Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Meanwhile US Army is allready thinking about M1 replacement for the long term (after 2020-2025).


https://garrison-michigan.army.mil/events/PEO_GCS_Indsutry_Day_AUSA_Overview_(24_OCT_12).pdf

BTW read the Ground Combat Vehicle program part, it is clear there that they want to expand GCV program, and new Infantry Fighting Vehicle is called there as first increment of the program, so my suspicions are probably right that under the GCV new tank and self propelled howitzer might be designed as well.

 

[hest]

And there are other interesting examples how UKBTM/UVZ was using other design bureaus solutions, for example commander cupola.

Originally T-72 use very simple commander cupola, primitive even.

But later on the T-90 they used a cupola design used by KMDB, first on T-64A:

T-64A was not the only one, several models were developed early in 70s, for example KBTM for T-55

Actually what appeared for T-90 is not related with T-80UD, it was developed again by different designers, not adopted.

An important feature is that it was unique for it's time, and still is. Rest of tanks including Abrams had primitive design without remotedly operated weapon station, they still did not design it, but just incorporate a foreign CROWS which has to be operated separately.

For example when T-72's were using only a quasi FCS, called in Soviet Terminology a sighting complex, which had only laser range finder and ballistic calculator, T-64B had real fire control system with not only laser range finder and ballistic calculator but with full capabilities of modern FCS in the 1970's-1980's period, with for example lead calculation for firing at moving targets.

T-72 series hadn't these systems only because they were not intended to. In fact tanks as ob 188 proved all the point.

 

[hest]

Meanwhile US Army is allready thinking about M1 replacement for the long term (after 2020-2025).

It seems weak from technical view. There are only loose plans and not real developement programme ongoing, and some components as Paladin are just behind even of what is currently deployed in another countries.

Also, you get excited with interrogation marks which tell nothing.

 

[Damian]

T-64A was not the only one, several models were developed early in 70s, for example KBTM for T-55

Only T-64's had adopted such cupolas by then.

An important feature is that it was unique for it's time, and still is. Rest of tanks including Abrams had primitive design without remotedly operated weapon station, they still did not design it, but just incorporate a foreign CROWS which has to be operated separately.

I know You have problems with comprehending reality but:


This is not remotely operated machine gun?

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012mcsc/Shrader.pdf

Here is new cupola, fully stabilized.

M48 and M60 series also had cupola with machine gun operated underarmor.

And CROWS on M1A2SEP v2 is integrated with CITV and it's display as well as controls. It is actually much better system, with incredibly good optics.

You are really nothing more than internet troll.

T-72 series hadn't these systems only because they were not intended to. In fact tanks as ob 188 proved all the point.

This is lame explanation.

It seems weak from technical view. There are only loose plans and not real developement programme ongoing, and some components as Paladin are just behind even of what is currently deployed in another countries.

Also, you get excited with interrogation marks which tell nothing.

Exactly the same can be said about "Armata" program, nothing more than a plastic toys.

And yes, there is real development program, only because Your weak english, and lack of any knowledge about what is happening outside Russia, You will ignore it, as typical fanboy.

But please, entertain me further, I like to laugh from people like You.

Especially that You have no sources about what is developed outside Russia, and Russian sources about outside developments are incredibly poor.

 

[hest]

Only T-64's had adopted such cupolas by then.

At same time there were for T-64 as well as for T-62 and T-55 actually made, it was developed by different designers, not only by KMDB, so what is the point ?

I know You have problems with comprehending reality but:


This is not remotely operated machine gun?

No, I said system and this is primitive, or joke which lacks stabilisation and is unable to operate in combat.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012mcsc/Shrader.pdf

Here is new cupola, fully stabilized.

And appears only now 2 decades later than what USSR had.

And CROWS on M1A2SEP v2 is integrated with CITV and it's display as well as controls. It is actually much better system, with incredibly good optics.

Designers did not bother and just added an imported system, more expensive and bulky with redundant systems.

This is lame explanation.

What is the point ?

Exactly the same can be said about "Armata" program, nothing more than a plastic toys.

