Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

There was nothing standing against replacing gas turbine with Diesel engine.

Russian T-80UD equivalent was more than possible.

Russia had two good options to take, or design their own T-80UD equivalent or pursue Object 187, instead some "briliant genius" decided to pursue Object 188 known today as T-90, which was nothing more than T-72B on steroids, and in it's essence inferior to both T-80UD and Object 187.

So again instead of progressive designs, regressive design was choosen.

Old T-90 was discontinued and was not main.

 

[Damian]

Fleet is to be unified with T-72, T-90 models. There is no sense now to continue with T-80 with different logistics and more expense

T-80 was much better design, it is direct evidence of corruption in Russia, when someone decided to support Tagil design not LKZ/Omsk.

You have written yourself

MBT-70 was intended as MBT, there was no other project. Only Germans were considering two types of MBT-70, one with 152mm gun launcher and second variant with 120mm gun, later the same concept was to build two Leopard 2 types, one with 120mm gun and second with 152mm gun launcher.

So there was needed auxiliar tank.

There was no auxiliary tank needed, are you capable to comprehend what you read? Germans were only considering two variants of MBT-70, it was the same tank just with two different armament systems, same goes for Leopard 2 during it's initial development phase.

There was no separate design that you imagined.

This shows your poor knowledge. You even contradict Western planners, MBT-70.

My poor knowledge? Are you feel ok? As I said, currently, now, in 2012, the max engagement range for APFSDS ammunition in NATO is 3,5 to 4 km. It is so hard to you to read in english and understand what is written in this language? Tha I am talking about current situation not about what happend in 1970?

Ahh, so you talked with someone who talks about something he never operated and start and argument. )

He actually fighted in a real war, and is using tanks in reality, contrary to you little propaganda boy.

I asked him what he thinks about idea of GLATGM, he said that in theory it might look good, but in practice he as a tank commander would have issues with this type of ammunition, because it's reduce load of conventional ammunition that he sees as more nececary.

But of course you can argue with experience of a person that was actually using a real tank in real battle, killing enemies in reality, not in a computer simulation.

But hey, I am not doing idiot from you right now, it is you, who want to fight with opinion of people who were doing this things in reality.

And I think that me or most people will respect opinion of soldiers more than some bellarusssian from Moscow.

Old T-90 was discontinued and was not main.

T-90A is the same story. A hybrid of T-90 hull and modified Object 187 turret.

 

[methos]

Data comparrision, from Hunnicutt Abrams A History Of The American Main Battle Tank volume 2.

XM150 152mm rifled:
muzzle velocity:
XM578E1 - 1478 m/s
M409 - 754 m/s

M68 105mm rifled:
muzzle velocity:
M392A2 - 1478 m/s
M735 - 1501 m/s
M456 - 1173 m/st

M256 120mm smoothbore:
muzzle velocity:
M829 - 1700 m/s
M830 - 1140 m/s

And is this data related to the topic of discussion? No. Neither weight, nor gun pressure data (which I previously provided) is given. But this pretty much proves what the other people (at least Lidsky and me) are saying: The M68 tank gun - a far older design with far less propellant per rounds - outperforms the much newer XM150 in terms of kinetic power. The XM150 is overly specialized on firing the Shillalegh - this was criticized by the U.S. congress and by the FRG. It cannot be called a "high-pressure gun" when you keep in mind that it was made for the 1970s and completely developed after the L7/2A20.

As we can see firing APFSDS ammunition, XM150 was comparable with 105mm rifled, which was and is considered as high pressure weapon, so it means that for it's generation and time, XM150 was also high pressure gun, it does not mean it was or is comparable with more modern main guns, especially the smoothbore ones. Neither we do not know how it would perform with more capable ammunition.

The XM150 gun was proposed for the 1970s (initially planed DOI was 1970), while the L7 tank gun entered service in 1959. The 2A20 smoothbore gun entered service in 1961 and was even better than the XM150. The development of the 120 mm Rheinmetall gun was started in 1965 and ended in 1975 - from that point of time nearly no changes were made to it. The Rh 120 L/44 is a contemporary to the XM150.
The XM150 was never well suited for firing kinetic energy ammunition and was in the late-1960s no "high-pressure" weapon - regarding firing kinetic ammunition it was (compared to the L7/M68) only one thing: stagnation.

As additional comparision to show the point how important is context of the period when gun was developed and used.

German 8,8cm KwK 36 had such muzzle velocity with such types of ammunition.

Pzgr. 39 - 773-810 m/s
Pzgr. 40 - 930 m/s
Gr. 39 - 600 m/s

By todays standards KwK 36 can be called low pressure gun, with poor performance, but when it was developed it was a high pressure weapon with very good performance.

