Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

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.

Sorry Lidsky but it's pathetic -no metter on what photo - area covered by Kontakt-5 on T-72B model 1989 will be the same. It's obious that on this tank is very poor cover forntal turret area by ERA casette. You try to fight whit simple fact.
T-72BA on parade -Kontakt-5 placment like on T-72B model 1989:




The same story -poor frontal cover by ERA.

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.
(...)
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.

And it's again big myth and misunderstad on estern tank sites. In fact Gun mantled mask area on T-72, T-80, and T-64 family is the same (as a weak area) like on M1 and Leopard-2. The dimensions are very similar:

In fact in Leopard-2 area is slighty smaller. Not even mentioned M1.


And If You want to talk about turret roof:

Whole turret roof even with Kontakt-5 is weak zone in T-72 serie.
On T-72B and T-72B model 1989 turrte roof have:
400mm cast steel on part without Kontakt-5 (circa about 350mm RHA), and 260-280mm cast steel on part covered by Kontakt-5. So in part cover by Kontakt-5 we have only 220-240mm RHA + Kontakt-5. Even is we cant count Kontakt-5 not as 130mm RHA but almoust twice better (lets seay 230mm RHA) due to optimum angle -it's still not enought to stop DM33 and M289 becouse both have around 500mm at 1300m, and roof protection with Kontakt-5 will be like 450-470mm RHA.
So whole turret roof is one big weak zone.

BTW: hull thickenss in T-72B is the same as on western tank - but with huge weak zone in fornt of driver face...
LOS thickness is almoust the same:
M1 -constans 650-670mm LOS (!)
Leopard-2A4 lower front hull: 420mm LOS front hull: 600mm LOS
T-72B: lower front hull: 170mm RHA front hull: 525-655mm LOS

Leopard 2A4 has significant vulnerable parts
(....)
Gun mantle is huge vulnerable zone, so is placement of sight and others

LoL, gun mantled mask area - smaller then on T-72/T-80/T-64 serie, not as hight turret roof, and mady from RHA plate.
Placment of Sight can be vulnerable zone only in compare with ex: M1IP but not in compare with T-xx.
Area behind EMES-15 have 650mm LOS. It's bigger value then turret LOS for most of soviet tanks.

In overall possibility T-72B with Kontakt-5 force has more chances than Western MBT purely from protection aspect, that was the deal.,

Rather not due to more then 25% smaller LOS armour thickness and less advantages (to be onest-primitive) "special armour".
I show You on very simple example -erly Burlinghton from 1968 how big can be armour protection vs HEAT.

you take what you want, figures about KE perotection but do not accept HEAT, same about Leopard 2

Not even one numebers given in Leopard-2 them is form estern sources. All of them are form Army, German sources, and made by myself.

But it is funny because aim of DM-55 developement was to defeat tank of 1985 and possibility appeared much later

No, it's not true. aim of DM-53 developemen was to achive bigger modern composite armour penetration after heavy ERA.
And mehanism of all Kontakt-5 and Relikt ERA is simmilar. And DM-53 can overpass both ERA.
In chronologically:
~1987 DM-33 and M829 entire service in NATO in bigest numbers
1987 -T-80U entire service in biggest numbers -first panic in NATO about ERA, germans start to developed DM43 and US M829A1
1989 - T-72B model 1989 entire servce.
1992 M829A2 entire service -made "on fast" round for overpass Kontakt-5
1993/1994 - start of "candy shop" for western inteligence in ex Soviet Republics
1994 DM43 entire service - this round was able to perforate T-72B model 1989 after Kontakt-5 but was not able to perfoate in any cases tested T-80U so it was rejected.
1995-2000 little dirty how-know between Ukrainian tank industry and GIAT&KMW. Giat sent to free Ukraina barrel technology line, autoloaders, thermovision and others, and for western companies there is another "candy shop" -they had acces to almoust whole Soviet and ex-Soviet development studies abut armour, ERA, rounds, etc.
1997 DM53 was redy -this round was developed after test T-80U and many diffrent types of ERA bought and captured on belarus, Ukraina, Poland, Russia, and others. And as I said - DM53 slight perforate in any case T-80U turret and Kontat-5. But in the same time L-55 gun was not rdy due to some problem, so whole "kit" (DM53 + L-55) antire service few years late. Mehanism of workin DM53 allow to overpass any Kontakt-5/Relikt style ERA.
1999 - Dm53 L-55 entire service
~2000-2002 end of the cooperation wih Ukraina, but elier western industry had test Dm43/F1 on Knife and M332 on the same ERA. Both round faild that tests.
~2002 new T-90A whit welded turret entire service in Russia, and new ERA (Relikt) is avaible. In fact it wasn't suprise, becouse new turret was developed in 1984 on Ukraine, and new ERA was tested and known from Ukraina (some kind of erly studies about Relikt).
~2005 new Dm-63 round entire service. This round was based on improved principles DM53 but have diffrent penetrator structure then DM53.
Propably (here Im not sure) DM63 was developed after testing Knife on Ukraina.

And you have only test against old Kontakt-5.

You wish in fact many more ERA was tested, and after 2002 too Rusia, Ukraina, Belarus - in those countries for $$ ther was possible to buy almoust everythink. Sometimes offcial (Ukraina).

rest in second post

 

[militarysta]

second part:

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...

This "drastic improvement of HEAT warhead performance" mens incarase penetartion form 4-4,5 CD (core diameter) in 1968 to around 6 in 1980s. And 6,5 in 1990 + precursors. In fact Burlinghton had tandem SC and windstand of the multi hit abilities.
But even in theory Leopard-2A4 in 1985 whit armour efficiency like in 1978 have bigger value vs HEAT then all this russian surces claim.

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.

??? what?
Gun mantled mask in Leopard-2A4 weight only 6% of whole turret armour protection (~640kg from 8900kg).

Who tells that vehicle of 70s has such protection ?

As I wrote about CHeftian Mk.5/2 Burlinghton modules:

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.

You still don't understand on waht principles work Burlinghton. And as I said -it was possible to have around 550mm vs KE and 1100mm vs HEAT for western tanks in middle 1980s

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.