No, because there is actually such official programme, request from goverment, funded with contracts signed and work ongoing, construction of new facilities. On the other hand you have nothing done but loose plans.

 

[Damian]

At same time there were for T-64 as well as for T-62 and T-55 actually made, it was developed by different designers, not only by KMDB, so what is the point ?

Only KMDB fielded it, this what matters.

No, I said system and this is primitive, or joke which lacks stabilisation and is unable to operate in combat.

No, You said.

Rest of tanks including Abrams had primitive design without remotedly operated weapon station

Which is simple lie, or do You not know what are You writing? Maybe You suffer delirium?

And appears only now 2 decades later than what USSR had.

So what, USSR was lacking in many other aspects... not to mention that west have not only RWS but also CIV/CITV/PERI like systems with integrated weapon in 1970's, 40 years ahead compared to modern Russia.

Designers did not bother and just added an imported system, more expensive and bulky with redundant systems.

You seems to not know much about CROWS on M1A2SEP v2, so I will repeat, CROWS is using CITV display and controls, it is a plug and play system, it means that besides CROWS and software there are no additional systems added.

But it seems our troll here do not even understand such simple matters.

What is the point ?

Oh You do not understand? So get back to school and learn english on at least basic levels!

No, because there is actually such official programme, request from goverment, funded with contracts signed and work ongoing, construction of new facilities. On the other hand you have nothing done but loose plans.

And what actually do You know about US programs performed by DARPA, TACOM, TARDEC, how do You know what is done in APG?

Only because people like You just love Russian advertisement, does not mean other countries are doing so.

For example OBRUM, You think that there is any advertisement about 25 and 50 tons platforms in Poland, that hey we will spent so much and so much money on this, hell no, in fact everything is classiefied until goverment and especially military, will not decide that something more can be shown for public.

But You actually have no knowledge about development programs, the only thing You expect is to belive Your words, I at least use official and credible sources.

 

[hest]

Only KMDB fielded it, this what matters.

KMDB is designer, it cannot field anything. Numerous designers developed system and goverment fields them. They are just one of the others so I do not see the point, they were not unique.

No, You said.



Which is simple lie, or do You not know what are You writing? Maybe You suffer delirium?

Something primitive which even lacks stabilisation cannot be called weapon system, especially if we take T-80UD and T-90 as reference.

So what, USSR was lacking in many other aspects... not to mention that west have not only RWS but also CIV/CITV/PERI like systems with integrated weapon in 1970's, 40 years ahead compared to modern Russia.

First was Leopard 2 in second half of 80s, your Abrams lacked it until end of Cold War, Soviet panoramic sights were to be deployed at roughly same time.

You seems to not know much about CROWS on M1A2SEP v2, so I will repeat, CROWS is using CITV display and controls, it is a plug and play system, it means that besides CROWS and software there are no additional systems added.

Designers did not bother with problem, instead of making compact system integrating it with structure, commander sight they just bought it from another country and reduntantly incorporated it.

Oh You do not understand? So get back to school and learn english on at least basic levels!

What did you wanted to show with your poor knowledge of Soviet tank history ?

And what actually do You know about US programs performed by DARPA, TACOM, TARDEC, how do You know what is done in APG?

Only because people like You just love Russian advertisement, does not mean other countries are doing so.

For example OBRUM, You think that there is any advertisement about 25 and 50 tons platforms in Poland, that hey we will spent so much and so much money on this, hell no, in fact everything is classiefied until goverment and especially military, will not decide that something more can be shown for public.

But You actually have no knowledge about development programs, the only thing You expect is to belive Your words, I at least use official and credible sources.

You can talk about developement when goverment starts programme and request from developers, assigns money from budget and they start work accordingly.

Unless there is request, nobody will start at their own initiative, and cannot. In US there is no such programme, only vague plans for 2035, that says it all.

 

[Damian]

KMDB is designer, it cannot field anything. Numerous designers developed system and goverment fields them. They are just one of the others so I do not see the point, they were not unique.



Something primitive which even lacks stabilisation cannot be called weapon system, especially if we take T-80UD and T-90 as reference.



