Russian made armored fighting vehicles for tests and own forces training. All of them are operated by 11th ACR in Fort Irwing NTC.

Also understanding does not imply knowledge of defeat mechanism without significant work and time...

And what makes You so sure that they didn't spend significant work and time on them? You are so sure in everything You say, that this makes You funny.

 

[hest]

They are not any capable and have nothing to do with original, it is only creative Americanl construction made to resemble electronic signal (not exact but approximate). There is no knowledge about original elements, operation algorithms, missile parameters, etc.

There is no much knowledge about modern developements currently realised, while in armoured vehicles rest of countries are rather static for decades already.

 

[Damian]

They are not any capable and have nothing to do with original, it is only creative Americanl construction made to resemble electronic signal (not exact but approximate). There is no knowledge about original elements, operation algorithms, missile parameters, etc.

Haha, You are so funny when You try to fight with reality.

Bad news Geronimo, due to poor OPSEC, and poor salaries, if You pay enough money to proper people You get all secrets You want.

Christ British even stole from You complete T-80U in 1990/1991! And nobody noticed!

Even earlier BRIXMIS teams were able to stole not only full documentation of T-64 with armor protection details, as well they just get inside the unit, made detailed photographs and messurements of vehicles in motorpool. This is how worth is security in Russia.

Deal with reality.

There is no much knowledge about modern developements currently realised, while in armoured vehicles rest of countries are rather static for decades already.

The only static country is Russia, still redeveloping obsolete solutions. As I said, face it, Russia is decades behind NATO countries... Christ Russians are not even capable to design a modern assault rifle, they are only capable to redesign AK, which is funny, even in much smaller country like Poland, designers were able to design a really modern and competetive design, to which AK-12 is like a design from stone age.

 

[hest]

Fun to see inmature diacussion...

 

[Damian]

Fun to see inmature diacussion...

Funny to see Bellarusian that thinks he is a Russian, and tries to be more Russian than Russians.

Maybe instead of traditionally serve Your masters also on internet forums, You should go back to Bellarus and help to progress Your country, for example by trying to change president from that moron Lukashenka, to improve peoples life, making Your country independent, and so on.

Goin back to topic.


One of the more recent videos of new japanese Type 10. I really like mobility of this vehicle, japanese idea to use continuously variable transmission (CVT) was brilliant.


And a bit longer video from presentation. I must say that Japanese GSDF are impressive force.

 

[methos]

Generally there are two "way" to overcome modern ERA (and two theory placed in books and pdfs):
1) first "super: long, thick, heavy penetrator theory". This theory is based on... M829A3 when is no possible to place longer penetrator in 120mm round in Rh120:

Inthat theory in M829A3 penetrator is so long, so thick that ERA is not able to breake it, or bent. Of course ERA will be have some influece on that penetretor but damage will by to little to stop that penetrator.

I would be careful. The exact shape of M829A3 has not to be connected with it's mechanism to overcome ERA. The penetrator is not "super thick", it is thicker than the current Russian, British, German or Isreali ammunition, but not "super thick". If you compare M829A3 with older ammunition, like DM13, DM23, M829, 3BM-32 or 3BM-42, then it is thinner.
In the end the "greater thickness" can be a result of the total length - current technology limits the length-to-diameter ratio to ~35 : 1. If the length of an APFSDS exceeds this limit, it will have troubles in barrel, during flight and during penetration (in the sense that it bends, breaks, shatters, etc.).
When you compare M829A1 with M829A2, then you will see that M829A2 will bend instead of breaking too overcome heavy ERA effects. Would be pretty funny if M829A3 would not bend when hitting ERA, because else it will break. 120 mm DM 53 is also said to bend in order too overcome heavy ERA.

In oher world: even if ERA works perfect M829A3 penetrator will be to long and to heavy so it's penetration after ERA will be enought to overcome main armour.
IMHO this theory is not very clever becouse it's not account SC mehanism in ERA (Knife, Duplet), and SLERA, and others facotrs. But maybe...?

No, this is just plain wrong. How much composite armour has M829A3 too penetrate after ERA? 800 to 850 mm of NERA and different steel types? It won't go through this. The glacis should be penetratable - but only if M829A3 performs better against heavy ERA than the average round.

2. second theory is based on change in the construction of the penetrator. In that theory the penetrator is no longer monolit becouse it works on more sophisticated way then only "moving foward".
In Germany&France, USA, Korea, and....Poland studies have been conducted on the phenomenon " forced segmented penetration". Ironnicly we know the most about less advanced (money...) research in Poland. Couple of quite good pdf made in WITU are avaible in the internet. In rest countres we have only patent sheets and numbers.

Segmented penetrators are not known to be in service; at least M829A2 and probably all rounds developed earlier are no segmented penetrators. Some rounds, like M829A2, DM33, L27A1 CHARM-3 etc. incorporate a special "tip design" to perform better against spaced armour or ERA (according to Paul Lakowski).

