Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[JBH22]

So given the prevailing situation back in 2000s with our budget and other constraints at that time,would you concur that T-90 was the best available solution for us or no?

 

[Akim]

So given the prevailing situation back in 2000s with our budget and other constraints at that time,would you concur that T-90 was the best available solution for us or no?

In India just did not have a choice. To her a not queue of the vendors.. And Pakistan has bought the T-80UD and India had to urgently restore the balance.

 

[JBH22]

In India just did not have a choice. To her a not queue of the vendors.. And Pakistan has bought the T-80UD and India had to urgently restore the balance.

So given that we were operating the T-72 the best logistical and economic solution was the T-90.

The most shocking fact is that the Russian themselves have stopped purchasing it and better upgrade their exisiting T-72 pending introduction of Armata.Its amazing that we have still to make it our backbone till 2020 while other countries will introduce new tank concept in full swing so again we will be running after the changes.

 

[Damian]

Liquidmetal alloys Unique Material Properties: High Yield Strength & Superior Elastic Limit

This type of metal alloys seems to be more and more interesting. It is confirmed that US Army plans to replace depleted uranium alloys with liquidmetal alloys.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Wonder what happens if you pour mercury into molten steel?! lol

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Wonder what happens if you pour mercury into molten steel?! lol

Amalgam (chemistry) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An amalgam is a substance formed by the reaction of mercury with another metal. Almost all metals can form amalgams with mercury, notable exception being iron.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Amalgam (chemistry) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that but what about molten steel?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

I know that but what about molten steel?

My guess is mercury would vaporize.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

My guess is mercury would vaporize.

*Face Palm* That should have been obvious, considering mercury vapor lamps lite our roads every day, good one.!

 

[hest]

Something about American APFSDS offer

As for ammunition, there are only KEW, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2, I don't know where You found KEW-A3... another of Russian sources fantasy about western tanks?

Besides this KEW-A1 was the only type of american ammunition based on foreing designs, KEW-A1 is basically DM43, KEW-A2 is based on M829A2.

http://www.defmunintl.com/Brochures/120mm KE-W A3 APFSDS-T_DMI.pdf

Defense Munitions International - 120MM KE-W A3™ APFSDS-T Tank Ammunition

Maximium chamber pressure has been increased from 5600 bar to 7000 bar which is significant improvement.

 

[Damian]

It is interesting development. It might be probable that KEW series might be a partial base design for new APFSDS ammunition that will replace M829 series in future. However it won't be pure WHA ammunition but a WHA and Liquidmetal alloy combinations.

Novel Ames Lab Composite May Replace Depleted Uranium

 

[Damian]

More prototypes of Altay.

 

[methos]

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.

The 105 mm gun of the AMX-10P can also fire APFSDS - this doesn't make it a high pressure weapon.

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

No, it's all reasonable.
If you have two types of APFSDS, can you say which will penetrate more armour based on their shape and their velocity? Yes, you can. In the same way the accuracy of a round is depending on multiple factors besides the FCS - these include amongst others muzzle velocity, mass, size and diameter (and this values can be used to calculate dispersion, trajectory, etc.). In this factors the 152 mm HEAT round - fired with less than half as much powder as a 120 mm HEAT-FS round, while being worse in all other aspects - is simply not capable of being accurate to 2,000 m range and more. Even the 120 mm DM 12/M830 is considered to be accurate enough for engaging tanks only up to 2,600 m and this with the FCS of the Leopard 2A4 (which plays in a higher league than the FCS of the MBT-70).

 

[Damian]

I think we do not agree on this subject, we should end this part of discussion.

 

[hest]

Article about new American programme GCV and description of characteristics of current and past vehicles, as well as threats, requirements.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43699-GroundCombatVehicles.pdf

They intend to replace light vehicles of 20-30 tons in their role to one heavier than a tank, but which does not seem better protected or even comparable, which should rely on a far off active protection system to meet protection demands. Neither weapon system is convincing, maintaining old caliber. Overall it causes a negative impression, being a flawed approach same as cancelled FCS.

