Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

You have no understanding about this subject and only got enthusiastic with one picture, little believes he knows ))

When main armour provides protection in anachronistic scenario, without ERA being initiated, and Dm-53 developement was against 1985 armour, it is fail for NATO in Cold War.

But ERA was initiated during tests. And have absolutely no effect on DM53, while DM33 was capable to penetrate armor to such level, that only 80mm of that armor were left. Without Kontakt-5 Soviet tanks were absolutely not protected against DM33 and more capable M829A1.

You do not even know what that journal was about))

About the projected levels of protection of American tanks. You might think you know more than others, but you need to live with this illusion.

Because I actually know such people and many times they write for self recognition using what they have and their thoughts, and it has nothing to do with research and estimation methodic performed by institute at official level.

I also know such people. They present much greater knowledge and educational level than you, and are capable to provide sources, contrary to you, fanboy.

For example some authors of that journal (I will show which) used few results of extensive tests which suited them. This article in particular bases estimation method on information from foreign sources (Janes, German...) and it's thought.

Such argumentation is convieniant for you, but far from truth.

You know, you will not get far with such questions, but I will just say now that there is nothing misterious in Leopard 2, also you can see entire parts of FCS, sights, 120mm gun and ammunition...

I know I will not get far asking about thing that is nothing more than yours fantasy. Not to mention that you are probably not even capable to see external differences between Leopard 2 variants from A1 to A4 an the differences between production batches.

You only want to believe in mistery which does not exist, or attempt something with history and old models, but nothing about today.

What mystery? It is a fact that NATO have much better OPSEC than soviet union, where corruption was rampant, as in whole WarPac.

Also it is ridicolous and shameful to hear criticism from computer guy which was not even born at that time and has not any idea about what USSR or Cold War was.

Oh really, the strange thing is that 80-90% of different nations, have exactly the same opinion about Soviet Union and Cold War. People who lived back then had very clear mind. Soviet Union was the same occupant like earlier was IIIrd Reich.

How many people in Hungary or Czechoslovakia were killed by "brave" Soviet Army? And the only reason why they were killed, was that they wanted to be free, not to be slaves of Soviet Union.

What is not very known fact is that many officers and most of soldiers in WarPac armies, were very anti-soviet. My father and his friends that were serving in the Army back then, were openly anti-socialist and anti-soviet.

Soviets also known very well that LWP had many higher rank officers who would most probably openly oppose any Soviet incrusion to fight with the opposition. Especially that LWP was second biggest Armed Forces in the WarPac after Soviet Union.

Even when censorship was rampant, society was openly anti-soviet.

So of course you might delude yourself that Soviet Union was loved by nations occupied by it, but reality was far more interesting, and it was simple Soviet Union = occupant, thug and murderous regime.

And don't worry, we still remember how many of our people was simply murdered by your beloved leaders, also after the war.

 

[militarysta]

You did not actually read his book, these figures are beyond understanding as they are not even interpreted correctly, let's see...

Leaving apart the fact they are not too much reliable, it is supposed to be medium for frontal arc, so we have 2 times incorrect interpretation.

Of course whole main armour LOS is depend on angle - for 0. degree from longitiudal axis it is 740mm LOS, for 30. degree from longitiudal axis it is only 540mm LOS. And it's make diffrense in armour protection:

Well it's possibe becouse German test on T-80U and it's armour model shown bigger then Jermow values:
for 740mm main armour LOS (0. degree) ~590mm RHA in thickest place vs KE
for 540mm main armour LOS (30. degree) ~430mm RHA vs KE

First value + 130mm Kontakt-5 give us 720mm RHA second value give us 560mm RHA.

So in fact T-80U according to German sources is between (0. and 30. degree from turret longitiudal axis) 720mm and 560mm RHA vs KE.
And 720mm is consistent with the fact that DM53 penetrate 30mm more armour after those value. So whole was 750mm RHA -what is consistent whit most sources about Dm53 LKE penetration value.

So when we take western (German) surces then whole problem will be looks diffrent.
T-80U main armour:


Those 740mm LOS for 0. degree is is spread over 590mm RHA vs KE.and those value is spread over some layers:
-120mm LOS cast steel
-340mm LOS "special armour cavity"
-280mm LOS cast steel .
So we have (for 0 degree.) 400mm LOS cast steel and 340mm LOS special armour cavity.
Cast steel is in mm RHA like 0.85 (example - 1000mm good quality cast steel is like about typical 850mm RHA plate), so we have:
400mm LOS cast steel is like 340mm RHA. so last 340mm LOS special armour cavity is like ~250mm RHA vs KE (590-340mm RHA = 250mm RHA ).

So generally we have (in armour protection) for 0. from longitiudal axis:
1. Kontak-5 ( act like 130mm RHA)
2. 120mm cast steel ( act like102mm RHA)
3. 340mm "special armour" (act like 250mm RHA)
4. 280mm cast steel (act like 238mm RHA)
T-80U vs KE for 0. degree:
~590mm RHA main armour + 130mm RHA Kontakt-5 protection.
whole: ~720mm RHA


But, as I said - it;s for the biggest LOS for 0. degree. For 30. degree situation is diffrent:
1. Kontak-5 ( act like 130mm RHA)
2. 90mm cast steel (act like 76mm RHA)
3. 260mm special armour (act like 191mm RHA)
4. 190mm cast steel (act like 161mm RHA)
T-80U vs KE for 30. degree:
~430mm RHA main armour + 130mm RHA Kontakt-5 protection
whole: 560mm RHA.

So in fact main turret T-80U armour is depend on angle (degree) for 0. to 30. degree armour LOS is between 740 and 540mm LOS.
Main armour protection is between 590mm and 430mm RHA ( for 0. and 30. degree). Whit Kontakt-5 it's give (depend on LOS and angle):
720-560mm RHA vs KE. turret protection for T-80U.

 

[militarysta]

So ironically in the end of 1980s. we had path situation in tank armour and APFSDS on both sides.

Soviet:
T-80U (1987 in service):
720-560mm RHA vs KE included Kontakt-5 ERA (without: 590-430mm RHA)

T-72B (1984):
540-470mm RHA vs KE

T-72B (model 1989) and erly T-90 (Ob.188):
670 -600mm RHA included Kontakt-5 ERA, but due to very poor coverated by ERA casette most turret have 540-600mm RHA (for 0 degree base armour almoust without ERA, for 30. degree base armour with ERA)

NATO APFSDS rounds:
DM33 -P0:600 P2500:490
Or for example WITU "estern" norm:
DM33A1 470mm RHA for 2000m (guaranteed) to ~520mm RHA for 2000m (achivable).
M829 540mm RHA for 2000m (G) to ~ ?? (achivable about 580?!)

More ore less NATO APFSDS round was able to defeted T-72A, T-72M1, T-64A/B, T-80B, T-72B/BW, only one tnak definetly above was...T-80U.
And even T-72B model 1989 was possible to destroy by M829 on typical range.
New M829A1 (-P0:700 P2500:560) and DM43 (1993 - 560mm (G) and 610mm (A))


For the other side:

NATO tanks:

Leopard-2A4:

protection for Leopard2A3 and 2A4 (erly) can be as:
~430-480-540mm vs KE and 850-954-1084mm vs HEAT (turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front at 30. - turret front at 0.)

Generally: 480-540mm vs KE

For Leopard-2A4 since 1986 IMHO it will be slighty bigger:
500-550-630mm vs KE and -1000-1150-1300mm vs CE ((turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front ad 30. - turret front at 0.)

Generally: 550-630mm vs KE

Abrams: (values taken from soviet inner biuletyn article)
M1IP - 560-600mm RHA

Soviet APFSDS rounds:
3BM42 ~460mm RHA on 2000m
3BM32 ~500mm RHA on 2000m


Of curse war is not only mm vs mm. It's to simple. Eacht tank have weak points -one of them (T-72B) bigger, other (M1,) smaller. FCS was more sophisticated on western tanks, night sight was far far better, engines and transmissions to, the same susceptibility of beeing repairs quick and easy, etc. So it's not to simple.

 

[Damian]

IMHO in 1980's NATO would decide to use their advantage in thermal sights and use a lot of smoke screens from own vehicles and artillery support, as well as to fight in night and try to use difficult wheater condition for their advantage.