What thickenss? 740-840mm LOS in Leopard-2A4? or bigger in M1A1 and M1IP?, "KE coefficient" for erly Burlinghton was 1:1.36 or 1:2.09 so it wa possible to overcome that value even in 1970s. not to mentioned 10 years later solutions...
And evidneces was given here example- Burlinghton files.
And how about situation when M1A1HA got hit by AGM-114 during ODS and there was no perforation on turret front? ----ing mirracle?
And AGM-114 have 170mm CD warhed (more then 1050mm RHA perforation).
Mass effectivnes was 1,5 times better then RHA plate whit the same weight vs APFSDS and 3 times better then RHA plate whit the same weight vs HEAT (in 1978). So if you want to consider this compare
T-72B and Leopard-A4 you should notice thet when you have 1000kg RHA plate it's still 1000kg RHA plate, when you have 1000kg Burlinghton armour (for 1978) then its act against APFSDs like 1500kg RHA and agains HEAT as 3000kg RHA. For that reson in western tanks there is very little pasive RHA, HHS, and SHS plates -less then other pasive material (ceramics, kevlar, others). In estern tanks most of LOS thickenss and weight takes cast steel and RHA plate. Two module with those reflecting plates in T-72B weight 781kg, for 11550kg turret weight...
And If you want to talk about armour mass please tak a look 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 for 1985. in reality it could be even better.

ll 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.

And even no one surprise why on West they rejected ERA?
Answer is simple - Burlinghton armour provide better fetures then ERA armour.

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.

No, you don't understand. In AGDUS you can program many factors. I had acess only to small part with Leopard-A4 and typica PancerGranadier batalion equpment in ITOW, HOT-2 and others. And Leopard-2A4 turret was not destroyed after take frontal hit by those ATGMS. In worst scenario (HOT-2/TOW-2 in EMES sight area) AGDUS ordered to go in to one of the three failure modes for turret in Leopard-2A4. But there was no "partial destroyed" or "destroyed". In fact creators of the AGDUS where sure that ATGM whit tandem warhed and with perforation between 800-1000mm RHA is not able to kill Leopard-2A4 after frontal hit. And they known what thed did. And AGDUD values are diffrent for Leopard-2A5/A6, Leopard-2A3, TOW-2A, 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.

Not in AGDUS. And there is simple answer:
In AGDUS you have that possibility of beeing hit by enemy:
"-turm aus" (faliture mode in 3 variants - turret damage)
"-destroyed"
-"Watch out!" (or - be cearfull)
-"No interaction"
-"engine off"
-"partial destroyed"
And in worst scenario for turret front it's "turm aus", not "destroyed". And it's not "goes deep into technical apects of armour " but 6 variant of what is after take hit by something. And AGDUS was developed whit cooperance with KMW and Rheinmettal, and it's based on MILES.

 

[hest]

Sorry Lidsky but it's pathetic -no metter on what photo - area covered by Kontakt-5 on T-72B model 1989 will be the same. It's obious that on this tank is very poor cover forntal turret area by ERA casette. You try to fight whit simple fact.
T-72BA on parade -Kontakt-5 placment like on T-72B model 1989:




The same story -poor frontal cover by ERA.

What you do is the same as this

Actually more than half, majority is decent.

And it's again big myth and misunderstad on estern tank sites. In fact Gun mantled mask area on T-72, T-80, and T-64 family is the same (as a weak area) like on M1 and Leopard-2. The dimensions are very similar:

In fact in Leopard-2 area is slighty smaller. Not even mentioned M1.

Gun mantle by itself is smaller than in Leopard 2, on that comparison you include roof parts which are not vulnerable, and exclude Leopard 2 sight weak zone and others...

And If You want to talk about turret roof:

Whole turret roof even with Kontakt-5 is weak zone in T-72 serie.
On T-72B and T-72B model 1989 turrte roof have:
400mm cast steel on part without Kontakt-5 (circa about 350mm RHA), and 260-280mm cast steel on part covered by Kontakt-5. So in part cover by Kontakt-5 we have only 220-240mm RHA + Kontakt-5. Even is we cant count Kontakt-5 not as 130mm RHA but almoust twice better (lets seay 230mm RHA) due to optimum angle -it's still not enought to stop DM33 and M289 becouse both have around 500mm at 1300m, and roof protection with Kontakt-5 will be like 450-470mm RHA.
So whole turret roof is one big weak zone.

Lower roof part is not vulnerable because of ricochet property of DM-33, M829 rounds. Higher part is, but part covered by Kontakt-5 cannot be defeated because of strong lateral impulse and inclination angle, ricochet.

Increase of thickness RHA and weight in function of angle needed to achieve ricochet of projectile

3 is M829, as you see, as long as area hit is covered by Kontakt-5 it will be unable to defeat.

T-80 has not such weakeness at all

BTW: hull thickenss in T-72B is the same as on western tank - but with huge weak zone in fornt of driver face...
LOS thickness is almoust the same:
M1 -constans 650-670mm LOS (!)
Leopard-2A4 lower front hull: 420mm LOS front hull: 600mm LOS
T-72B: lower front hull: 170mm RHA front hull: 525-655mm LOS

Significant difference is that Western hull armour has lower coefficient against KE and is unable to provide necessary protection as turret. In T-72B, T-80U there is much densier composition + Kontakt-5, which is not possible to give in Western MBT because of weight issues.

LoL, gun mantled mask area - smaller then on T-72/T-80/T-64 serie, not as hight turret roof, and mady from RHA plate.
Placment of Sight can be vulnerable zone only in compare with ex: M1IP but not in compare with T-xx.
Area behind EMES-15 have 650mm LOS. It's bigger value then turret LOS for most of soviet tanks.

It is an issue because there is weak part and even 700 mm LOS gives no more than 500 mm KE equivalence (that already is not guarantee of protection), reduction is important, it is not high density.

Rather not due to more then 25% smaller LOS armour thickness and less advantages (to be onest-primitive) "special armour".
I show You on very simple example -erly Burlinghton from 1968 how big can be armour protection vs HEAT.

Actually Burlington is more primitive, and it works on similar principle but different implementation. Semi-active effect, plate deformation is great against HEAT but not so against KE (does not compensate steel). You will get better effect by providing more angle and increasing passive thickness than you will with deformation against KE, but it is to find balance. In T-72B for example it was done that way to achieve good KE coefficient, and because HEAT protection was sufficient already, and because of ERA, plates themselves are densier are thicker. Actually if T-72B turret consisted mostly of Leopard 2 composite it wouldn't have such KE protection in base form.

Also note that armour was chosen after numerous tests and from several options, and it was different in T-72B, T-80U, T-80UD, and another thing is that these turrets differed from previous in construction which allowed replacement of filler to improved version during repair. In fact these tanks armour was continually improved during their service after tests and new requirements, same as Leopard 2A$ did for example.

Not even one numebers given in Leopard-2 them is form estern sources. All of them are form Army, German sources, and made by myself

.
No matter what, but anything higher than 700 mm HEAT is unlikely, if you refer to tandem warhead which is the case.

No, it's not true. aim of DM-53 developemen was to achive bigger modern composite armour penetration after heavy ERA.
And mehanism of all Kontakt-5 and Relikt ERA is simmilar. And DM-53 can overpass both ERA.