 

[Damian]

If You belive that real protection values will be placed in some open source document, then this proves how naive you are and how unadult.

This document is for politicians, there are some truths, some half truths and some things are intentional lies or are not said at all.

Especially when it comes to vehicle protection.

Besides this, it is said there that presented GCV IFV concept is notional which means that this do not represent the final products from both GDLS or BAe.

It is another argument that you never learned properly english, and you are not capable to read with understanding in this language... BTW google translator like all automatic translators are very weak, especially when it comes to translate words with their proper context.

Not to mention that actualy 84 tons are maximum weight for BAe GCV which is not very compact vehicle, while GDLS GCV is reported to be more compact, lighter. However during current development phase, there are works to reduce weight maintaining high protection levels.

But either way it is not even reasonable to make any final conclusions about new IFV when not even a single prototype was builded yet. Currently builded and tested are only single components, first technology demonstrators and later prototypes will be developed later.

I find amusing that person claiming to know better, have absolutely no knowledge about vehicle development phase cycle, and how it is performed.

As for vehicle armament, same as in case of vehicle protection, nowhere is said that it will be old armament, it is said that main automatic cannon can range from 25mm to 35mm, or can be completely different, nowhere is also said that there won't be any ATGM's, at this stage of development which is still very early there are no reasons to definetly choose armament, especially that there are no technology demonstrators neither prototypes.

And there many more reasons, because the full analisis is not finished yet.

 

[Damian]

Ah and one more thing, weight that is provided in document is in short tons not metric tons.

Which means that GDLS design weight is 64 short tons in basic configuration and 74 is projected max weight, this is 58 metric tons in basic configuration and 67 metric tons in maximum projected weight. BAe projected weight is 70 short tons in basic configuration and 84 short tons in maximum projected. Which is 63 metric tons in basic configuration and 76 metric tons in maximum projected weight.

M1A2 weight provided in document is 68 short tons which is 61 metric tons in basic configuration, which seems to be comparable. Although it seems that M1A2 is basic variant here not used anymore in US Army service. M1A2SEP projected weight is 70 short tons which is 63 metric tons in vehicle basic configuration.

So all in all weight is comparable between MBT and new IFV.

 

[hest]

Ah and one more thing, weight that is provided in document is in short tons not metric tons.

It is obvious they express figures with their retarded system.

M1A2 weight provided in document is 68 short tons which is 61 metric tons in basic configuration, which seems to be comparable. Although it seems that M1A2 is basic variant here not used anymore in US Army service. M1A2SEP projected weight is 70 short tons which is 63 metric tons in vehicle basic configuration.

So all in all weight is comparable between MBT and new IFV.

Such a weight does not belong to IFV in any way, especially when it is over 60 tons in basic configuration (and that is without MBT turret which adds most to plattform).

It does not really seems justified to replace IFV of 20-30 tons with a tank weighted vehicle, which anyway is not better protected and would rely on unguaranteered APS to achieve protection, that is only reflection of poor engineering and insecure planning. Neither there are serious plans for armament... Whole programme is supisciously unmature, delayed and going throught insecure path.

 

[Damian]

It is obvious they express figures with their retarded system.

Retarted? You call different weight meassuring system retarted because it is different? What is this? Another example of technological rascism of yours?

What will be next? You will call black skin people retarted because they have different skin colour?

Well you are perfect example of very worring phenomen of increasing rascism in different forms that can be found in Russia. It amaze me that people in this country, which is even funnier many of them not even ethnic Russians, call everything that is different to common things in Russia as retarted, wrong etc. etc.

Such a weight does not belong to IFV in any way, especially when it is over 60 tons in basic configuration (and that is without MBT turret which adds most to plattform).