First was Leopard 2 in second half of 80s, your Abrams lacked it until end of Cold War, Soviet panoramic sights were to be deployed at roughly same time.


Designers did not bother with problem, instead of making compact system integrating it with structure, commander sight they just bought it from another country and reduntantly incorporated it.


What did you wanted to show with your poor knowledge of Soviet tank history ?



You can talk about developement when goverment starts programme and request from developers, assigns money from budget and they start work accordingly.

Unless there is request, nobody will start at their own initiative, and cannot. In US there is no such programme, only vague plans for 2035, that says it all.

Any discussion with You is pointless. So for now, I ignore You.

 

[hest]

Only KMDB tanks were using them.

KMDB did nothing which the rest didn't. In fact T-64A initially had problems and it was simplified, then readopted, while T-55A, T-62A succeeded in army trials. Later more advanced systems were fielded with T-80UD and T-90.

 

[militarysta]

First was Leopard 2 in second half of 80s

??
In 1979 you want to say...
But it's important to notis that all soviet tank have therrible sight placment (periscopes) and lack panoramic TK sight.
If You compare periscopes placment and lack panoramic sight - soviet tanks was just blind when crew was forced to closed hatch (ABC waeapons case, artilery fire, assult etc). And those faliture was repair only in Ob.188M (T-90MS) when TK have good periscopes placment and panoramic sight.
And really talks with TK crews who changed tank from T-72/PT-91 to Leopard-2A4 shown that situational awareness of crews was just incomparable.


btw: of course FCS in T-90MS is better then in Leo-2A4, but even 25 yers WBG-X is better then many "modern" thermal imige cameras - like Israei used in PT-91 and in...T-72SIM (Georgia) and AGAWA, BURAN, and erly Catherina-FC whas no better (two firs far far whorse) then "old" WBG-X. S

 

[militarysta]

It's sure - Can. Leo2A6M take hits from RPG-7 in Astan. Of course tank 1 -talibans 0

The Leopard 2A6M will also be prepared with additional turret protection and an improved
belly blast protection package to reduce the threat of mines and IEDs. Leopard tanks
and their crews deployed to Afghanistan have survived numerous IED and anti-tank
mine strikes and recently recoilless rifle, RPG 7 and suicide attacks that may have been
catastrophic to other fleets of vehicles. More important than the protection the Leopard
offers to its crewmembers, however, is our ability to put 55 tonnes of steel between our
dismounted soldiers and the enemy.

Concept modern tanks in A-stan is "be out but in battle". The tank is out the batte becouse it's more then 1km form enemy, but it's FCS and 120mm ammo allow to take part in batte.

 

[pmaitra]

Oh You do not understand? So get back to school and learn english on at least basic levels!

OT:

The word 'you' is a second person pronoun, and always starts with a small letter, unless it is the first word of a sentence. You always capitalize it, as if it were a proper noun, which it isn't. Under such circumstances, you shouldn't be asking someone to go back to school.

 

[Damian]

OT:

The word 'you' is a second person pronoun, and always starts with a small letter, unless it is the first word of a sentence. You always capitalize it, as if it were a proper noun, which it isn't. Under such circumstances, you shouldn't be asking someone to go back to school.

OT, it is because my national language foce us to use big letters when we talk to someone. You know it is hard to fight with something You are doing whole life.

Besides this, one thing is letters, second reading with understanding, that was the point, lack of capability to read with understanding.

EOT
@militarysta.

So we know about one incident with RPG against Leo2's, probably several incidents with IED's + 19 incidents with IED's against M1A1's. All ineffective against tanks. Seems that experience from Iraq and upgrades to vehicles are showing their benefits.

 

[hest]

??
In 1979 you want to say...
But it's important to notis that all soviet tank have therrible sight placment (periscopes) and lack panoramic TK sight.
If You compare periscopes placment and lack panoramic sight - soviet tanks was just blind when crew was forced to closed hatch (ABC waeapons case, artilery fire, assult etc). And those faliture was repair only in Ob.188M (T-90MS) when TK have good periscopes placment and panoramic sight.
And really talks with TK crews who changed tank from T-72/PT-91 to Leopard-2A4 shown that situational awareness of crews was just incomparable.