It is similar only superficially, but after experience with Kontakt-5 problems were addresed under R&D programme with extensive data, tests, etc so it is not so simple, And since DM-53 was developed with 1985 armour and 80s ERA, there is not any evidence, less guarantee.

In chronologically:
~1987 DM-33 and M829 entire service in NATO in bigest numbers
1987 -T-80U entire service in biggest numbers -first panic in NATO about ERA, germans start to developed DM43 and US M829A1
1989 - T-72B model 1989 entire servce.
1992 M829A2 entire service -made "on fast" round for overpass Kontakt-5
1993/1994 - start of "candy shop" for western inteligence in ex Soviet Republics
1994 DM43 entire service - this round was able to perforate T-72B model 1989 after Kontakt-5 but was not able to perfoate in any cases tested T-80U so it was rejected.

1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,

Years which NATO was unable to defeat 1985 Soviet armour until M829A2 (fast ? and not even guarantee until A3) for Germans it took more than a decade with DM-53.

Gap was not as serious because of collapse of USSR, but by time of appearance Russia fielded turret of new construction, improved composite, much better armour so it does not serve.

1995-2000 little dirty how-know between Ukrainian tank industry and GIAT&KMW. Giat sent to free Ukraina barrel technology line, autoloaders, thermovision and others, and for western companies there is another "candy shop" -they had acces to almoust whole Soviet and ex-Soviet development studies abut armour, ERA, rounds, etc.
1997 DM53 was redy -this round was developed after test T-80U and many diffrent types of ERA bought and captured on belarus, Ukraina, Poland, Russia, and others. And as I said - DM53 slight perforate in any case T-80U turret and Kontat-5. But in the same time L-55 gun was not rdy due to some problem, so whole "kit" (DM53 + L-55) antire service few years late. Mehanism of workin DM53 allow to overpass any Kontakt-5/Relikt style ERA.
1999 - Dm53 L-55 entire service
~2000-2002 end of the cooperation wih Ukraina, but elier western industry had test Dm43/F1 on Knife and M332 on the same ERA. Both round faild that tests.

True, both benefited, and also Leopard 2 FCS, sights, gun system was purchased and aimed developement (panoramic sights, armour tests, etc) but all this, including Soviet heritage is now expended, more than 2 decades old and does not serve for today's developement.

~2002 new T-90A whit welded turret entire service in Russia, and new ERA (Relikt) is avaible. In fact it wasn't suprise, becouse new turret was developed in 1984 on Ukraine, and new ERA was tested and known from Ukraina (some kind of erly studies about Relikt).
~2005 new Dm-63 round entire service. This round was based on improved principles DM53 but have diffrent penetrator structure then DM53.
Propably (here Im not sure) DM63 was developed after testing Knife on Ukraina.

There was no single welded turret, it was not new idea. Main developement was NII Stali and UKBTM (ob 187) but it was further developed, so was continous improvement of armour structure. What remained from Soviet heritage is now expended.

About Relikt, developement was completed well after USSR and it has little relation with older experiments.

You wish in fact many more ERA was tested, and after 2002 too Rusia, Ukraina, Belarus - in those countries for $$ ther was possible to buy almoust everythink. Sometimes offcial (Ukraina).

You do not understand that there is no more Soviet heritage, bulk of institutions remained in Russia and there is continous developement, if you think you know everything after collapse, it is very wrong, 2 decades old already.

 

[hest]

About early super composite armour

It is noting special, and do you really think these test results can be applied to 80s ?

And modernisation of 1980s has primitive armour

So be carefull with claims

 

[Damian]

Hohoho, you think that people here are idiots? The tank on drawing if T-64BM "Bulat", which is far better protected vehivcle than T-72B.

But please, continue, let the people see how huge lier and manipulator you are.

Gun mantle by itself is smaller than in Leopard 2, on that comparison you include roof parts which are not vulnerable, and exclude Leopard 2 sight weak zone and others...

We know that truth is incovnieniant for little propagandists like you, but shut up. The Leopard 2 main gun mantle mask, provides better protection than the comparable in size weak zone in T tanks.

Lower roof part is not vulnerable because of ricochet property of DM-33, M829 rounds. Higher part is, but part covered by Kontakt-5 cannot be defeated because of strong lateral impulse and inclination angle, ricochet.

Increase of thickness RHA and weight in function of angle needed to achieve ricochet of projectile

These words are as empty as your "knowledge" is. This is vurnable zone, nobody besides you says otherwise.

T-80 has not such weakeness at all

Of course that T-80U and T-80UD do not have such weakness, as it was designed by people who actually knew how to design tank, not these imbeciles from UKBTM.

Significant difference is that Western hull armour has lower coefficient against KE and is unable to provide necessary protection as turret. In T-72B, T-80U there is much densier composition + Kontakt-5, which is not possible to give in Western MBT because of weight issues.

Again it is not truth. The armor density is bigger in western tanks.

For example a simplified model of M1A1HA armor, for a single layer of composite armor made from high hardness steel, depleted uranium and high hardness steel.

7,82g/cm2 + 18,6g/cm2 + 7,82g/cm2 = 34,24g/cm2

And now T-72B single composite armor layer made from typical for this vehicle array made from high hardness steel, rubber and high hardness steel.

7,86g/cm2 + 1,1-2g/cm2 + 7,86g/cm2 = 16,82-17,72g/cm2

Well it is obvious that even in case of simplified model, the M1A1HA have densier armor. However as well important is hardness. It is a known fact that if a backplate for high hardness steel is more ductile (like DU alloy), the efficency of HHS will increase.

So maybe a little lier should stop lie?

It is an issue because there is weak part and even 700 mm LOS gives no more than 500 mm KE equivalence (that already is not guarantee of protection), reduction is important, it is not high density.

What becomes more, and more obvious is that you have no clue about what we are talking here, or you lie.

Actually Burlington is more primitive, and it works on similar principle but different implementation. Semi-active effect, plate deformation is great against HEAT but not so against KE (does not compensate steel). You will get better effect by providing more angle and increasing passive thickness than you will with deformation against KE, but it is to find balance. In T-72B for example it was done that way to achieve good KE coefficient, and because HEAT protection was sufficient already, and because of ERA, plates themselves are densier are thicker. Actually if T-72B turret consisted mostly of Leopard 2 composite it wouldn't have such KE protection in base form.

Also note that armour was chosen after numerous tests and from several options, and it was different in T-72B, T-80U, T-80UD, and another thing is that these turrets differed from previous in construction which allowed replacement of filler to improved version during repair. In fact these tanks armour was continually improved during their service after tests and new requirements, same as Leopard 2A$ did for example.

Burlington more primitive?

In 2003 a Burlington derivative, Dorchester was capable to survive a hit from M829A2 without any support from ERA. And in the same time, these super armors from former soviet union, without help of ERA can do shit.