 

[militarysta]

The second interesting thing is difrencess between using ERA casette on T-80U and T-72B model 1989.
On the first tank very accurate (tight) cover (enclosure) by ERA was way to incarase whole turret armour protection up to 720-560mm RHA vs KE. In T-72B model 1989 cover by ERA is very rare and optymalized only for 30. degree from the longitiudal axis. Propably teh target was incarese protection for that angle (30. degree) not for turret front. So ironically protection for T-72B model 1989 was slighty bigger for turret for 30. then for 0. degree (almoust lack of K-5 casette). It's seems that Kontakt-5 on T-72B model 1989 was "gap filter".


Compare for both tanks (Soviet Union vs NATO) is interesting:
when value for 30. degree was typical for most of the tanks:
M1: ~560mm RHA
Leopard-2A4(late) 550mm RHA
T-80U 560mm RHA
T-72B model 1989 600mm RHA (Kontakt-5)
then value for 0. was quite impressive for T-80U:
M1: ~600mm RHA
Leopard-2A4(late) 630mm RHA
T-80U ~720mm RHA
T-72B model 1989 ~540mm RHA

 

[Damian]

The ~720mm RHA value is only possible for the place where frontal armor starts to slowly joints with side armor, it is typical for all tanks, in such place even hit from 140mm or 152mm gun, would not do much. More important is armor closer to gun mantle at 0 degrees and armor at 30 degrees.

 

[asianobserve]

ECP – Another Upgrade for the Abrams Tank
Defense Update

In September 2012 GDLS was awarded a contract worth $395 million to support the first phase of Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) for the M-1A2 SEPv2 Abrams tank upgrade, the initial phase includes research, development and testing. The value for the first year is around $80 million. "Right now the electrical power is in short supply on the tank." Said Lt. Col. William Brennan, product manager for the Abrams tank, "The centerpiece of the ECP 1 upgrade will be to restore lost power margin through the integration of a larger generator, improved slip ring, battery management system and a new power generation and distribution system," he explained.

The work includes miniaturization of electronics, through line replaceable module (LRM)- based electronics architecture and increasing electrical generation capacity, distribution and management. Low-rate initial production (LRIP) of ECP1 upgrades-equipped Abrams tanks is expected to start in 2017 and complete by 2020.

Communications and networking upgrades considered under the M-1A2 ECP also include the replacement of SINCGARS type radios with the new JTRS HMS types, better serving high capacity data communications. To distribute this data through the platform, the tank will be equipped with Gigabit-Ethernet databus and new, high capacity slipring connecting the turret to this high-speed network. At the AUSA 2012 exhibition General Dynamics also displayed a new diesel engine proposed for the Abrams tank that would increase its combat range by nearly 50 percent from 205 miles to about 300miles.

M1A2 Abrams Tank Gunner Sgt. Matthew Tolan of Heavy Company, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Division from Fort Hood, Texas, mans his work station during movement through Mosul, Iraq, Feb. 14. Photo:Sgt J. Crosby

The MTU 833 engine and new Allison transmission could reduce the Abrams' cost per mile by 14% compared with its current turbine-powered engine. "Through the development of an Abrams diesel engine that is significantly more efficient than a turbine, we can reduce the cost per mile, increase the tactical range, lower maintenance costs and reduce the number of fuel and cargo trucks needed," said Mike Cannon, General Dynamics Land Systems' senior vice president, Ground Combat Systems.

Eying to sustain the strength of its remaining heavy force, the Army is embarking on upgrading programs to regain the performance levels these combat vehicles were originally designed for. After years of continuous patchworks, applying new armor and electronic equipment to better protect against new threats, most of these platforms have already exceeded their design specs. For example, applique armor and SLAT cages have exceeded the physical envelopes and load margins of vehicles, limiting mobility. Lack of engine power and overloaded electrical supplies are further reducing their performance. In addition to the ECP for the M-1 SEP-2 the Army has also embarked on ECP upgrades for the Bradley and M-109 are addressing those Space, Weight and Power-Cooling (SWaP-C) gaps.

ECPs to be implemented with each of the remaining platforms are expected to 'buy back SWaP', by redesigning and modernizing certain elements of the vehicles. Unlike past upgrades, ECP modifications would not result in capability enhancements beyond the level originally planned for each vehicle.

A tank crew from the 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, at Ft.
Hood, Texas fires a 120-mm round from its main gun at a target for crew qualification during a Gunnery Table IV live-fire exercise at Clabber Creek Multiuse Range. Photo: Staff Sgt. Johnathan Hoover, 2BCT, 1st Cav Div US Army

Practicing strategic and tactical mobility is part of the readiness maintenance and qualification of armored formations. One such exercise was conducted in October 2012 last month To practice operations with landing crafts, the Army


ECP - Another Upgrade for the Abrams Tank | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News

 

[Damian]

In short:

ECP1 for tanks will focus on redesigning or designing a new, all internal components, electronics etc. As well as improving firepower by FCS upgrades and ammunition datalink installation (possible change of main armament from M256 to M360A1 that have datalink) as well as survivability improvements through main armor modernization and other active protection means. However I wonder what will be the final vehicle configuration, the list of final approved improvements should be presented in 2013 or 2014, then probably requirements for eventuall ECP2 will follow.

I also wonder how much other designs have expired their SWaP-C, although definetly M1 received more improvements and upgrades than other MBT's (especially in NATO) through last 10 years or so.

BTW IMHO some FCS improvements will be based on that newer, automatized FCS inherited from XM1202 MCS, electrooptics probably also. After all many of these seems to be based on solutions developed for XM1202.

 

[hest]

So ironically in the end of 1980s. we had path situation in tank armour and APFSDS on both sides.

Soviet:
T-80U (1987 in service):
720-560mm RHA vs KE included Kontakt-5 ERA (without: 590-430mm RHA)

T-72B (1984):
540-470mm RHA vs KE

Given thickness of turret armour protection can well be >400 mm RHA against APFSDS (without Kontakt-5) for both T-80U/UD and T-72B, but it does not matter, it was solid protection against DM-33 and M829. In any case atleast area covered by Kontakt-5 defeated all Nato rounds.

T-72B (model 1989) and erly T-90 (Ob.188):
670 -600mm RHA included Kontakt-5 ERA, but due to very poor coverated by ERA casette most turret have 540-600mm RHA (for 0 degree base armour almoust without ERA, for 30. degree base armour with ERA)

Kontakt-5 on T-72B had decent coverage, most of frontal projection, you have in mind early T-90 but that is another history.

Also note that higher angle of inclination is provided than in T-80U, which is more effective.

While base armour still offered solid protection excluding weak zones, but average. Also turret is more important and likely to hit, but there is also front hull and in that aspect T tanks had more uniform (better) protection..

More ore less NATO APFSDS round was able to defeted T-72A, T-72M1, T-64A/B, T-80B, T-72B/BW, only one tnak definetly above was...T-80U.
And even T-72B model 1989 was possible to destroy by M829 on typical range.
New M829A1 (-P0:700 P2500:560) and DM43 (1993 - 560mm (G) and 610mm (A))

It is true but not about T-72B. It is unlikely that they could guarantee defeat against base armour and certainly not with Kontakt-5 as long as you talk about DM-33 and M829 which is Cold War scenario.

Guarantee to defeat mid 80s armour could only be given in West with M829A2, DM-53, so situation was not on their favour.

Rounds as DM-44 had only chance in case ERA was not initiated due to special design, but it was still probability and not really success.

For the other side:

NATO tanks:

Leopard-2A4:

protection for Leopard2A3 and 2A4 (erly) can be as:
~430-480-540mm vs KE and 850-954-1084mm vs HEAT (turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front at 30. - turret front at 0.)

Generally: 480-540mm vs KE

For Leopard-2A4 since 1986 IMHO it will be slighty bigger:
500-550-630mm vs KE and -1000-1150-1300mm vs CE ((turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front ad 30. - turret front at 0.)

KE could be above 500 mm RHA (turret only), but HEAT is totally incorrect, not even author in that journal gives such exageration, and it is not possible at that time, due to thickness and KE requirement which does not allow such optimisation. In reality for turret it was around 700 mm at most.