DM53 L-44 11,5MJ muzzle - 1650m/s
DM53 L-55 13,5MJ muzzle -1700m/s
M829A3 12,1MJ muzzle - 1555m/s
But M829A3 have:
a) 15% longer rod
b) composite sabot

The difference in DM53 and M829A3 muzzle energy was discussed on TankNet a while ago. Some presentation said that even the "super" composite sabot of M829A3 still weighs 3 kg - so that M829A3 still would be below DM53 energy level (even if we stay with 1,555 m/s, which is the value for 21°C instead of 15°C). Take also the far larger surface of the M829A3 into account (more than 25% greater)!

Not extly.Those valyes are for sabot+penetrator. Completly diffrent thing is how big MJ value have penetrator during free flight after relese SABOT. For example DM53 can have only 9MJ during free flight when M829A3 due to using extremly expensive ultralight composit sabot can have for example 11,5MJ. And what in that way?
Those values are for sabot + penetrator. Only penetrator take part in penetration so MJ only for it are important.

Projectile:
M829A3 - 7 kg for whole projectile at 1,555 m/s (1,520 - 1,530 for 15°C probably) - 8.4 MJ (~8.1 MJ)
M829A3 - ~6 to 6.5 kg for penetrator at 1,555 m/s (1,520 - 1,530 for 15°C probably) - 7.2 to 7.7 MJ (6.9 to 7.6 MJ)
DM53 - ~5.8 kg for whole projectile at 1,750 m/s - 8.8 MJ
DM53 - 4.9 kg for penetrator at 1,750 m/s - 7.5 MJ

Note: values for DM53 come from a former German soldier. If the "non-penetrator"-parts of the projectile of M829A3 weigh as much as the ones in DM53, then the penetrator should weigh 6.1 kg (and this view ignores the fact that M829A3 has a far greater area which needs to be covered by caps, tracer, etc.).
11.5 MJ is not possible, because data from the US Army Research Laboratory shows that M829A3 has a 3 kg sabot.


PS: I will comment on some other stuff here later, don't have much time ATM.

 

[Damian]

Methos just remember that Militarysta have access to some unofficial informations. Only because something is not right, or is not up with literature does not mean he is not telling the truth.

 

[militarysta]

@Methos

Segmented penetrators are not known to be in service; at least M829A2 and probably all rounds developed earlier are no segmented penetrators. Some rounds, like M829A2, DM33, L27A1 CHARM-3 etc. incorporate a special "tip design" to perform better against spaced armour or ERA (according to Paul Lakowski).

Definetly M892 M829A1, M829A2 are monoblock, DM13-DM43 mnoblock too, in russia...vel it's funny becouse propaby only one monoblock penetrator is BM32, and BM42 have rod masy by two parts. What about newest russian rounds-no idea, but rumors says that Sniviets-1 have composite sabot and non-monoblock penetrator. IMHO newest germans penetrator are no monobock. How about M829A3 -no idea.

Projectile:
M829A3 - 7 kg for whole projectile at 1,555 m/s (1,520 - 1,530 for 15°C probably) - 8.4 MJ (~8.1 MJ)
M829A3 - ~6 to 6.5 kg for penetrator at 1,555 m/s (1,520 - 1,530 for 15°C probably) - 7.2 to 7.7 MJ (6.9 to 7.6 MJ)
DM53 - ~5.8 kg for whole projectile at 1,750 m/s - 8.8 MJ
DM53 - 4.9 kg for penetrator at 1,750 m/s - 7.5 MJ

Note: values for DM53 come from a former German soldier. If the "non-penetrator"-parts of the projectile of M829A3 weigh as much as the ones in DM53, then the penetrator should weigh 6.1 kg (and this view ignores the fact that M829A3 has a far greater area which needs to be covered by caps, tracer, etc.).
11.5 MJ is not possible, because data from the US Army Research Laboratory shows that M829A3 has a 3 kg sabot.

Oh, thanks -I haven't that data, and they are preety interesting. So we can say smth.like that:
MJ sabot+projectile
DM53 L-44 11,5MJ muzzle - 1650m/s
DM53 L-55 13,5MJ muzzle -1700m/s
M829A3 12,1MJ muzzle - 1555m/s

MJ projectile only:
M829A3 - 7 kg for whole projectile at 1,555 m/s (1,520 - 1,530 for 15°C probably) - 8.4 MJ (~8.1 MJ)
DM53 - L-55 ~5.8 kg for whole projectile at 1,750 m/s - 8.8 MJ

MJ penetrator only:
M829A3 - ~6 to 6.5 kg for penetrator at 1,555 m/s (1,520 - 1,530 for 15°C probably) - 7.2 to 7.7 MJ (6.9 to 7.6 MJ)
DM53 - 4.9 kg for penetrator at 1,750 m/s - 7.5 MJ
?

It's looks that 15% shorter DM53 penetrator have the same MJ.

11.5 MJ is not possible, because data from the US Army Research Laboratory shows that M829A3 has a 3 kg sabot.

12,1MJ for sabot+projectile is not possible on muzzle? Are You sure?

 

[militarysta]

After explosive reaction frontal and back plates start moving at same time, but in opposite direction. Back plate bounces and turns to opposite direction replicating movement of first plate at a latter time. This interval to arrive at same position is enought for main warhead to detonate and cumulative jet to be disrupted by plate. APFSDS will deal with double interaction with both plates with longer duration.

In that case they will be work option no.2 wrom my post, so rather loger time interwal works on bad way for ERA efectivness in that case.