It was with Leo 2A4 when true capabilities appeared.

About soviet tanks, to call them blind just because of lack of panoramic sight is incorrect. They had good FCS and the sight offered a good field of view (in fact it could be called semi-panoramic), also tanks as T-80 were incomparable to T-72M. Panoramic vision was not regarded as a priority as those sights were fully suitable especially for conventional warfare and offensive, frontal engagements. In fact during Cold War Leopard 2 was the only, Abrams lacked it, in USSR they were to appear in 1990.

btw: of course FCS in T-90MS is better then in Leo-2A4, but even 25 yers WBG-X is better then many "modern" thermal imige cameras - like Israei used in PT-91 and in...T-72SIM (Georgia) and AGAWA, BURAN, and erly Catherina-FC whas no better (two firs far far whorse) then "old" WBG-X. S

FCS of T-90MS Kalina is of course much more advanced than of 2A4, in fact it is in some aspects better than many latest tanks, M1A2, Leo 2A7, featuring automated target tracking and designation. Panoramic sight has 3rd generation thermal camera giving better image quality and more compactness.

WBG-X of older Leopard was good but not that much better than contemporary cameras, but it falls behind of modern 2nd generation currently deployed in Abrams, T-90, Leclerc, etc.

 

[Damian]

Leopard 2 from the beggining in variants A0, A1, A2 and A3 had PERI and full H-K capabilities in day, in night PERI was mostly useless due to lack of night vision or thermal sight.

M1 was intended to have PERI, but congress decided that initial variants will lack of it. M1A1 was designed to also have CITV but for some reason it also didn't recived it. Most probably because CITV in it is sending image to TC not through simple optical channel but via cable, it is a digital image.

Both Germany and USA after MBT-70/XM803 programs have several different devices ready to be installed on tanks, for some reasons these were not installed, even if these were advanced devices, some with integrated weapons.

 

[hest]

In fact Leopard 2A4 was not any secret, it is well known in capabilities as USSR had good access to it atleast from start of 90s. As an example many PERI sights were purchased for examination which aided in developement, as well as armour protection estimations were made, there is no such strict control of users in different countries.

 

[Damian]

This only proves that American politics of solding only downgraded export "monkey models", and keeping all best solutions for their own armed forces was and still is justified.

 

[militarysta]

It was with Leo 2A4 when true capabilities appeared.

In case comander panoramic sight - as I said from 1979

About soviet tanks, to call them blind just because of lack of panoramic sight is incorrect. They had good FCS and the sight offered a good field of view (in fact it could be called semi-panoramic), also tanks as T-80 were incomparable to T-72M. Panoramic vision was not regarded as a priority as those sights were fully suitable especially for conventional warfare and offensive, frontal engagements.

No, they are blind for therible placment and to small number of periscopes, and lack of TK panoramic sight. And talking about " good field of view" is not releant becouse those view is depend on turret direction, and any zoom makes that view really small.
Btw: in non panormaic good field of view is:
TPN - 7°
TKN-4S - 1xzoom -7°15' X 27°40' 8xzoom 7°
TPD-K1;TPD-K1;TPD-K1 - 9°
1G42 - 20 ... 8,4°
it's joke?
Check what sigt was for gunner and what for commander.

FCS of T-90MS Kalina is of course much more advanced than of 2A4, in fact it is in some aspects better than many latest tanks, M1A2, Leo 2A7, featuring automated target tracking and designation. Panoramic sight has 3rd generation thermal camera giving better image quality and more compactness.

Panoramic sight in MS (Kalina) is no better then Leopard-2A6 Ophelios-P and is slighty worse then Attica III. Case is simple - thomsons Catherine-FC and newer ones are clone version Ophelios-P (from Leo2A5/A6) and its not so good as Attica III from 2A7...

WBG-X of older Leopard was good but not that much better than contemporary cameras, but it falls behind of modern 2nd generation currently deployed in Abrams, T-90, Leclerc, etc.