It is obvious that all this scream from you, is just a desperate action to spread further nothing else as pure and false propaganda, of the failed UKBTM/UVZ and NII Stali, who are loosing market.

It is typical for former soviet union, to pay internet propagandists like Lidsky, to promote their products on forums, and in the same time create a black PR for anyone who can be competition.

True, both benefited, and also Leopard 2 FCS, sights, gun system was purchased and aimed developement (panoramic sights, armour tests, etc) but all this, including Soviet heritage is now expended, more than 2 decades old and does not serve for today's developement.

Russia is incapable to develop anything new, every current development is offspring of cold war era.

Deal it, you are poor pitifull bunch of old pricks, even Ukrainians proved to be smarter than you.

ou do not understand that there is no more Soviet heritage, bulk of institutions remained in Russia and there is continous developement, if you think you know everything after collapse, it is very wrong, 2 decades old already.

After the collapse, these ones who were smart, go to west, because there they could work. Only old ideologists or imbeciles like you left.

 

[Damian]

About early super composite armour



It is noting special, and do you really think these test results can be applied to 80s ?

And modernisation of 1980s has primitive armour

So be carefull with claims

This is Stillbrew armor you idiot!

It have absolutely no connection to Burlington, as it was a separate development aimed to develop simpler and cheaper protection that was affordable for Chieftain modernization, untill more Challenger 1 and projected MBT-80's could be purchased.

It seems that primitives like you, do not know even this. Perhaps it is time to learn some languages and read some books written in civilized countries?

Damn, after this show of your knowledge, you do not even deserve to be treated like a human being by me.

Even animals represent higher intelligence.

On the other hand. If you try to use a completely separate development, the Stillbrew armor, as a proof of your arguments about Burlington. This clearly shows you do not have anything to say in this subject. You loose completely all credibility, and in effect loose the whole discussion.

So let me ask you, what is the reason of you being on this forum? Besides the obvious propaganda spreading.

Of course there won't be any answer, like all primitives you would avoid such.

 

[hest]

Hohoho, you think that people here are idiots? The tank on drawing if T-64BM "Bulat", which is far better protected vehivcle than T-72B

Did I say it was T-72 ? It was to show Leopard 2, not talking about Bulat here at all.

This is Stillbrew armor you idiot

I had not said it was Burlington. This is primitive armour modernisation deployed in second half of 80s worse even than that of tanks of earlier generation, you also see scheme of Burlington and test result (upper images), it is rather primitve (from 60s-70s) nothing new and old ammunition, does not serve as justification for your claims about super armour

 

[Damian]

Did I say it was T-72 ? It was to show Leopard 2, not talking about Bulat here at all.

And the Leopard 2 Drawing is more or less close to what Militarysta say. So what's the point? Or it is making point to just make a point and look smart?

Just shut up you idiot.

I had not said it was Burlington. This is primitive armour modernisation deployed in second half of 80s worse even than that of tanks of earlier generation, you also see scheme of Burlington and test result, it is rather primitve (from 60s-70s) nothing new and old ammunition, does not serve as justification for your claims about super armour

But you used it as example of Burlington, where both are completely separate developments. Both does not have anything in common. There is no point of comparing ot to Burlington or any other type of modern composite armor.

You just belived that nobody will notice this little manipulation, and people with lesser knowledge on the subject will think "oh hey, that stupid Bellarussian shown Burlington perhaps, perhaps he have a point".

Oh and BTW, nobody says that Burlington, Dorchester, HAP or any other armor developed in the west is "super armor".

The only person here claming that there are some super armors is you.

You are also lie to people about armor density, where I in simple example shown this lie of yours.

You think that people here are really that stupid? That they are uncapable to find informations about different materials density or hardness or ductility and then make a simple calculations?

Now think why I do not have any respect to people like you... in the end you have a luck we do not talk in person, long time ago I would kick your fat ass for being a lier.

 

[Damian]

We can even calculate density of armor.

We know the approx thickness of the armor, for turret front it is ~800-900mm, front hull "beak" it is ~650-700mm.

If we assume that armor is made from array that consits layers of 50mm thickness, and each layer is made from a HHS front plate, DU alloy midplate and HHS backplate, we can assume that there is 17 layers of such armor + SHS/HHS outerplate and RHA backplate.

So we can assume density by using a simple data of density.

7,82g/cm2 + 18,6g/cm³ + 7,82g/cm³ = 34,24g/cm³ for a single layer.

The array of 17 50mm HHS-DU-HHS layers will have density of 582,08g/cm³ for turret front.

For the hull front "beak" there is space for 12 HHS-DU-HHS layers + SHS/HHS outerplate and RHA backplate.

The array of 12 50mm HHS-DU-HHS layers will have a density of 410,88g/cm³.

This is for M1A1/M1A2.

Now T-72B.

The turret front have a 20 layers of SHS/HHS-Rubber-SHS/HHS + outer and back plates made from cast steel.

20 layers of SHS/HHS-Rubber-SHS/HHS will have a density of 336,4-354,4g/cm³.

The T-72B front hull glacis plate have approx 5 layers from which 2 are SHS/HHS, 1 is RHA and two are probably rubber.

This means 7,86g/cm³ + 1,1-2g/cm³ + 7,86g/cm³ + 1,1-2g/cm³ + 7,86g/cm³ = 25,78-27,58g/cm³.

So can someone please explain me, how a T-72B armor can be more dense, than a HHS/DU/HHS array from M1A1/M1A2? By which logic? Oh wait I know which logic, the Soviet logic, but the soviet logic is definetely not the common human logic.

This is simple math. And the model for M1A1/M1A2 is even more simple because I do not take in account other possibly used materials, as well as armor array complexcity is not fully known.

Also density is not everything, there is also hardness, but then again. If we assume that the hardness of steel plates used in armor array ranges from 400-450HB, then the number of layers is significant.

M1A1/M1A2:

Turret - 17 HHS/DU/HHS layers so each layer have two HHS plates which means each layer have a combined hardness of 800-900HB * 17 = 13,600-15,300HB.

Front hull "beak" - 12 HHS/DU/HHS - 9,600-10,800HB.

Excluding hardness of DU alloy.

T-72B:

Turret - 20 layers of SHS/HHS-Rubber-SHS/HHS - assuming the same hardness of plates like in case of M1's - 16,000-18,000HB However only if all plates are hit one by one, which due to the filler placement is unlikely at any predictible hit angle. IMHO only 5 layers of filler are likely to be hit by a single projectile during perforation at the hit angle giving better chances of survive for vehicle. Then the combined hardness of all plates in the filler will be - 4,000-4,500HB.