Soviet APFSDS rounds:
3BM42 ~460mm RHA on 2000m
3BM32 ~500mm RHA on 2000m

And remember those are nominal figures, protection (given against plain rod and single warhead) and penetration (against homogeneous steel).

Of course situation is different. 3BM42 Mango construction is optimised to defeat composite armour, or whitstand semi-active effect (segmented, etc) for example it will perforate Leopard 2 composite easier than T-80 hull composed mainly by steel, so it had possibility to defeat main turret armour, not to talk about hull.

Same as most Soviet tandem ATGM.

Of curse war is not only mm vs mm. It's to simple. Eacht tank have weak points -one of them (T-72B) bigger, other (M1,) smaller. FCS was more sophisticated on western tanks, night sight was far far better, engines and transmissions to, the same susceptibility of beeing repairs quick and easy, etc. So it's not to simple.

Agreed, but just from firepower/protection aspect favour was not on NATO at that time.

 

[Damian]

Given thickness of turret armour protection can well be >400 mm RHA against APFSDS (without Kontakt-5) for both T-80U/UD and T-72B, but it does not matter, it was solid protection against DM-33 and M829. In any case atleast area covered by Kontakt-5 defeated all Nato rounds.

Soviet tanks allways had problems due to ridicoulus requirements of vehicle size and weight, thus not allowing bigger composite filler volume per armor thickness ratio. Without Kontakt-5 DM33 and M829 were dangerous even for T-80U/UD and T-72B.

Kontakt-5 on T-72B had decent coverage, most of frontal projection, you have in mind early T-90 but that is another history.

Both have gaps in protection.

Also note that higher angle of inclination is provided than in T-80U, which is more effective.

Well it seems that failed UKBTM/UVZ design have a soft spot in your heart, and not only yours these days. Oh how easy it is to forget who was making better designs in the "good" old days, and promote only these who survived the collapse due to historical reasons... as well as activieties that can be called criminal.

While base armour still offered solid protection excluding weak zones, but average. Also turret is more important and likely to hit, but there is also front hull and in that aspect T tanks had more uniform (better) protection..

Actually western design have better designed hull and turret protection.

It is again your typical manipulation.

From the front aspect the thick composite armor module is far more exposed than thinner glacis, thus easier to hit but offers better protection (even than T tanks), same can be said about turret front which have thicker armor, especially in terms of composite filler volume per armor thickness ratio.



In terms of general armor distribution, situation as on the drawing will be same for all tanks, the general difference is as I said: composite filler volume per armor thickness ratio. T tanks have significant defficencies here.

It is true but not about T-72B. It is unlikely that they could guarantee defeat against base armour and certainly not with Kontakt-5 as long as you talk about DM-33 and M829 which is Cold War scenario.

Guarantee to defeat mid 80s armour could only be given in West with M829A2, DM-53, so situation was not on their favour.

Rounds as DM-44 had only chance in case ERA was not initiated due to special design, but it was still probability and not really success.

Soviet tanks without Kontakt-5 were not protected against DM33 and M829, M829A1 was a complete overkill fot them.

"DM-44" again prooves your lack of knowledge, such ammunition never existed.

KE could be above 500 mm RHA (turret only), but HEAT is totally incorrect, not even author in that journal gives such exageration, and it is not possible at that time, due to thickness and KE requirement which does not allow such optimisation. In reality for turret it was around 700 mm at most.

I am 100% sure that neither Militarysta, neither Germans are concerned about fantasies of some mentally ill Bellarusian who have obsession about T-72B.

And remember those are nominal figures, protection (given against plain rod and single warhead) and penetration (against homogeneous steel).

That are allways higher than against advanced protection, like Leopard 2 armor for example.

Of course situation is different. 3BM42 Mango construction is optimised to defeat composite armour, or whitstand semi-active effect (segmented, etc) for example it will perforate Leopard 2 composite easier than T-80 hull composed mainly by steel, so it had possibility to defeat main turret armour, not to talk about hull.

It is interesting to see claims of some mentally ill Bellarusian, that a primitive steel armor offers better protection than more advanced composite armor.

Well at least the real life tests proves that this is nothing more than your wet dream.

Agreed, but just from firepower/protection aspect favour was not on NATO at that time.

In first half of 1980's NATO field tanks that are on par with newest Soviet tanks at that time. In second half of 1980's NATO designs receive improvements that gaves them step by step superiority over Soviet designs.

You just can't make progress without money on research and development. And Soviet Union, being a socialist state had inefficent economy, that could not finanse R&D programs. SU was just such economic Zombie at that time, and NATO that understood nececity of better financing conventional weapon systems R&D programs instead of nuclear weapons, invested so much money in to R&D, that nobody in poor Soviet Union ever imagined.

If Soviet Union would be a threat for NATO in 1990's still, then when you would excite yourself with more and more incarnations of T-72's, NATO would field next generation of AFV's back then, USA based on M1 Block III a family of heavy platforms, Germany based on EGS/NGP.

You might delude yourself further, but without strong economy and enough spending on R&D, you can't have good results... well they can allways pay some usefull idiots like you to create a propaganda of success on some internet forums.

 

[militarysta]

Given thickness of turret armour protection can well be >400 mm RHA against APFSDS (without Kontakt-5) for both T-80U/UD and T-72B, but it does not matter, it was solid protection against DM-33 and M829

T-80U (1987 in service):
720-560mm RHA vs KE included Kontakt-5 ERA (without: 590-430mm RHA)

T-72B (1984):
540-470mm RHA vs KE
militarysta ↑

DM33: 470-520mm RHA at 2000m
M829: 500-540mm RHA at 2000m

Question for 10 yers old child:
What is bigger value 430-470 or 470-500mm? In fact without Kontakt-5 T-80U and T-72B turret was avaible for both rounds (DM-33A1 and M829) - for most of it's frontal degree.

In any case atleast area covered by Kontakt-5 defeated all Nato rounds.

It newer work in that way. What if penetrotor hit not in central area of the ERA casette but in the corrner? What if it will be not P=2000m but P=700m? What if...

Kontakt-5 on T-72B had decent coverage, most of frontal projection

Yeaaach sure:

And compare this wit that:

While base armour still offered solid protection excluding weak zones, but average.

This huge weak zones consist most of the Ob184 (T-72B) frontal turret area:

And this was taken from Ghur Khan blog. From inner biuletyn.

front hull and in that aspect T tanks had more uniform (better) protection

what??!!

It is true but not about T-72B. It is unlikely that they could guarantee defeat against base armour and certainly not with Kontakt-5 as long as you talk about DM-33 and M829 which is Cold War scenario.

T-72B was fully "penetratable" for DM33 and M829, and due to it's huge weak zones in frontal turret protection even DM23 have nice chanse (bellow 900m) to penetate turret armour.

Rounds as DM-44 had only chance in case ERA was not initiated due to special design, but it was still probability and not really success.

If You mean DM-43 then it was rejected due to not significant performance vs ERA. And in modern APFSDS the way is not to "not initiated due to special desig" -it's exactly the opposite way.

but HEAT is totally incorrect, not even author in that journal gives such exageration, and it is not possible at that time, due to thickness and KE requirement which does not allow such optimisation

In Soviet Union -indeed it was impossible without ERA

On west the have two advantages: Burlinghton armour and NERA.

http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf
In middle 1970 there was dependence between protection against APFSDS and HEAT
430 and 585mm RHA (1 to 1,36), but Increased armour protection against HEAT to 850mm RHA resulted with a decrease in armour protection vs APFSDS to "only" 405mm (1 to 2.09) etc -so the question is what was most important for germnas? In fact in the text are three important depending:
a) in 1964 the predecessor of the Burlington had mass Efficiency like ~1 vs APFSDS and ~2 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel (RHA in tekst) of the same weight
b) In 1978 Burlinghton special armour had mass Efficiency like 1,5 vs APFSDS and 3 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel (RHA in tekst) of the same weight
c) there was some ratios between protection against APFSDs and HEAT and there wasn't linear like this 430/585 and 405/850

And it is really posible exatly due to " thickness and KE requirement":
We have some dates (with bibliography of course). In 1978 Burlinghton special armour had mass Efficiency like 1,5 vs APFSDS and 3 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel of the same weight.
So 1kg Burlinghton armour shoud offer protection like 1,5kg homogeneous steel armor vs APFSDs and 3kg homogeneous steel armor vs HEAT (of course it is only example).
Dimensions leopard-2 gun mantled mask are known, the same dimensions of blanks for L-44, FERO, and MG. And we know mass of gun mantled mask - 630kg. Rest is rather simple math base on qustion- how thick will be homogeneous steel armor block "inside" gun mask dimensions if it will be weight 950kg (630kg x1,5 vs APFSDS) and 1890kg (630kg x3 ve HEAT). The answer is:
a) 272 mm
b) 542 mm
So this protection offer by gun mantled mask should be:
a) 270 mm vs APFSDS
b) 540 mm vs HEAT


And If we want to talk about armour mass we should consider fact that if for erly burlinghton 1Kg Burlinghton armour = 1,5kg RHA vs KE and 3kg RHA vs HEAT then Leopard-2A4 turret with weight 16000kg (without crew, ammo, attachments) whit "special armour" weight equal 8900kg is like: 13.350kg RHA vs APFSDS and 26700kg RHA vs HEAT and it's the lowest ratio for 1978 not 1985. in reality it could be even better.