This has nothing to do with the topic... velocity has (in this context) nothing to do with pressure. The KwK 36 was a "high-pressure" weapon because it operated at a higher pressure than nearly all other tank guns of the same period, while the XM150 operated at a lower pressure than tank guns of the previous generation.

This is a good example how Lidsky manipulate informations for his personal agenda

Lidsky might often write silly stuff, but currently you are playing the silly one.

I do not care about your opinion, it is irrelevant, I care only about facts, facts are that gun was high pressure, high velocity type, which contradicts with your silly theories.

The XM150 is not a "high pressure, high velocity type" of weapon. It does perform worse than 10 year older guns regarding pressure.

 

[Damian]

And is this data related to the topic of discussion? No. Neither weight, nor gun pressure data (which I previously provided) is given. But this pretty much proves what the other people (at least Lidsky and me) are saying: The M68 tank gun - a far older design with far less propellant per rounds - outperforms the much newer XM150 in terms of kinetic power. The XM150 is overly specialized on firing the Shillalegh - this was criticized by the U.S. congress and by the FRG. It cannot be called a "high-pressure gun" when you keep in mind that it was made for the 1970s and completely developed after the L7/2A20.

Complete data is in Hunnicutt book, I don't want to scan complete pages. As for gun itself, it is easy to criticise it when only single APFSDS round, comparable to L7 ammunition was developed. We do not know how well it would performed with better ammunition.

The XM150 gun was proposed for the 1970s (initially planed DOI was 1970), while the L7 tank gun entered service in 1959. The 2A20 smoothbore gun entered service in 1961 and was even better than the XM150. The development of the 120 mm Rheinmetall gun was started in 1965 and ended in 1975 - from that point of time nearly no changes were made to it. The Rh 120 L/44 is a contemporary to the XM150.
The XM150 was never well suited for firing kinetic energy ammunition and was in the late-1960s no "high-pressure" weapon - regarding firing kinetic ammunition it was (compared to the L7/M68) only one thing: stagnation.

I think you are missing a point here. I didn't say that XM150 was some super weapon, it was medicore design, although most of criticism towards it is exaggaration.

This has nothing to do with the topic... velocity has (in this context) nothing to do with pressure. The KwK 36 was a "high-pressure" weapon because it operated at a higher pressure than nearly all other tank guns of the same period, while the XM150 operated at a lower pressure than tank guns of the previous generation.

Such logic is flawed, because with it, we can call each gun with lower pressure than newer generation guns as a low pressure weapons.

Lidsky might often write silly stuff, but currently you are playing the silly one.

I do not care what you think about me, neither that silly bellarussian. Facts are that he is manipulating informations, or is using poor quality, far from reality inormations. Which is by the way typical for people from his circles.

The XM150 is not a "high pressure, high velocity type" of weapon. It does perform worse than 10 year older guns regarding pressure.

And in the same time, a single type of APFSDS round for it performed comparably to many types of ammuition from these older designs.

As I said, XM150 was not some super design, but criticism towards it is greatly exaggarated. Especially when most people forgets it was mostly intended to fire HEAT and GLATGM's, at that time APFSDS ammunition was not very capable, and not intended as main anti tank ammunition.

 

[Akim]

After the Chechen war the Russians started operating only the Diesel engines .

GTE engines are not a fire hazard. In the second Chechen campaign used the T-62 and T-72, because the real tank confrontation was over, and exploitation of Т- 72 far cheaper what Т- 80 with turbine engines.

 

[JBH22]

GTE engines are not a fire hazard. In the second Chechen campaign used the T-62 and T-72, because the real tank confrontation was over, and exploitation of Т- 72 far cheaper what Т- 80 with turbine engines.

But still if you had to choose between the two tanks I bet you will go for the T-80.

 

[methos]

Complete data is in Hunnicutt book, I don't want to scan complete pages. As for gun itself, it is easy to criticise it when only single APFSDS round, comparable to L7 ammunition was developed. We do not know how well it would performed with better ammunition.

We do however now the maximum pressure and with this the maximum possible performance. You are trying to ignore this, but it has the same limitations as the L7, which is more than 12 years older. And for reaching the same performance, it needs more propellant, which means that there is less growth potential in propellant performance.

Such logic is flawed, because with it, we can call each gun with lower pressure than newer generation guns as a low pressure weapons.

The XM150 couldn't support as much pressure as tank guns from an earlier generation (2A20). Compared to guns developed at the same time (Rh 120 development started in 1965) it performs much worse. That it not "flawed" logic, this is rational thinking.