Hull front - 5 layers total, from which 2 are SHS/HHS only - 1,600-1,800HB + smaller hardness from RHA backing plate.

PS. Ups, I made a mistake, not cm2 but cm³, sorry. But it does not change the final result.

 

[Damian]

Ups it seems I made another mistake.

Hull front - 5 layers total, from which 2 are SHS/HHS only - 1,600-1,800HB + smaller hardness from RHA backing plate.

Here it is wrong. The hardness will be smaller. As there are only 2 SHS/HHS plates, then each single one will give 400-450HB, so both will give only 800-900HB + hardness of RHA backplate.

But the conclusion is simple, the T-72B armor (and in the end all T tanks) will have smaller density and hardness value of all layers combined than in case of NATO tanks.

It is based on the known T-72B armor array structure and used materials an on simplified assumed yet most probable armor model for M1A1HA.

The more exact daya for western tanks armor structure, would give more accurate data.

 

[militarysta]

What you do is the same as this

Actually more than half, majority is decent.

Lidsky -I mark areas non coverer by ERA on RED -so what is wrong in those pictures?
Have You ERA casette on mark by red area? Yes or no?

Of course no -area mark by red are not coverd by ERA. So there we have only basic armour, without any ERA. It's all, but it shown how unperfect was frotnal protection T-72B model 1989.

And if You want pyt those funny picture made by Tarasenko -it's old story, here is more accurate draw:

based on smth real:

but it's not the point.
Covered by ERA was very diffrent

But in T-72B model 1989 (not included on the picture) was the worse. In fact APFSDS have great chanse to hit turret without any interaction whit ERA.

Gun mantle by itself is smaller than in Leopard 2,

Yeach sure! All soviet tanks had the same porblem whit coxial MG and gun mouted points (pins?):

Gun mantled mask in Leopard-2 had 420mm thickness and 930mm width. Guna mantled mask area +coaxial MG +gun mounted points in T-xx had from 140 to 480mm thicknes, only cast steel, and width 85cm.
In fact both areas are the same in dimensions, but gan mantled mask in Leo-2 offer better (thicker) protection in the same dimensions, and it's not only cast steel.

on that comparison you include roof parts which are not vulnerable,

Good joke!


In fact those bulging turret roof in T-72 is big, not protected weak area.

and exclude Leopard 2 sight weak zone and others...

What "others", and what "sight weak zone"? In compare to what - T-72B? T-80U? In fact area behind EMES-15 have LOS thickness (65cm) bigger then typical LOS for soviet tanks (55-65cm). So if you want to call aresa behind EMES-15 window "weak zone" then circa half turret in T-72B and T-80U should be "weak zone" too.

Lower roof part is not vulnerable because of ricochet property of DM-33, M829 rounds.

I posted photos -it will be not "ricochet" becouse DM33 and M829 are monoblock rounds, and those rounds do not ricochet so easy. And T-72B and T-72B model1989 turret roof is less slopped then T-80U or western tanks roofs.

More or less it will be penetration like here:

Higher part is, but part covered by Kontakt-5 cannot be defeated because of strong lateral impulse and inclination angle, ricochet.

Increase of thickness RHA and weight in function of angle needed to achieve ricochet of projectile

Yes, wunderwaffe ERA Kontakt-5 will be able to protect against DM33 or M829 when:
a) main armour have only 220-240mm RHA
b) angle will be slighty beter due to penetrator trajectory (angle will be etter for rounds)
c) pdfs from balistic symposium and WITU test shown that ERA (or fast moving plates) will not be able to made ricochet for whole rounds.
In fact turret roof will be penetrated after ERA in that case.

Significant difference is that Western hull armour has lower coefficient against KE and is unable to provide necessary protection as turret. In T-72B, T-80U there is much densier composition + Kontakt-5, which is not possible to give in Western MBT because of weight issues.

And You of course know that western hull have the same composition (type of armour) like turrets? In fact front hull in western MBTs can have difrent armour layout. And only "weight issues" was on est when tanks can't across 45-48t.

There was no single welded turret, it was not new idea. Main developement was NII Stali and UKBTM (ob 187) but it was further developed, so was continous improvement of armour structure. What remained from Soviet heritage is now expended.

Turret from T-90A (Ob188A1/A2) was taken from Ob.187, it's teh same turret developed in ~1983/1984 but rejecte due cost resons. Those turet went for Ob.187 and for later T-84. But turret was developed on Ukrainian developers studios close to Charkiv.

It is similar only superficially, but after experience with Kontakt-5 problems were addresed under R&D programme with extensive data, tests, etc so it is not so simple, And since DM-53 was developed with 1985 armour and 80s ERA, there is not any evidence, less guarantee.

Mehanism of working is the same -of course difrent in action, but whole idea is simmilar. Whole (K-5 and Relikt) mehanism is well known on west. And modern APFSDS penetrator haven't problem whit those kind of ERA.

1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,

In fact 1987-1993 max. But only T-80U was the real problem. T-72B model 1989 include service in 1989 and it's cover by ERA was very unperfect.
So not 1985-1993 becouse it bullshit, but 1987-1994 in T-80U thema, and 1989-1993 in T-72B model 1989. And the second think is rare and poor covered by ERA on T-72B model 1989, so those tank wa't a prolem for western tankers.

No matter what, but anything higher than 700 mm HEAT is unlikely, if you refer to tandem warhead which is the case.

Rather all evidence proof that Burlinghton-style armour in M1IP and Leopard-2A4 provide the possibility of obtaining more than 800-1000mm vs HEAT:
a) technical possibilities Burlinghton armour in that dimensions and weight (armour LOS, and known armour weight)
b) soviet ATGMs penetration values and it's very fast grow in erly 1980s.
c) known fact about AGDUS and it's damage models included in Leopard-2A4 and TOW/HOT (creators of the AGDUS where sure that ATGM whit tandem warhed and with perforation between 800-1000mm RHA is not able to kill Leopard-2A4 after frontal hit)
d) "life test" from ex: ODS when M1A1HA take frontal hit by AGM-144 (more then 1000mm RHA penetation) and there was no perforation.
e) complete lack of any ( well known on west) ERA protection on western IIIgen tanks during whole 1980s.
More or less all evidence proof that Burlinghton amour had circa about 1000mm RHA vs HEAT in late 1980s.

About early super composite armour(...) It is noting special, and do you really think these test results can be applied to 80s ?(...)And modernisation of 1980s has primitive armour(...)So be carefull with claims

Oh,your so silly sometimes...
Those pictures shown Stillbrew armor -it have nothing common whit burlinghton. It completly diffrent story caused by money and weight issuses. It's like armour on Leopard-1A5 which have nothing common whit Leopard-2 armour.