If we realize that gun mantled mask area in leopard-2 (420mm) is exactly half the thickness of front turret LOS armour (840mm), then we consider if Leopard-2A4 protection will be like:
~540mm vs APFSDS
~1080mm vs HEAT.
Of course it's based on Burlinghton mass Efficiency from 1978 and definitely Leopard-2A4 from 1985/1986 have diffrent (stronger?) armour then erly leopard-2A0-A2 from 1980/1982. Another question is how cloes to the Burlinghton was German special armour - we know that in 1974 Germans have full aces to the americans Burlinghton branch development program.

It's first proof, second one is simpler - why to hell near 1984-1985 sowiet start to developed and introduce SC (HEAT) warhed whit 900-1100mm RHA penetration? Metis, new Fagot, Ataka, Wihr, atc.

I't very simple to check how big protection Soviet developers try to overcome:
IMPORTANT - whole development cycle to create a new weapons take about 4-6 years, sow if some ATGMS start service in 1985 (ex:9M120) it means that its development started around 5 years erlyier (around 1980)

time before Burlinghton:
9M111-2 (Fagot 1975) - 460mm RHA
Konkurs - 1974 - 600mm RHA
9M112M (Kobra 1976) - 600mm RHA

time when first idea about Burlighton went to Soviet Union:
9M111M (Fagot 1983) -600mm RHA (development phase around 1978)
9M112M (Kobra "imroved" 1985) -700mm RHA (development phase around 1980)


little panic in ATGM thema:
9M120 (1985) - 950mm RHA (development phase around 1981)
Wihr-M (1990) -1000mm RHA (development phase around 1985)
9M115-2 (1992) -980mm RHA (development phase around 1988)
9M133-1 (1994) 1200mm RHA (development phase around 1989)
Since ~1985 in soviet developers studios they decide to incerase ATGMs SC (HEAT) penetration up to 1000mm RHA and more. Why? The same Leopard-2A4 turret, the same M1IP surret, but aloust twice better penetration then in 1980-1985 period.


Third prooof. Leopard-2 have very advanced laser trening system :
About AGDUS -it's laser posoration system (MILES type) - eacht tank, soilder, ATGM, etc have lasser system for one battalion (II) to practise trening.
AGDUS shoud be opspec due to rather realistic damage models included in that system. Some idiot from 10TkBDe post it in the internet. His problem not mine, so I can say few wors more.
In AGDUS (In Leopard-2A4 case) you have 6 tank area when you can take hit from enemy:
a)turret front
b) hull front, hull rear, hull side in genneraly
c) turret side
d) turret side at ammo rack (turret bustle)
e)hull side at ammo hull rack
f) hull side at turret basket

In AGDUS you have that possibility of beeing hit by enemy:
"-turret off"
"-destroyed"
-"Watch out!" (or - be cearfull)
-"No interaction"
-"engine off"
-"partial destroyed"

And you have 7 clas of "enemy thread" (of course it can by modifity):
1)
(...)

4)
HOT/PAH <3800m
HOT/JAGUAR <3800m
TOW <3000m

For Leopard-2A4 from circa 1985 in AGDUS system variant for taken hit in turret front, form group nr.4 (HOT/PAH, TOW) is not "destroyed" or even "partial destroyed". In fact AGDUS developers was sure that for Leopard2A4 direct hit in turret front by TOW/HOT/PAH will not destroyed tank. And as I know HOT/PAH and TOW had around 1000-1200mm RHA in end of 1980s.

So those values:
protection for Leopard2A3 and 2A4 (erly) can be as:
~430-480-540mm vs KE and 850-954-1084mm vs HEAT (turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front at 30. - turret front at 0.)

For Leopard-2A4 since 1986 IMHO it will be slighty bigger:
500-550-630mm vs KE and -1000-1150-1300mm vs CE ((turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front ad 30. - turret front at 0.)

Are really posible and consistent with a number of clues.

3BM42 Mango construction is optimised to defeat composite armour,

In Mango there is no single mystery. It's penetrator have only two big segments, in fact it's perforation wasn't enought for western turrets with 740-960mm LOS.

for example it will perforate Leopard 2 composite easier than T-80 hull composed mainly by steel, so it had possibility to defeat main turret armour, not to talk about hull.
Same as most Soviet tandem ATGM.

lol.
You haven't idea how can look western armour and you still haven't idea in what way it can work.
German patent:

You have here cermisc, NERA and Burlinghton idea.

 

[hest]

T-80U (1987 in service):
720-560mm RHA vs KE included Kontakt-5 ERA (without: 590-430mm RHA)

T-72B (1984):
540-470mm RHA vs KE
militarysta ↑

DM33: 470-520mm RHA at 2000m
M829: 500-540mm RHA at 2000m

Question for 10 yers old child:
What is bigger value 430-470 or 470-500mm? In fact without Kontakt-5 T-80U and T-72B turret was avaible for both rounds (DM-33A1 and M829) - for most of it's frontal degree.

It is not correct because you know only approximation, medium for 35 degree frontal arc > 400 mm RHA and it is not exact, not to say that medium is not all situations, same for APFSDS estimates, so it is not to throw statements, it is not like you select souces and then conclude either. It was not invulnerable, but it offered good chance. In any case DM33 and M829 were unable to defeat if hit area is covered by Kontakt-5.

It newer work in that way. What if penetrotor hit not in central area of the ERA casette but in the corrner? What if it will be not P=2000m but P=700m? What if...

In case of ERA based on directed plate principle there is not significant reduction of effectiveness depending on place of impact.

Increase of protection was enought to protect against those rounds at all combat ranges, there is not really much to argue, even approximated figures are well above.

Yeaaach sure:

And compare this wit that:

I do not really appreciate self made paint work. It is not correct to represent whole from single picture from one angle, and you mark what you don't have to.

You should focus on area meant to be protected, without gun mantle and special zones (ricochet surface, etc) present in all tanks.

More than half of turret is covered by ERA. 50% of frontal projection is protected + special zones (ricochet surface, thick base armour and place where hit will not cause serious results) and also gun mantle

And turret is not everything. It is more likely to hit, but statistics can change in war and it is foolish not to have in account everything.

So probability to survive were notably higher.

Every tank has weak zones, there are no extremes as invulnerable-vulnerable, what makes the difference is probability. Also T-72B was intended to be cheap and used in numbers, if protection probability increased notably as they did, it was great.

This huge weak zones consist most of the Ob184 (T-72B) frontal turret area:

And this was taken from Ghur Khan blog. From inner biuletyn.

You like to quote from journal but only what you select, which is hipocritical... and you should know that it is not always exact, author is just elaborating, and it is correct to familiarise with used sources. Well, you have comment which you can check from knowledgeable person.