And in the same time, a single type of APFSDS round for it performed comparably to many types of ammuition from these older designs

If something new is made to replace an older gun, then it should perform better. But it stays (besides the fact that it is 12 years newer) at the same pressure limit and with the increased internal surface and larger sabot at a lower effective performance than the L7.

 

[Damian]

But still if you had to choose between the two tanks I bet you will go for the T-80.

T-80 was generally better tanks. For example driver comfort and situational awareness is higher.

It is nothing strange that T-80 was choosen by KMDB as replacement for T-64 series, this is why KMDB designed T-80UD, and the apex of T-80UD evolution is BM Oplot.

Improved T-80UD or Object 478BE.

BM Oplot or Object 478DU10.

 

[Damian]

We do however now the maximum pressure and with this the maximum possible performance. You are trying to ignore this, but it has the same limitations as the L7, which is more than 12 years older. And for reaching the same performance, it needs more propellant, which means that there is less growth potential in propellant performance.

I am not ignoring this, the fact is that with better ammunition it would perform comparably to L7 when APFSDS used, but better with HEAT due to bigger calliber. XM150 was not the same league as Rh-120 and M256 but, not that bad either, especially as HEAT thrower.

The XM150 couldn't support as much pressure as tank guns from an earlier generation (2A20). Compared to guns developed at the same time (Rh 120 development started in 1965) it performs much worse. That it not "flawed" logic, this is rational thinking.

I don't know if comparing rifled design with smoothbore is proper, we know the limitations of rifled designs and capabilities of smoothbores. We should also not forget that XM150 was mainly intended as HEAT thrower, because it was main armor piercing ammunition of that time, especially in USA.

If something new is made to replace an older gun, then it should perform better. But it stays (besides the fact that it is 12 years newer) at the same pressure limit and with the increased internal surface and larger sabot at a lower effective performance than the L7.

And now compare capabilities of XM150 HEAT ammunition and L7 HEAT ammunition. As I said, do not ignore the fact what ammunition was preffered at that time as main armor piercing type. It was HEAT back then, APDS and APFSDS was seen as supplement.

 

[methos]

I am not ignoring this, the fact is that with better ammunition it would perform comparably to L7 when APFSDS used, but better with HEAT due to bigger calliber. XM150 was not the same league as Rh-120 and M256 but, not that bad either, especially as HEAT thrower.

[...]
We should also not forget that XM150 was mainly intended as HEAT thrower, because it was main armor piercing ammunition of that time, especially in USA.

[...]
And now compare capabilities of XM150 HEAT ammunition and L7 HEAT ammunition. As I said, do not ignore the fact what ammunition was preffered at that time as main armor piercing type. It was HEAT back then, APDS and APFSDS was seen as supplement.

We are not talking about armour penetration per se here. This discussion started because you said that the XM150 would be a "high pressure" weapon, which is not true. It surely is better than the 105 mm L7 when it comes to firing HEAT ammunition, but that is not the point. The point is that the XM150 was overly specialized for firing Shillalegh missiles and this lead to a low performance when firing other ammunition.
The HEAT ammunition might have had a nice level of armour penetration, but it was not a good round. Stabilization was based on spin, which reduces the armour penetration (which means it wasn't better than later 120/125 mm HEAT-FS ammunition). It was fired with less than half as much propellant as modern 120/125 mm HEAT-FS ammunition, which means that it was slower and far less accurate. The HEAT round was capable to be a problem for all tanks (bar the T-64 probably) of it's time, but only at a very short range - at longer ranges you would need 3-5 rounds to hit the enemy. That's why APFSDS ammunition was developed for the XM150 and why the Germans wanted to have a 120-mm-gunned version. If a MBT-70 met a T-62 at 2,000 m distance, it would need to waste a Shillalegh or a XM578 APFSDS round, because the M409 HEAT wasn't accurate enough at such ranges.

 

[Damian]

This discussion started because you said that the XM150 would be a "high pressure" weapon, which is not true.

Data shows it is high pressure weapon when firing APFSDS. As I said, it is not as capable as Rh-120, but calling ot purely low pressure weapon is not... reasonable.

Neither reasonable is to claim that M409 fired from MBT-70 would not accurate enough, without proper data.

Oh and one more thing, MBT-70 had computerized FCS with laser range finder, so hit probability would be definetly high even when using HEAT, probably even higher than in case of T-64, T-64A, T-72 and T-80, as these tanks used obsolete coincidence range finder so aiming procedure took longer and was not that precise... T-64B, T-72A and T-80B would be a different story.