Well - still better then Buran and AGAWA II

as well as armour protection estimations were made

And I don't find even close to possible truth values for those Soviet/Russian estimations.
They are overestimated for erly Leopard-2 and very understimated for 2A4 -especialy in SC case.

 

[hest]

This only proves that American politics of solding only downgraded export "monkey models", and keeping all best solutions for their own armed forces was and still is justified.

This thing about monkey models is not true.

In case comander panoramic sight - as I said from 1979

Arguably we can also say that panoramic vision was present yet back in WW2, but talking properly, true capability to exploit it and make a difference appeared with FCS of Leopard 2A4.

No, they are blind for therible placment and to small number of periscopes, and lack of TK panoramic sight. And talking about " good field of view" is not releant becouse those view is depend on turret direction, and any zoom makes that view really small.
Btw: in non panormaic good field of view is:
TPN - 7°
TKN-4S - 1xzoom -7°15' X 27°40' 8xzoom 7°
TPD-K1;TPD-K1;TPD-K1 - 9°
1G42 - 20 ... 8,4°
it's joke?
Check what sigt was for gunner and what for commander.

Requirement was dictated by tactics which were to be employed, and these sights were in accordance especially with manouver warfare, conventional conflicts for which tanks were intended based on frontal engagement, and tank never operated as sole unit. I will not discuss if panoramic sight was much better as I agree, but point is that it was not of critical necessity. In fact for a good time no other tank apart from Leopard 2, Eastern and Western regarded panoramic vision as a priority, Abrams neither Soviet tanks.

Panoramic sight in MS (Kalina) is no better then Leopard-2A6 Ophelios-P and is slighty worse then Attica III. Case is simple - thomsons Catherine-FC and newer ones are clone version Ophelios-P (from Leo2A5/A6) and its not so good as Attica III from 2A7...

Kalina is whole FCS name.

Panoramic sight has a thermal camera of 3rd generation, Catherine-XP, FC is for gunner's sight. Thermal camera itself is comparable to what there is in latest Leopard 2, (which uses cameras of different companies for commander and gunner) while being better than the average, as most tanks as Abrams do not surpass 2nd generation.

Also FCS as a whole is in some aspects better, with higher degree of automation, as for example during process of Hunter-Killer target designation and tracking is performed automatically, and there is also presence of guidance system for missile.

Well - still better then Buran and AGAWA II

Maybe, but difference was not as critical, but now it is way behind of current cameras from 2nd generation.

USSR-Russia skipped early generation of thermal cameras (AGAVA-2 was limited production as well as follow on) and instead went for further research on newer technology, while temporal gap was closed with foreign input. In fact now Russia is along with Europe leader on this field slighly over US. They already offer thermal camera no worse or better in characteristics than Catherine-FC while newer generation is being developed for Armata.

And I don't find even close to possible truth values for those Soviet/Russian estimations.
They are overestimated for erly Leopard-2 and very understimated for 2A4 -especialy in SC case.

I don't know which ones do you refer specifically, but for Leopard 2A4 there are well reliable from institute (with actual access) and earlier proffesional estimations which are more or less uniform which also seem logical with armour dimensions. And they had no problems to look at the actual vehicle.

 

[Damian]

This thing about monkey models is not true.

It is very true, only You probably do not even know how to search what armor type the M1 You are watching have.

So I will help You with this.

American tanks have such serial numbers on turret:

XXXX - Tank with Burlington Armor Package.
XXXXU - Tank with Heavy Armor Package.
XXXXM - Tank with Heavy Armor Package - very rare designation code for a tank heavy armor package, I seen it only on some M1A1's.

Export tanks:

XXXXE - tanks exported to muslim countries, they have Export Armor Package that is downgraded compared to American tanks - this armor designation code was seen on Egyptian and Iraqi tanks, still need confirmation for Saudi and Kuwaiti tanks.
XXXXA - Australian tanks that have different armor package than both American and muslim countries tanks.

You proved many times that Your knowledge about American tanks is complete 0.

US Congress itself ordered that both Heavy Armor Package and DU ammunition, are prohibited to be exported even to allies in NATO. This is a safety messure to protect critical technology.