And about this "noting special" in 1968 -show me Soviet armour able to the same protection. Even Kombinacja-K from T-64A had whorse possibilities.
And those small part about very erly Burlinghton from 1968 shown how big was possible protection against HEAT (SC) warhed.

rest late.

 

[hest]

Lidsky -I mark areas non coverer by ERA on RED -so what is wrong in those pictures?
Have You ERA casette on mark by red area? Yes or no?

Of course no -area mark by red are not coverd by ERA. So there we have only basic armour, without any ERA. It's all, but it shown how unperfect was frotnal protection T-72B model 1989.

Yes, but most of uncovered areas are gun mantle, Luna searchlight, etc and having in account weak zones of all MBT can you say it is much worse ? For example surface is more or less analogous to Leopard 2. Point is that it is still majority, and there is great probability of survival, how do you think combat result should look like, tank will be defeated only because always they will hit at vulnerable zone ? It was actually nightmare that numerous tanks could be easily upgraded with ERA which greatly reduced possibilities to defeat. In most case it will be the opposite, and also T-72B was not the only threat neither the most dangerous of Soviet force.

And if You want pyt those funny picture made by Tarasenko -it's old story, here is more accurate draw:
[/URL]

based on smth real:

Militarysta, you do realise that there is gap due to sight placement, but you look only from 0 degrees perspective. How does it look like from 0-35 degrees left ? Side gap is more exposed, and in combination with huge mantle and armour placement it weakens protection of all left frontal arc. Also unprotected turret bustle is exposed from 30 degrees

Just look at example, it shows general idea

And argument about how mantle is thicker does not serve, because in reality we all know that it is vulnerable.

but it's not the point.
Covered by ERA was very diffrent

But in T-72B model 1989 (not included on the picture) was the worse. In fact APFSDS have great chanse to hit turret without any interaction whit ERA.

This is very incorrect, because you consider sloped roof parts ignoring they are designed on purpose to achueve protection, and they are not an issue, T-80U is same as Leopard 2, Abrams glacis to achieve ricochet of projectile.

Just look at article

But I will summarise:

"For modern feathered APFSDS type M111 and M829 ricochet angle is 80 ... 83 ° from normal, corresponding to angle of incidence against side hull of q = 7 ÷ 10 °."

Turret of T-80U, and also of Leopard 2, etc have been designed accordingly

About T-72B, upper part of roof is vulnerable (but not lowest) but there is ERA coverage

"Hull side of modern tank (70-mm homogeneous steel armor + screen with built-in ERA) is protected from APFSDS M829 at q <15 °"

And also you have graphic, increase of steel thickness in function of angle necessary to defeat round (ricochet), number 3 is M829

In T-72B vulnerable roof part is given even lower angle than 15, and covered by ERA (not just screen, but thicker steel plate) so make your conclusion, as long as hit is in protected part, it is defeated by armour.

Yeach sure! All soviet tanks had the same porblem whit coxial MG and gun mouted points (pins?):

It is present in all MBT, but in case of Leopard 2 mantle itself is bigger.

Gun mantled mask in Leopard-2 had 420mm thickness and 930mm width. Guna mantled mask area +coaxial MG +gun mounted points in T-xx had from 140 to 480mm thicknes, only cast steel, and width 85cm.
In fact both areas are the same in dimensions, but gan mantled mask in Leo-2 offer better (thicker) protection in the same dimensions, and it's not only cast steel.

You know in reality it will not protect corresponding ammunition at any normal range, and if according to you it is not only steel, then it can have even lower KE coefficient, which is not surprise because it is big volume to cover only with steel, due to weight.

Good joke!

In fact those bulging turret roof in T-72 is big, not protected weak area.

But this has nothing to do with T-72B turret neither ERA coverage, it is same as if I talk about T-72M...

What "others", and what "sight weak zone"? In compare to what - T-72B? T-80U? In fact area behind EMES-15 have LOS thickness (65cm) bigger then typical LOS for soviet tanks (55-65cm). So if you want to call aresa behind EMES-15 window "weak zone" then circa half turret in T-72B and T-80U should be "weak zone" too.

Sight gap, armour placement which weakens left frontal arc, you have not considered that.

I posted photos -it will be not "ricochet" becouse DM33 and M829 are monoblock rounds, and those rounds do not ricochet so easy. And T-72B and T-72B model1989 turret roof is less slopped then T-80U or western tanks roofs.

You have data, 7-10 angle is enought to cause ricochet with roof armour, T-80U has no such weakeness at all even without necessity of ERA. T-72B is different story but you did not consider Kontakt-5 effect, it is all in article.

Yes, wunderwaffe ERA Kontakt-5 will be able to protect against DM33 or M829 when:
a) main armour have only 220-240mm RHA
b) angle will be slighty beter due to penetrator trajectory (angle will be etter for rounds)
c) pdfs from balistic symposium and WITU test shown that ERA (or fast moving plates) will not be able to made ricochet for whole rounds.
In fact turret roof will be penetrated after ERA in that case.

By themselves not, but it is strong lateral impulse + slope of turret roof, and I have shown sufficient data already.

And You of course know that western hull have the same composition (type of armour) like turrets? In fact front hull in western MBTs can have difrent armour layout. And only "weight issues" was on est when tanks can't across 45-48t.

Frontal projection which requires the most armour, weight is from 1/4 to 1/3 greater than in Soviet tanks, and protection of sides due to manual loader turret design, so it is very great issue. They are just unable for example to have such great part of high density, steel as "T" tanks.

Hull of Western tanks uses analogous composite block as turret, but overall significantly lower thickness, and difference in protection. T-80U, T-72B hull has analogous protection as turret armour (KE) and fully comparable with ERA.

Turret from T-90A (Ob188A1/A2) was taken from Ob.187, it's teh same turret developed in ~1983/1984 but rejecte due cost resons. Those turet went for Ob.187 and for later T-84. But turret was developed on Ukrainian developers studios close to Charkiv.

It is not correct. Protection research is not all performed by design bureau but by specialist institues, implementation is work for tank designers. Welded turrets were not all the same, they envolved over time so we cannot talk about one developement. Intellectual property of Soviet welded turret now belongs to NII Stali mostly, and UKBTM, and of course if you talk about armour structure, it has nothing to do with 80s.

Mehanism of working is the same -of course difrent in action, but whole idea is simmilar. Whole (K-5 and Relikt) mehanism is well known on west. And modern APFSDS penetrator haven't problem whit those kind of ERA.

There is always theoretical knowledge even if you haven't got it built, but developement process is not so easy, to guarantee defeat of late 80s armour it took germans a decade and with actual tests. Developement of Relikt "similar idea" took also great time and with extensive tests and data compilation (and greater study and knowledge about K-5 than anyone else). Now there is deployement of completely new armour structure, turret and ERA, and there is not any certainity that previous expwrience will serve now.