Бронетехника из Нижнего Тагила 11

"I consider this article a typical product of the Research Institute, which breeds publication for scientific titles / positions. Its only advantage is that the poor are the vast array of data from tests carried out in the late 80's. Conclusions from these activities are reflected in the terms of reference to the famous theme of "C-88". Author's calculations based on the probability of penetration of the frontal projection armor T-72B wrong. Although he refers to the work of Boris Sergeevich Safonov and his colleagues ("Foundations of the combat effectiveness of tanks"), but pulled out of it is just one example. And if the rest of the data cited, it estimates fell to ashes. But the author painstakingly drew the owl on the globe he desired size. As for the proposals on a possible layout of the tank and the arguments in support of copyright - is a clear demonstration of touch with the reality and ignoring the requirements of the customer."

Author just selected piece of informacion from numerous results to justify his work, estimates are not really reliable... this is only one example, but you take every publication as objective thruth.

what??!!

On Western tanks there is notable difference in armour thickness between hull and turret armour, and protection, of hundred mm. In T tanks there is higher KE coefficient of densier armour with great use of steel and thickness analogous to turret. It is allowed by construction of hull and inclination angle, and lower weight of vehicle.

T-72B was fully "penetratable" for DM33 and M829, and due to it's huge weak zones in frontal turret protection even DM23 have nice chanse (bellow 900m) to penetate turret armour.

Everything is penetrable if hit in the right spot, even Leopard 2 and DM23. But as said, in probability it exceeded.

If You mean DM-43 then it was rejected due to not significant performance vs ERA. And in modern APFSDS the way is not to "not initiated due to special desig" -it's exactly the opposite way.

I know, same as M829A1 and Soviet rounds using same solution, as tip design offered only probability which in general was not great and it was not any guarantee. Newer rounds work on different principle of course, but they appeared much later and ERA improved as well...

But in 80s it was not possible for NATO to defeat armour with Kontakt-5.

In Soviet Union -indeed it was impossible without ERA

On west the have two advantages: Burlinghton armour and NERA.

http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf
http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf
In middle 1970 there was dependence between protection against APFSDS and HEAT
430 and 585mm RHA (1 to 1,36), but Increased armour protection against HEAT to 850mm RHA resulted with a decrease in armour protection vs APFSDS to "only" 405mm (1 to 2.09) etc -so the question is what was most important for germnas? In fact in the text are three important depending:
a) in 1964 the predecessor of the Burlington had mass Efficiency like ~1 vs APFSDS and ~2 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel (RHA in tekst) of the same weight
b) In 1978 Burlinghton special armour had mass Efficiency like 1,5 vs APFSDS and 3 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel (RHA in tekst) of the same weight
c) there was some ratios between protection against APFSDs and HEAT and there wasn't linear like this 430/585 and 405/850

And it is really posible exatly due to " thickness and KE requirement":
We have some dates (with bibliography of course). In 1978 Burlinghton special armour had mass Efficiency like 1,5 vs APFSDS and 3 vs HEAT in compared to homogeneous armor steel of the same weight.
So 1kg Burlinghton armour shoud offer protection like 1,5kg homogeneous steel armor vs APFSDs and 3kg homogeneous steel armor vs HEAT (of course it is only example).
Dimensions leopard-2 gun mantled mask are known, the same dimensions of blanks for L-44, FERO, and MG. And we know mass of gun mantled mask - 630kg. Rest is rather simple math base on qustion- how thick will be homogeneous steel armor block "inside" gun mask dimensions if it will be weight 950kg (630kg x1,5 vs APFSDS) and 1890kg (630kg x3 ve HEAT). The answer is:
a) 272 mm
b) 542 mm
So this protection offer by gun mantled mask should be:
a) 270 mm vs APFSDS
b) 540 mm vs HEAT

Same story, but as logical person you are, what will you answer if I say, ERA (Kontakt-5) offered > 90% probability to defeat APFSDS in 1985 (in tested against 3BM22 Zakolka ), so 2 decades later it should be hmm... 99%

Of course it is not serious. It is exactly the same if you say Burlington had such efficiency against 1978 projectile, but it is just against common sense to apply it to different context and knowing sophistification of weapons, etc. No matter how do you look, but with this data it is not possible to know.

You like VTT journal ?? Ok, here are estimations for Abrams armour, 1985 M1A1 http://s58.radikal.ru/i161/1209/04/8a98cf903cab.jpg

It does not exceed 700 mm HEAT, and gun launched missile defeats it with a factor of 1-1.2. KE protection is 500-550 mm, and APFSDS also exceed that parameter at all combat ranges.

And of course your beloved article Andrei-bt - ИЗМЕНЕНИЕ ПЛАНОВ АМЕРИКАНСКОГО ТАНКОСТРОЕНИЯ

And HEAT protection does not exceed 700 mm either So there you have estimations, and they coincide ).

It's first proof, second one is simpler - why to hell near 1984-1985 sowiet start to developed and introduce SC (HEAT) warhed whit 900-1100mm RHA penetration? Metis, new Fagot, Ataka, Wihr, atc.

You have estimations. On this you are exagerating. Such ATGMs appeared later and there is nothing strange, there is objective to improve performance and defeat perspective armour, and many reasons, for example it was always expected to West adopt reactive armour, and all these missiles are made as a counter, and there are also overestimations, for example, why was 125 mm adopted so early, to defeat Chieftain which proved to be backwards design ? It was not known... Developement cycle is not so simple.

I't very simple to check how big protection Soviet developers try to overcome:
IMPORTANT - whole development cycle to create a new weapons take about 4-6 years, sow if some ATGMS start service in 1985 (ex:9M120) it means that its development started around 5 years erlyier (around 1980)

time before Burlinghton:
9M111-2 (Fagot 1975) - 460mm RHA
Konkurs - 1974 - 600mm RHA
9M112M (Kobra 1976) - 600mm RHA

time when first idea about Burlighton went to Soviet Union:
9M111M (Fagot 1983) -600mm RHA (development phase around 1978)
9M112M (Kobra "imroved" 1985) -700mm RHA (development phase around 1980)


little panic in ATGM thema:
9M120 (1985) - 950mm RHA (development phase around 1981)
Wihr-M (1990) -1000mm RHA (development phase around 1985)
9M115-2 (1992) -980mm RHA (development phase around 1988)
9M133-1 (1994) 1200mm RHA (development phase around 1989)
Since ~1985 in soviet developers studios they decide to incerase ATGMs SC (HEAT) penetration up to 1000mm RHA and more. Why? The same Leopard-2A4 turret, the same M1IP surret, but aloust twice better penetration then in 1980-1985 period.

It is not all correct and not that simple. Also performance criteria is set for time of deployement. It was expected appearance of improved Western models of 90s and after, and such improvement is normal result of advances in manufacturing technology, understanding of high velocity physical processes, etc.


Third prooof. Leopard-2 have very advanced laser trening system :
About AGDUS -it's laser posoration system (MILES type) - eacht tank, soilder, ATGM, etc have lasser system for one battalion (II) to practise trening.
AGDUS shoud be opspec due to rather realistic damage models included in that system. Some idiot from 10TkBDe post it in the internet. His problem not mine, so I can say few wors more.
In AGDUS (In Leopard-2A4 case) you have 6 tank area when you can take hit from enemy:
a)turret front
b) hull front, hull rear, hull side in genneraly
c) turret side
d) turret side at ammo rack (turret bustle)
e)hull side at ammo hull rack
f) hull side at turret basket

In AGDUS you have that possibility of beeing hit by enemy:
"-turret off"
"-destroyed"
-"Watch out!" (or - be cearfull)
-"No interaction"
-"engine off"
-"partial destroyed"

And you have 7 clas of "enemy thread" (of course it can by modifity):
1)
(...)

4)
HOT/PAH <3800m
HOT/JAGUAR <3800m
TOW <3000m

For Leopard-2A4 from circa 1985 in AGDUS system variant for taken hit in turret front, form group nr.4 (HOT/PAH, TOW) is not "destroyed" or even "partial destroyed". In fact AGDUS developers was sure that for Leopard2A4 direct hit in turret front by TOW/HOT/PAH will not destroyed tank. And as I know HOT/PAH and TOW had around 1000-1200mm RHA in end of 1980s.

It is interesting, but it is not really justification.