Why do not belong? Israeli HAPC Namer weights 60 tons, and it does not even have unmanned turret with automatic cannon, but only small RWS with heavy machine gun. So why do not belong? Because you say so? Sorry Geronimo, I actually belive more to military and engineers working on this, not some self proclaimed expert, who do not even understand what he read.

Of course GCV IFV is rather a one of first vehicles that properly should be called as HIFV or HICV, not as typical IFV.

It does not really seems justified to replace IFV of 20-30 tons with a tank weighted vehicle, which anyway is not better protected

And how do you know it is not better protected? Because of silly drawings for politicians that do not have even half of knowledge than most civilians writing on internet forums? And hey protection levels are classified, I didn't seen nowhere in the document what exactly these drawings represent? How much it is of protection, because really drawing without any exact values, don't mean anything actually.

And nobody is so stupid to put such data in document avaiable for wide public.

But of course you might be so "intelligent" that you actually expect that people responsible for the whole program will provide such values to you? You know what, you should write to Pentagon and ask for such values, perhaps they will answer to you.

and would rely on unguaranteered APS to achieve protection,

And where did you read this?

Because what I see in the document is protection based on layers, and each layer is different protection method. It is a good concept, you can never rely to much on one single solution.

that is only reflection of poor engineering and insecure planning.

Aha... yeah, there is not even a single technology demonstrator from both companies developing vehicle, and you make such hard conclusions? Ok now be serious, how old are you? 5?

Neither there are serious plans for armament...

Maybe because different concepts are still in the analize as well as research and development phase? Wow man you didn't noticed that?

Whole programme is supisciously unmature, delayed and going throught insecure path.

Because the whole program is in the early research and development phase... how long anyone should repeat this untill you will comprehend?

I find it really unmature in you, that you have completely zero knowledge about the whole cycle of R&D programs.

First there is a requirement, then there is concept, then technology demonstrator, then tests, then more advanced technology demonstrators, then more tests, then finally prototypes, tests, more prototypes, more tests and finally a ready product.

If you think that developing a combat vehicle is as easy as in computer game then... well you are an idiot then.

Besides this, it is easy to critique US Armed Forces R&D programs, because they are more open and informations friendly.

But for example what do we know about "Kurganets" and "Armata" R&D programs in Russia? Nothing, yes exactly nothing, and this is actually very common for Russia from Soviet times. Keep everything under shroud of secrecy, so even if something is ----ed up, nobody will critique you.

This is how it works there. Do we know if there are any issues with "Armata", nope, but we have a bunch of guys like Lidsky that are so excited wathing... yeah, plastic models. I could understand being excited reading some official documents released by MoD, but nooooo, we have a plastic models... sorry plastic super weapons, and many, many claims that, yes soon we will have a super weapons.

Well ok, it's cool, but there were the same claims with Object 195, that soon, we will have a super tanks and... and the program was cancelled, what killed the program? Oh you know, Object 195 from mechanical point of view was reliable and preaty much ready for production... but electronics and especially fire control system was ----ed up, litteraly above any capabilities of Russian industry and scientific base.

So yeah, you can jizz in your pants looking on some fancy plastic models, claim that these are super weapons, and in the same time make unreasonable criticism of foreing R&D programs that are still in very early development phase but... oh you know that you sounds then like a 10 years old fanboy?

So good luck.

 

[hest]

Retarted? You call different weight meassuring system retarted because it is different? What is this? Another example of technological rascism of yours?

An international units standart was established using more accurate definitions and to facilitate scientifical developement among all the world, to not use it on these days in favour of a primitive system is actually retarded. Of course the average US inhabitant (including politicians) may not be well educated on this matter thus it predominates in media.

Well you are perfect example of very worring phenomen of increasing rascism in different forms that can be found in Russia. It amaze me that people in this country, which is even funnier many of them not even ethnic Russians, call everything that is different to common things in Russia as retarted, wrong etc. etc.