In fact 1987-1993 max. But only T-80U was the real problem. T-72B model 1989 include service in 1989 and it's cover by ERA was very unperfect.
So not 1985-1993 becouse it bullshit, but 1987-1994 in T-80U thema, and 1989-1993 in T-72B model 1989. And the second think is rare and poor covered by ERA on T-72B model 1989, so those tank wa't a prolem for western tankers.

It is from 1985 when T-80U and T-72B entered service and DM-33, M829 appeared not from the start. By time of appearance Kontakt-5 was already deployed.

Oh,your so silly sometimes...
Those pictures shown Stillbrew armor -it have nothing common whit burlinghton. It completly diffrent story caused by money and weight issuses. It's like armour on Leopard-1A5 which have nothing common whit Leopard-2 armour.

And about this "noting special" in 1968 -show me Soviet armour able to the same protection. Even Kombinacja-K from T-64A had whorse possibilities.
And those small part about very erly Burlinghton from 1968 shown how big was possible protection against HEAT (SC) warhed.

I know it is not Burlington, but it was fielded in half of 80s and level is very weak, so even more advanced vehicles, Leopard, Challenger could have very regular protection, and no such exagerations (compared to that they are indeed super armour, but in general not so...) there is description about Burlington, I will write later.

 

[Damian]

I know it is not Burlington, but it was fielded in half of 80s and level is very weak, so even more advanced vehicles, Leopard, Challenger could have very regular protection, and no such exagerations (compared to that they are indeed super armour, but in general not so...) there is description about Burlington, I will write later.

What description of Burlington? Written by the same morons who you use as the source, and who based their opinions on NATO's disinformation?

Not to mention that you have not even slightes idea about materials and their properties.

You said that T-72B armor is densier than NATO tanks armor, I proved on simplified models that it is not, it is simple lie, made by you or someone else who you (oh naive creature) believed.

Same gos for hardness, tensile strenght and so on and on.

It is very easy to check such data and make simplified approximate model and estimation.

So T-72B's armor is neither densier neither have more hardness.

So this argument:

Frontal projection which requires the most armour, weight is from 1/4 to 1/3 greater than in Soviet tanks, and protection of sides due to manual loader turret design, so it is very great issue. They are just unable for example to have such great part of high density, steel as "T" tanks.

Is only your imagination. Did you ever made any effort to calculate this by checking properties of known materials used in the armor array? I doubt it because you believe people who have the best interest to lie and provide false data.

Another simple example. We know that 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package use a combination of steel encased depleted uranium in graphite coating.

It means that DU have additional carbon or graphite fiber.

So we have my simplified calculation of density + hardness + we can add a tensile strenght for these materials.

For example Steel, high strength alloy ASTM A514 have tensile strenght of 690-760MPa, while the graphite fiber have a tensile strenght of 2,500MPa.

I am amazed that you due to your ideology of the false superiority of Russia in technology, you are imprevious to physics!

And more, that you simply lie.

There are many materials densier than steel, hardner than steel, and combined with steel have greater density and hardness than pure steel.

For example a single layer of T-72B turret armor array is less dense than a single layer of M1A1HA armor of both hull and turret.

As a side note, I am 100% sure that even if some country not being Russia, would create a vehicle armor made from CNT and ANDR that both are superior in their properties than any other known material, you would still claim that Russians have superior armor protection based on obsolete steel and ERA... which is hilarious!

And I have more a simplified density of glacis plate of T-64, T-72 and T-80 variants prior 1980's.

We know that they are made mostly from steel and STEF encased between them.

Density of steel is known, it is 7,86g/cm³ x 2 = 3,72g/cm³ + STEF - 1,76g/cm³ x 2 = 3,52g/cm³

3,72g/cm³ + 3,52g/cm³ = 7,24g/cm³ Which is lower density than in case of simplified model of M1A1HA armor for the hull front which would be 7,82g/cm³ + 18,6g/cm³ + 7,82g/cm³ = 34,24g/cm³ for a single layer, a single layer have greater density than a whole hull front of T-64/72/80 prior 1980's period!

Ok let's take it more fair and kick out depleted uranium, we can place there something else, let's take silicon carbide which is claimed to be included in to Burlington.

7,82g/cm³ + 3,1g/cm³ + 7,82g/cm³ = 18,74g/cm³ for a sinle layer.

So a simplified model of Soviet T tanks prior 1980's have a density of 7,24g/cm³ for the whole array and a Burlington would have a density of 18,74g/cm³ for a single layer!

So the density of pure materials just gives edge for NATO vehicles not Soviet ones. It is not that because Lidsky says that Soviet tanks have higher density, it is truth.

If there is someone better than me in matsh and physics, he could calculate the more exact density by using estimated and known weight of the armor modules.

 

[hest]

What description of Burlington? Written by the same morons who you use as the source, and who based their opinions on NATO's disinformation?

It is the same source as used by Polish author on article about Burlington.

Not to mention that you have not even slightes idea about materials and their properties.

You said that T-72B armor is densier than NATO tanks armor, I proved on simplified models that it is not, it is simple lie, made by you or someone else who you (oh naive creature) believed.

Same gos for hardness, tensile strenght and so on and on.

It is very easy to check such data and make simplified approximate model and estimation.

So T-72B's armor is neither densier neither have more hardness.

Damian, you actually forgot the definition of density, mass per volume, not direct material comparison. Semi-active armour only is such when enought space is provided for material deformation and movement of projectile. Even if plates themselves are of high density (they are encased with lowe density material anyway...), they require significant space between, so overall density is less, that is required for weight saving otherwise there is not point to make something less effective than steel, and it is known that composite armour is.

Another point is that densier APFSDS are less vulnerable to such effect than HEAT, same as with ERA but more drastic, so sometimes it is convenient to use more passive form (direct density explotation, increase thickness) by using greater part of steel and placing plates at greater angle as T-72B array, it is depending on necessity, but due to weight there are less options.

 

[Damian]

It is the same source as used by Polish author on article about Burlington.

So it contradicts your silly arguments... besides this is is not the first time you will show how poor is your english.

Damian, you actually forgot the definition of density, mass per volume, not direct material comparison. Semi-active armour only is such when enought space is provided for material deformation and movement of projectile. Even if plates themselves are of high density (they are encased with lowe density material anyway...), they require significant space between, so overall density is less, that is required for weight saving otherwise there is not point to make something less effective than steel, and it is known that composite armour is.

This is a complete nonsense. Because you use as example a primitive soviet solutions. The combined density of all layers is higher in NATO designs than a combined density of armor in Soviet designs, it is simple calculation. As I said, I used simplified model, someone who is better in physics can do a more accurate model based on volume, weight etc. etc. etc.