Those missiles had not such performance at that time (I will check anyway)

Crew training is not really related to theoretical capabilities If you understand me. It is common to set training to achieve best performance in combat (to force crew to engage frontally, not fear, etc) and it is set, it does not mean such threat has exactly such performance and armour such protection... Same as instructions to run out of ATGM with moves. Imagine, nobody will tell crew "no matter what you do, this will defeat your armour" and such, even if reality is close.

In Mango there is no single mystery. It's penetrator have only two big segments, in fact it's perforation wasn't enought for western turrets with 740-960mm LOS.

Coefficient of composite armour (KE) is lower than steel of same thickness, you know. Leopard 2A4 has 700 mm LOS for turret and 500 mm KE protection (your figures) for example.

You can achieve semi-active effect and reduce penetrator performance at same time you reduce passive protection, density (very general principle of composite armour). But with advanced penetrator which construction whitstands that effect, damage it is different. For example you have 500mm RHA block and composite block equivalent to 500 mm RHA in protection (generally given against regular projectiles), 3BM44 Mango will have more ease perforating the second and that is even reflected in tests, so that is why it has chance against Leopard 2 or Abrams armour in 80s (if you look at estimates from journal, you'll see how Soviet APFSDS defeats 550 mm RHA). It would be different to perforeate T-80U hull...

lol.
You haven't idea how can look western armour and you still haven't idea in what way it can work.
German patent:

You have here cermisc, NERA and Burlinghton idea.

There is not shown anything new, only generality.

 

[militarysta]

It is not correct because you know only approximation, medium for 35 degree frontal arc > 400 mm RHA and it is not exact, not to say that medium is not all situations, same for APFSDS estimates, so it is not to throw statements, it is not like you select souces and then conclude either. It was not invulnerable, but it offered good chance. In any case DM33 and M829 were unable to defeat if hit area is covered by Kontakt-5.

Exatly for the same resons DM33 and M829 have great chanse to penetrate main armour If protection in Ob.184 (T-72B) have from 0. to 30. degree betwee 540 and 470mm RHA and NATO rounds have:
DM33: 470-520mm RHA at 2000m
M829: 500-540mm RHA at 2000m
when first value is guaranteed perforation then for most angle (for turret pritection) armour was penetratable for those rounds.

In case of ERA based on directed plate principle there is not significant reduction of effectiveness depending on place of impact.

Yeach -espacially on the corrner of ERA casette. Teh same story like in Knife ERA...

I do not really appreciate self made paint work. It is not correct to represent whole from single picture from one angle, and you mark what you don't have to.

It's so difficult to mark ERA cover areas and uncoverd? It's really simple - part without ERA are protected only by main armour (without ERA).
Here is better draw, using Ob.184 instruction:

You should focus on area meant to be protected, without gun mantle and special zones (ricochet surface, etc) present in all tanks.

Turret front at 0. degree should be protected! And in T-72B model 1989 it's not protected by ERA.

More than half of turret is covered by ERA. 50% of frontal projection is protected

So in fact any APFSDS whit hit turret front have 50:50 chanse to not even seen ERA casette. God job UWZ developers!. T-80U haven't that problems.
BTW: as I remeber covered area by Kontakt-5 was equal to 45% not 50...

And turret is not everything. It is more likely to hit, but statistics can change in war and it is foolish not to have in account everything.

Possibility to take hit on turret is more then 70%. So in 7 on 10 case APFSDS hit turret. And half of that turret is not protected by ERA on T-72B model 1989.

You like to quote from journal but only what you select, which is hipocritical... and you should know that it is not always exact, author is just elaborating, and it is correct to familiarise with used sources. Well, you have comment which you can check from knowledgeable person.

Бронетехника из Нижнего Тагила 11

"I consider this article a typical product of the Research Institute, which breeds publication for scientific titles / positions. Its only advantage is that the poor are the vast array of data from tests carried out in the late 80's. Conclusions from these activities are reflected in the terms of reference to the famous theme of "C-88". Author's calculations based on the probability of penetration of the frontal projection armor T-72B wrong. Although he refers to the work of Boris Sergeevich Safonov and his colleagues ("Foundations of the combat effectiveness of tanks"), but pulled out of it is just one example. And if the rest of the data cited, it estimates fell to ashes. But the author painstakingly drew the owl on the globe he desired size. As for the proposals on a possible layout of the tank and the arguments in support of copyright - is a clear demonstration of touch with the reality and ignoring the requirements of the customer."

OK, if Wasylij said that in that one case -maybe he have truth.

this is only one example, but you take every publication as objective thruth.

No "every" - for me soviet/ russian articles about Leopard-2 and M1 protection are crap.

On Western tanks there is notable difference in armour thickness between hull and turret armour, and protection, of hundred mm. In T tanks there is higher KE coefficient of densier armour with great use of steel and thickness analogous to turret. It is allowed by construction of hull and inclination angle, and lower weight of vehicle.

Partial true.

I know, same as M829A1 and Soviet rounds using same solution, as tip design offered only probability which in general was not great and it was not any guarantee. Newer rounds work on different principle of course, but they appeared much later and ERA improved as well...

Now for western round (DM-53, DM-63, M829A3, M338) Kontakt-5 and Relikt are not enemy. All of those rounds can easly penetrate ERA casette. Only one "problem" for western round developers is Knife ERA (Duplet, Noz, etc) when many SC are placed. But those ERA neeed to be placed in at least two layers due to effectiveness depends on the place when APFSDS hit. So whole soultion weight a lot, but those ERA can be still efective. Relikt and Kontakt are obsolate now. And many test proof that.

Same story, but as logical person you are, what will you answer if I say, ERA (Kontakt-5) offered > 90% probability to defeat APFSDS in 1985 (in tested against 3BM22 Zakolka ), so 2 decades later it should be hmm... 99%

Of course it is not serious. It is exactly the same if you say Burlington had such efficiency against 1978 projectile, but it is just against common sense to apply it to different context and knowing sophistification of weapons, etc. No matter how do you look, but with this data it is not possible to know.

You don't understand. Based on two good sources (in fact research) about burlinghton armour it's very obvious that Burlinghton style armour have some special features -one of them was resistance to multihit, secnd one was very hight resistance against HEAT (SC) warhed. In fact using old data (erly Burlinghton) and known size, weight, thickness Leopard-2A4 we can clearly see that protection against SC (HEAT) warhed just must be bigger then soviet/russian sources claim. And I have other proofs of that.
Other fact is that Leopard-2A4 armour is at least two generation younger then erly Burlinghton. So we have two options:
a) Germans are idiot and Leopard-2A4 armour is worse then Burlinghton from 1974
b) Armo placed in Leopard-2A4 decade after erlu Burlinghton just must be better.
But whole think is abouBurlinghton-style armour features. Try to read about that (use gogole translator on that two damm articles! it's not a problem!)

You like VTT journal ?? Ok, here are estimations for Abrams armour, 1985 M1A1
It does not exceed 700 mm HEAT, and gun launched missile defeats it with a factor of 1-1.2. KE protection is 500-550 mm, and APFSDS also exceed that parameter at all combat ranges.
And of course your beloved article
And HEAT protection does not exceed 700 mm either So there you have estimations, and they coincide ).

And those estimations are wrong 700mm vs HEAT have burlinghton armour models developed on middle 1970! So yes, NATO armour developers where stupid and they sand in one place for more the decade.

You have estimations. On this you are exagerating. Such ATGMs appeared later and there is nothing strange, there is objective to improve performance and defeat perspective armour, and many reasons, for example it was always expected to West adopt reactive armour, and all these missiles are made as a counter, and there are also overestimations, for example, why was 125 mm adopted so early, to defeat Chieftain which proved to be backwards design ? It was not known... Developement cycle is not so simple.

Level of armour penetration for APFSDS and HEAT weapons give us the expected level of taget armour protection.
For soviet developers in end of the 1970s it was obvious that targets will have more then 600mm vs HEAT, and only 4-5 yers later - more then 900mm RHA vs HEAT (whole ATGM's whit development start around 1984-1985). And near 1990 in soviets the expected level of resistance for NATO tanks more then 1200-1300mm RHA (Kornet, Chrizantiema).

It is interesting, but it is not really justification.
Those missiles had not such performance at that time (I will check anyway)

HOT-2/PAH and ITOW ? Of course they had:

HOT (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In AGDUS tank is not deastroyed, or partial destroyed when HOT/TOW hit in th turret front. Both ATGMS have more then 800mm RHA perforation. And AGDUS is very realistic.