 

[Apollyon]

Russia to Build New Airborne Fighting Vehicle

MOSCOW, November 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russian defense firm Kurganmashzavod is developing a new airborne fighting vehicle, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Monday.
"We are ready to continue the work on the new platforms that are currently being developed at Kurganmashzavod. This includes the Kurganets platform for the new airborne fighting vehicle," Rogozin said.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces will make the final decision on the system to be adopted, he noted.
"The industry may propose a variety of technical options to the Defense Ministry but it may not act as the contracting authority," Rogozin said.
Ground Forces commander Col. Gen. Vladimir Chirkin earlier said that the military will take delivery of new armored vehicles some time after 2015.

 

[Damian]

I think it is hard to call BMD a tank, I suggest to relocate this post in to the other thread.

 

[JBH22]

so BMD 4 is a big no then?

 

[Damian]

AFAIK Russian MoD resigned from purchase, they want new BMD based on "Kurganets" platform, which is probably better idea due to more efficent "Kurganets" overall design, than classic BMD.

 

[Damian]

Amorphous metal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another interesting material that can have possible applications in vehicle protection. Although not in pure form but as one of composite array components. It would be interesting to see some comparrision data with more traditional materials.

More recently, batches of amorphous steel have been produced that demonstrate strengths much greater than conventional steel alloys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorphous alloys have a variety of potentially useful properties. In particular, they tend to be stronger than crystalline alloys of similar chemical composition, and they can sustain larger reversible ("elastic") deformations than crystalline alloys. Amorphous metals derive their strength directly from their non-crystalline structure, which does not have any of the defects (such as dislocations) that limit the strength of crystalline alloys. One modern amorphous metal, known as Vitreloy, has a tensile strength that is almost twice that of high-grade titanium. However, metallic glasses at room temperature are not ductile and tend to fail suddenly when loaded in tension, which limits the material applicability in reliability-critical applications, as the impending failure is not evident. Therefore, there is considerable interest in producing metal matrix composite materials consisting of a metallic glass matrix containing dendritic particles or fibers of a ductile crystalline metal.

And something more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitreloy

Due to their non-crystalline (amorphous) structures, Liquidmetals are harder than alloys of titanium or aluminum of similar composition. The zirconium and titanium based Liquidmetal alloys achieved yield strength of over 1723 MPa, nearly twice the strength of conventional crystalline titanium alloys (Ti6Al4V is ~830 MPa), and about the strength of high-strength steels and some highly engineered bulk composite materials. However, the early casting methods introduced microscopic flaws that were excellent sites for crack propagation, and led to Vitreloy being fragile, like glass. Although strong, these early batches could easily be shattered if struck. Newer casting methods, adjustment to the alloy mixtures and other changes have improved this.

Also can be usefull.

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

Aha... it seems that USA is already investing in to using these materials in military.

http://www.liquidmetal.com/applications/defense-applications/

 

[JBH22]

Any idea why the Black Eagle prototype was abandoned?

For its type even though the Russian economy at that time the tank appeared to be promising design.

In 2001 when India choose the T-90 as its future tank how come we missed this one.



Black Eagle Images

 

[Akim]

Any idea why the Black Eagle prototype was abandoned?

For its type even though the Russian economy at that time the tank appeared to be promising design.

In 2001 when India choose the T-90 as its future tank how come we missed this one.



Black Eagle Images

You see, "Black Eagle" - this is just a concept, which showed that still Russia can yet design tanks. The turret, as though original. Rather than all this was a maket. In Russia then there was not an engine of necessary power. The autoloader is not reliable. Then, when the production of T-80U stopped, there was no sense to deploy even the experimental production.

 

[JBH22]

You see, "Black Eagle" - this is just a concept, which showed that still Russia can yet design tanks. The turret, as though original. Rather than all this was a maket. In Russia then there was not an engine of necessary power. The autoloader is not reliable. Then, when the production of T-80U stopped, there was no sense to deploy even the experimental production.

I know that Kharkov design bureau design the higher tier of the USSR tank forces i.e. T-64 and T-80 but Omsk did not have the same knowledge?

Also the engine problem you mentioned could have been surmounted correct me if i'm wrong back in early 2000s the Russian did have 1000hp engine as to the autoloader i don't know too much i guess it used same as T-80.

 

[Akim]

I know that Kharkov design bureau design the higher tier of the USSR tank forces i.e. T-64 and T-80 but Omsk did not have the same knowledge?

Also the engine problem you mentioned could have been surmounted correct me if i'm wrong back in early 2000s the Russian did have 1000hp engine as to the autoloader i don't know too much i guess it used same as T-80.

Russia had GTE, by power of 1250 h.p. Autoloader in "Black Eagle" was in the feed part a turret, as in Western tanks. This is just a test model. She had very little margin for modernization.