It is ironic, this is example of racism, and not what I write...

On topic

Why do not belong? Israeli HAPC Namer weights 60 tons, and it does not even have unmanned turret with automatic cannon, but only small RWS with heavy machine gun. So why do not belong? Because you say so? Sorry Geronimo, I actually belive more to military and engineers working on this, not some self proclaimed expert, who do not even understand what he read.

Of course GCV IFV is rather a one of first vehicles that properly should be called as HIFV or HICV, not as typical IFV.

I do not see how it is correct to replace current IFV to a single tank weighted vehicle, it increments costs and creates new issues, reduces mobility, transportability... and it is against world practice.

They increased number of passengers to 9 because they will not be able to totally replace current vehicles due to expense, while this will make vehicle heavier with no increase in protection compared to it's class, increase cost and reduce mobility.

And where did you read this?

Because what I see in the document is protection based on layers, and each layer is different protection method. It is a good concept, you can never rely to much on one single solution.

It is shown in article that frontal and lateral protection is supossed to be achieved with APS, with a vehicle of such weigth should accomplish this already, but it does not.

Maybe because different concepts are still in the analize as well as research and development phase? Wow man you didn't noticed that?

Because the whole program is in the early research and development phase... how long anyone should repeat this untill you will comprehend?

I find it really unmature in you, that you have completely zero knowledge about the whole cycle of R&D programs.

First there is a requirement, then there is concept, then technology demonstrator, then tests, then more advanced technology demonstrators, then more tests, then finally prototypes, tests, more prototypes, more tests and finally a ready product.

If you think that developing a combat vehicle is as easy as in computer game then... well you are an idiot then.

Besides this, it is easy to critique US Armed Forces R&D programs, because they are more open and informations friendly.

Actually what is worth of criticism is not only supposed technical aspect, but whole developement path of programme and all cancelations, delays, restart... Even basic requirements are in doubt.

But for example what do we know about "Kurganets" and "Armata" R&D programs in Russia? Nothing, yes exactly nothing, and this is actually very common for Russia from Soviet times. Keep everything under shroud of secrecy, so even if something is ----ed up, nobody will critique you.

This is how it works there. Do we know if there are any issues with "Armata", nope, but we have a bunch of guys like Lidsky that are so excited wathing... yeah, plastic models. I could understand being excited reading some official documents released by MoD, but nooooo, we have a plastic models... sorry plastic super weapons, and many, many claims that, yes soon we will have a super weapons.

It is normal that there is secrecy but important thing is the encouragement and financiation by the goverment of a great number of programmes, building of new production base, activity of designers, producers which will result on new level, whole rearmament programme.

And they are actually being made already and not just concepts which result only in money waste as FCS or now GCV.

Well ok, it's cool, but there were the same claims with Object 195, that soon, we will have a super tanks and... and the program was cancelled, what killed the program? Oh you know, Object 195 from mechanical point of view was reliable and preaty much ready for production... but electronics and especially fire control system was ----ed up, litteraly above any capabilities of Russian industry and scientific base.

Ob 195 was interesting, because they set very high requirements, far from rest of world level and they were mostly met by developers.

Originally it's FCS TO5-SKO was composed by 7 channels with synthesis of different wavelenght information to allow engagement under all ranges and circumstances with same effectiveness, and inmunne to countermeasures.

- Low light TV 0.4-0.7 micrometers
- Near infrared 0.75-1.4 micrometers
- Thermal 3-5 micrometers
- Thermal 8-12 micrometers
- Millimeter wave radar
- Lidar
- External, receiving information from another source (vehicle, etc), radiochannel

Also much better rangefinders were developed, capable to operate in harsh conditions, all processes of target aquisition and engagement weere automated, and components, including matrixes of thermal cameras were domestic.

It was later simplified but met requirements, there was nothing close to it. Main reasons behind programme issues were management and inmature production base, so next generation vehicle developement will succeed under newer programme.