Crew training is not really related to theoretical capabilities If you understand me. It is common to set training to achieve best performance in combat (to force crew to engage frontally, not fear, etc) and it is set, it does not mean such threat has exactly such performance and armour such protection... Same as instructions to run out of ATGM with moves. Imagine, nobody will tell crew "no matter what you do, this will defeat your armour" and such, even if reality is close.

Maybe in Soviet Union, maybe in ex-Soviet countries, but not in Germany and in NATO. AGDUS and other MILES laser battlefield simulators are developed whit taking into account the full realism -it's teh most important feature! And as I wrote - AGDUS (In Leopard-2A4 case) you have 6 tank area when you can take hit from enemy. It's really very realistic system. And for Leopard-2A4 model (system settings in AGDUS) take hit form around ~800-1000mm RHA ATGM warhed is not able to destroy the tank (or heavy damage) -of course only for turret front.


rest later

 

[Damian]

@militarysta, AGDUS is just the German version of UK/USA MILES, so everything there is the same.

BTW I wonder how little Bellarusian propagandist will explain that M829A2 fired accidentaly on Challenger 2, was not capable to perforate it's turret front armor. Which was a documented fact from 2003. And there was no ERA. Same goes for the Milan ATGM and multiple RPG hits. Same goes for M1 series with RPG-29 at hull front without any effect.

So the Challenger 2 without ERA was capable to survive M829A2, and in the same time the Russian "wunderwaffe" with "wunder ERA" is not capable to survive it. I think it explains everything.

 

[militarysta]

the rest:

You can achieve semi-active effect and reduce penetrator performance at same time you reduce passive protection, density (very general principle of composite armour).

Ech....again...
Burlinghton armour works on very diffrent principles. That whatyou describe is typical for example T-72B turret:

When you have cast front plate (cast steel) 120mm thick (passive) afther that we have bulging armour (or very primitive NERA) and afther that 45mm thick RHA plate (passive) and again 80mm thick cast steel "back plate". In fact in T-72B most of the turret armour is passive and primitive.
Burlinghton armour have very diffrent layout:
This is very erly Buringhton from 1968r. And ist's perforamces on Chieftian hull sides:


And notice that for 90. degree HEAT diametr 84mm (SC) - so with perforation around 340-380mm RHA in those years - was stopped by: 203cm LOS thick erly Burlinghton module, and only ~50mm RHA (hull sides). In fact only Burlinghton module provide protction like (Carl Gustav warhed rforation - hull sides) ~290-330mm RHA.
For 30-35 degree the same module whit LOS thickens 400-450mm and hull sides thicknes 100-120mm RHA provide protection against SC (HEAT) warhed 152mm dimatere whit 600-680mm RHA perforation.
So 400-450mm LOS thick module act like ~500-560mm RHA. Of course the biggest advantage was the minimum weight of the solution.
And thsi all was in...1968.

In fact Burlinghton works more active -it's stack of separated NERA pannels spaced by RHA plates and few ceramics. Very very late successor of that solution can be seen here:

When we have active layers whit some kind of amortization (B on draw) and typical "sandwich" simmilar to the Burlinghton (C on draw). After that we have typpical have layers mady by RHA, and Ceramics (A-D-E-D-A on draw).

3BM44 Mango will have more ease perforating the second and that is even reflected in tests, so that is why it has chance against Leopard 2 or Abrams armour

I don't think soo, Burlinghton armour work on very diffrent, and rather until middle 1980 (~1986) unknown in Soviet Union principles.

 

[militarysta]

BTW:
Lidsky M.D -on very erly Burlinghton (1968) exampe you can see how stupid and underestimated are values given by Soviet and Russian sources in Leopard-2 and M1IP thema vs HEAT.
LOS thickenss for Leo-2A4 is between 740 and 840mm (front turret) even if 20-25% is taken for passive layers then still we have ~550mm LOS for Burlinghton.
This thicknes of Burlinghton armour in 1968 can provide protection equal to ~780-890mm RHA vs HEAT. Of course in not work in that way - protection is more ballanced between APFSDs and HEAT protection, but still -on West already in 1968 there was technical possibilities to put in turret armour very
immune against HEAT.

 

[hest]

Exatly for the same resons DM33 and M829 have great chanse to penetrate main armour If protection in Ob.184 (T-72B) have from 0. to 30. degree betwee 540 and 470mm RHA and NATO rounds have:
DM33: 470-520mm RHA at 2000m
M829: 500-540mm RHA at 2000m
when first value is guaranteed perforation then for most angle (for turret pritection) armour was penetratable for those rounds.

But again you do not know veracity of those figures and important factor. LOS of armour is >500 with good composition, steel and active filler, and medium desviation is significant, so success would depend on angle and other conditions (this alone is chance to survive).

And you only measured without having in account 3rd dimension, in cast turret thickness varies not only from one arc.

Second is that these rounds have simple construction and achieve rather good nominal steel perforation, but that is not all. It is same as with 3BM32 Vant and 3BM42 Mango, aim is to reduce efficiency of active filler, and you just induced yourself to believe in your figures.

But question is if there is guarantee they could be defeated in normal conditions, and no, there isn't.

Yeach -espacially on the corrner of ERA casette. Teh same story like in Knife ERA...

If you had mental image about working mechanism you would not ask such questions really. For such kind of ERA place of impact generally does not matter, and messing with 0.0... probabilities is neglible. Knozh is totally different principle.

It's so difficult to mark ERA cover areas and uncoverd? It's really simple - part without ERA are protected only by main armour (without ERA).
Here is better draw, using Ob.184 instruction:

Aim is to represent the whole, and you cannot from 1 picture and there are many errors, you look from low perspective which does not corresponds with projectile direction. On 2nd picture you only consider covered projection from horizontal direction, while it is obvious that it increases depending on perspective of projectile which is what matters.

For figures you have already made research by specialists.

You also consider gun mantle and others as not covered, but they are vulnerable in all tanks and in T MBTs surface is smaller overall.

Well you have silly picture from btvt

Yeah, I know, but also this which is yours

Gun mantle is huge vulnerable zone, so is placement of sight and others, and it may be even more than you have marked, about T-72B roof we know it is exageration and not correct because you based it on wrong estimation from article. Note that weak surface is more or less similar, but overall dimensions of T are smaller.

Turret front at 0. degree should be protected! And in T-72B model 1989 it's not protected by ERA.

So in fact any APFSDS whit hit turret front have 50:50 chanse to not even seen ERA casette. God job UWZ developers!. T-80U haven't that problems.
BTW: as I remeber covered area by Kontakt-5 was equal to 45% not 50...

From institute:

0 > 55%

35 > 45%
for turret

And this is from total projection, then you have zones where projectile will ricochet, will not cause serious consequence, etc so overall it is majority and not really worse than other MBT. Bulk of weak zones is gun mantle, etc, such weaknessess are present in all MBT, Leopard 2A4 has significant vulnerable parts. And did you consider exposure from all angles ? for example from 35 degrees it is possible to hit unprotected turret bustle of Leopard 2...

Possibility to take hit on turret is more then 70%. So in 7 on 10 case APFSDS hit turret. And half of that turret is not protected by ERA on T-72B model 1989.

In overall possibility T-72B with Kontakt-5 force has more chances than Western MBT purely from protection aspect, that was the deal. You also have tanks T-80U/UD and with them it is no argument.

OK, if Wasylij said that in that one case -maybe he have truth.

Not him, someone closer to information.

No "every" - for me soviet/ russian articles about Leopard-2 and M1 protection are crap.

But it is contradiction. You take article about T-72B (which was incorrect), from another about Abrams you take what you want, figures about KE perotection but do not accept HEAT, same about Leopard 2. You know, article about Abrams or Leopard 2 can be the same reliable as the one about T-72 and you see.

First, what authors write and their sources should be checked, they are elaborating, and second, you cannot select information which suits you.

Partial true.

It is feature of construction

Now for western round (DM-53, DM-63, M829A3, M338) Kontakt-5 and Relikt are not enemy. All of those rounds can easly penetrate ERA casette. Only one "problem" for western round developers is Knife ERA (Duplet, Noz, etc) when many SC are placed. But those ERA neeed to be placed in at least two layers due to effectiveness depends on the place when APFSDS hit. So whole soultion weight a lot, but those ERA can be still efective. Relikt and Kontakt are obsolate now. And many test proof that.

But it is funny because aim of DM-55 developement was to defeat tank of 1985 and possibility appeared much later )). And it is dubious they serve now to defeat corresponding armour

And you do not actually know that vulnerability of ERA as Kontakt which construction of those rounds is made to exploit, were all addressed in new developement and it is the same story again. And you have only test against old Kontakt-5.

You don't understand. Based on two good sources (in fact research) about burlinghton armour it's very obvious that Burlinghton style armour have some special features -one of them was resistance to multihit, secnd one was very hight resistance against HEAT (SC) warhed. In fact using old data (erly Burlinghton) and known size, weight, thickness Leopard-2A4 we can clearly see that protection against SC (HEAT) warhed just must be bigger then soviet/russian sources claim. And I have other proofs of that.
Other fact is that Leopard-2A4 armour is at least two generation younger then erly Burlinghton. So we have two options:
a) Germans are idiot and Leopard-2A4 armour is worse then Burlinghton from 1974
b) Armo placed in Leopard-2A4 decade after erlu Burlinghton just must be better.
But whole think is abouBurlinghton-style armour features. Try to read about that (use gogole translator on that two damm articles! it's not a problem!)

No, it is very simple. Standart of test from 1978 has nothing to do with latter. And there are many factors, drastic improvement of HEAT warhead performance due to construction and material, use of tandem warheads with improved efficiency against semi-active arrays, sophistification of APFSDS construction, etc...

You say that x (1978 armour) is that good against y (1978 weapon) and logically x' (improved armour) would be better against y, but x' and z (improved weapon) do not have the same relation with x and y.

And you also use weight efficency twhen considering LOS which is not direct relation, you try to adjust, but it is not the same context really.

And those estimations are wrong 700mm vs HEAT have burlinghton armour models developed on middle 1970! So yes, NATO armour developers where stupid and they sand in one place for more the decade.

Who tells that vehicle of 70s has such protection ? Also you can have specialised armour but it enters in contradiction with KE requirement because method is contradictory, what improves one aspect generally worsens the other so it is made in balance. Western MBT have thick composite which has to give improved protection against HEAT while maintaining KE (which is less coefficient than steel) Soviet MBT armour was densier and had better KE coefficient but significantly less HEAT (greater use of steel, etc) which was achieved with ERA.

And anything more than 700 mm is unrealistic considering thickness, KE coefficient and time, not to tell it is contradicted by most sources and there is not any evidence.

Level of armour penetration for APFSDS and HEAT weapons give us the expected level of taget armour protection.
For soviet developers in end of the 1970s it was obvious that targets will have more then 600mm vs HEAT, and only 4-5 yers later - more then 900mm RHA vs HEAT (whole ATGM's whit development start around 1984-1985). And near 1990 in soviets the expected level of resistance for NATO tanks more then 1200-1300mm RHA (Kornet, Chrizantiema).

No, history is totally different. Soviet developers feared appearance not of composite which was countered.

All these latter missiles were designed to defeat reactive armour and pass tests with elements of 500 cuadratic mm surface which were expected to appear in Western tanks, which did not happen. There was much fear because it was difficult to defeat ERA of such dimensions, in tests plate incided against main warhead and reduced penetration level by more than 60%

Of course without ERA, these missiles overhelmed any contemporary Western armour.

In AGDUS tank is not deastroyed, or partial destroyed when HOT/TOW hit in th turret front. Both ATGMS have more then 800mm RHA perforation. And AGDUS is very realistic.

So you talk about simulation in 1985 and cassume they are only late 80s models when probably they were models even with single warhead scheme.

Maybe in Soviet Union, maybe in ex-Soviet countries, but not in Germany and in NATO. AGDUS and other MILES laser battlefield simulators are developed whit taking into account the full realism -it's teh most important feature! And as I wrote - AGDUS (In Leopard-2A4 case) you have 6 tank area when you can take hit from enemy. It's really very realistic system. And for Leopard-2A4 model (system settings in AGDUS) take hit form around ~800-1000mm RHA ATGM warhed is not able to destroy the tank (or heavy damage) -of course only for turret front.

Realism in combat, incidence, engagement, etc but nobody in training for army goes deep into technical apects of armour which is work for special institutes. It only tells soldier how to operate in optimal way, but nothing about real perforation or not... there are more chances with frontal engagement and that's it.

 

[Damian]

As allways, we have here plenty of babble talk from a former soviet brickheads, while in reality, as I said, there was incident in 2003 where Challenger 2, which in theory have inferior protection to M1 and Leopard 2 series, survived a direct hit, in to it's turret front armor, from accidentaly fired M829A2 from American tank. Which means that Challenger 2, having inferior protection to American and German tanks, also against KE, without any ERA protection, survived such hit, that would end with perforation on any T tank protected with Kontakt-5.

It clearly shows superiority of NATO composite armor against KE projectiles, as well as many other incidents with advanced CE projectiles shown superiority of their protection compared to T tanks.

I know Lidsky that you more belive a fairy tales from the old soviet blockheads from some ex soviet institutes, because they do not have any reliable material to work on, and the nececity of promotion of their products, forced them to create a propaganda of success and superiority. Which in the end is simple lie.

How many nations choose the Soviet approach to vehicle protection? And how many choosen NATO approach? It seems that most nations sees NATO approach as more valuable than the Soviet one.


BTW it is funny seeing claims that T tanks have more steel in their armor than NATO tanks, when he never seen a composite armor structure of any western tank.

 

[Damian]

Ok putting it different way.

What will be more efficent protection, as well in terms of density.

A Soviet approach with mostly cast steel which is 5-15% weaker than rolled steel plate, with simple NERA (made from RHA or SHS mostly) or polymer castings inside?

Or NATO approach with a structure welded from rolled plates (5-15% stronger if RHA compared to CHA, however SHS/HHS/DHS/THS types will have even higher protection) with several layers of composite inside, made from SHS/HHS/DHS/THS types of armor steel, which later added encased in to this DUA or WHA alloys.

Add this to the fact that volume of composite per armor thickness is bigger in NATO tanks than in Soviet tanks.

In fact higher density, hardness and more steel or other metal alloys are in NATO tanks, this is wh NATO composite armor is superior for both KE and CE projectiles.

IMHO Lidsky is just incapable to comprehend this, which is typical for people that for years are feed with BS about superiority of in fact primitive solution.

Also the primitivness of soviet composite armors, and several other factors like ridicoulus requirements of vehicle size and weight, was a reason why Soviets needed ERA.... which in the end is good addition, especially for weaker protected surfaces of vehicle, but is a blind road as the basis of vehicle overall protection.

Besides this, there is another misconception of Burlington and other NATO composite armors, that they are made mostly from ceramics or polymers. It was actually disinformation spread via all possible channels (for example known and respected authors like Steven Zaloga or Richard Ogorkiewicz).

In fact these composite armors, were based mostly on different types of armor steel and other types of metal alloys. Non metallic materials were only additions. Which in the end is interesting to see, that Soviets were so naive to believe in this.

But it seems that history of Burlington development will still not be widely known in former soviet union republics for a long time.

What is important, the USA currently use mostly one type of armor steel code designated MIL-DTL-12560 which hardness depending on treatment, production process and thickness ranges from 262HB to 460HB, this steel is used for base structure of vehicle, as well as is probably used as a component of composite armors.

The thickness of plates made from this steel ranges from 4,2mm to 50,8mm.

 

[Damian]

And I found more. US Army uses also MIL-A-46100 which have hardness ranging from 477 to 534 HB and thickness ranging from 76,2mm to 398,78cm and a MIL-A-46177 with hardness of approx 362 HB an thickness of 317cm up to 635cm.

So definetely USA use not only very hard armor, but also plates range from thin to very thick. And in case of composite armors, are combined with materials that are harder or densier (Depleted Uranium Alloy for example).

The problem is to estimate what thickness have plates used for composite armor, especially the frontal one, and how many of them are placed there, and how exact is composition.