Besides this, I will make it clear to you. Only because Soviet Army, had a requirement for a vehicle weighting below 50 tons, does not mean others had issues with the vehicle weight. Accept this that Soviet Union, never was leader in science neither in technology, neither in anything, and nobody else needs to accept ridicoulus claims of people from that hilarious country.

Another point is that densier APFSDS are less vulnerable to such effect than HEAT, same as with ERA but more drastic, so sometimes it is convenient to use more passive form (direct density explotation, increase thickness) by using greater part of steel and placing plates at greater angle as T-72B array, it is depending on necessity, but due to weight there are less options.

1) Nobody said that APFSDS is not less vurnable to such protection than HEAT.
2) Convieniant for primitives yes, not for these who seek progress and perfection.
3) NATO didn't had issues with weight, higher vehicle weight was seen as something that can be a sacrifice for greater protection.

Not to mention that density in case of KE protection is not the most important factor. Very important is hardness and tensile strenght.

As I shown NATO experimenting with layers of different materials not only achieve a greater density for each specific layer of armor, but also could achieve greater hardness and greater tensile strenght.

For example greater hardness can be achieved by using such configuration - SHS/HHS + SiC + DU + SHS/HHS or RHA.

It is a very known fact for these who makes armor that very hard ceramics or steel of higher hardness, will have greater efficency if backed up by dense more ductile material, for example depleted uranium, which for additional ductility can be backed up by RHA.

What about tensile strenght, we know that very hard conventional materials like high hardness steel or ceramics have low tensile strenght. But we can improve this by adding in front of DU plate additional layer of graphite fiber.

The strenght of composite armor is in it's composition. It seems that Russians so much focused on ERA and weight reduction, completely forgotten to invest in materials research and development, instead puting money in materials without much future like simple steel and explosives.

And there is something else also, actually the front hull surface where composite armor is placed, is smaller in NATO tanks than surface of glacis plate in T tanks, while their thickness is comparable. Just take a photos or drawings of both designs and compare, so the plates and layers are actually densier in NATO designs.

Not to mention that we actually do not know the thickness of layers in the front armor. I assumed 50mm thick layers for the front armor, but these can be thicker, we do not know this, as we only seen some concept drawings of the Burlington armor development phase, which might be misleading, or fragments of side armor which might have different design.

Oh wait Me and Militarysta seen fragments of Leopard 2 frontal armor, and plates were not that thin.

So density is definetely not smaller.

 

[militarysta]

Militarysta, you do realise that there is gap due to sight placement, but you look only from 0 degrees perspective. How does it look like from 0-35 degrees left ? Side gap is more exposed, and in combination with huge mantle and armour placement it weakens protection of all left frontal arc. Also unprotected turret bustle is exposed from 30 degrees

Just look at example, it shows general idea

Sight gap, armour placement which weakens left frontal arc, you have not considered that.

On fast:





Area in T-80U and Lepard-2A4 for frontal and side degrees is very simiilar -of course if we included EMES-15 gap in Leo-2. Without EMES-15 it's slighty smaller.

rest tomorrow.

 

[hest]

I see how fast. Why don't you consider Kontakt-5 coverage ? And now look at right arc

And for latter models it is even better.

 

[Damian]

Kontakt-5 will not provide enough protection at the weak zone, as it is only cast steel, which is 5-15% weaker than rolled steel, so this weakness needs to be also included. Either way Militarysta is right, weak zone in Leopard 2 is there, but is mostly exaggarated and was more or less limited further after KWS improvements.

Much more serious weak zone have Leclerc, while other NATO tanks like M1 series, Challenger 1, Challenger 2 and C1 Ariete does not have such, as well as Merkava Mk2D, Mk3D and Mk4 does not have such, and some Asian tanks like K1/K1A1, K2, Type 10 and Type 90.

However the biggest problem of T tanks is armor thickness, at angle of 0 degrees it is similiar to NATO tanks, however the close to 30 degrees, the armor thickness of turret is dirastically reduced (to approx +/- 400-500mm) both in case of cast and welded turrets. It is reduced to such level that even if ERA would have a magical effectiveness as you claims, it will not help much. While in case of NATO tanks it is still more than 600-650mm thick, solid composite armor for both front and sides, which have higher density and comparable or higher hardness depending on armor composition.

Also what is important is the probability of hit. As far as I know, Heer calculated that it is what? 8%, 10%, not that much, and also considering poor optics of most of the T tanks. I doubt that you Lidsky, knows how enemy tank look even in good quality optics at 800-1000m, when you have a 10-12x zoom, it is a blob, literally, you just aims at the center of mass and prays that your round will do something, and the spread of rounds also needs to be considered + wind + other factors.

This was also one of the reasons why Americans for long range engagements to improve accuracy as well as targets detection and identification purposes, replaced the old FCS and optics, with new ones that have 25x and 50x max zoom levels. It is a direct lesson from the 1991 Gulf War.

 

[hest]

And Militarysta, consider the following:

-All coverage of Kontakt-5, not just nacked turret
-From 30 degrees, exposure of unprotected turret bustle as additional weakness
-3rd dimension factor, Leopard 2 turret is greater in both width and height, so arc equivalent in 3 dimensions (volume) reality, vulnerable zone of gun mantle and unprotected bustle will be greater even if arc represented here is similar, (and it is not). Mantle is bigger also in height, and exposed bustle.

 

[militarysta]

-All coverage of Kontakt-5, not just nacked turret

It is including in my first draw. Kontakt-5 ERA change nothing in T-72B model 1989 (poor cover by ERA), in T-80U it dosen't change for one simple reson -for 30-35 degree on right turret side LOS is still to small:

<440mm cast steel LOS, give us about 370mm RHA even with Kontakt-5 value in that place do not overcorss 500mm RHA vs KE. I fact both: DM33A1 and M829 have those value as guaranteed on 1300m distance. On Draw this without this place it will be like 3mm shorter right red mark area -so it doesn't change a lot (if change...).
So it was not possible to exclude this area form draw becouse it is weak zone. And few cm on left those area had 380-400mm LOS and smaller.

-From 30 degrees, exposure of unprotected turret bustle as additional weakness

It included in western turret solution.

-3rd dimension factor, Leopard 2 turret is greater in both width and height

Suprise -only in hight. In width is the same/smaller then in T-72B or T-80U

, so arc equivalent in 3 dimensions (volume) reality, vulnerable zone of gun mantle and unprotected bustle will be greater

But the porblem is that they are the same/very simmilar in size:

Sorry but in fact my first draw:

is correct.
I know it may by shock after btvt-Tarasenko propaganda how soviet tanks are "super" and how stupid Germnas developers made "huge weak zones" on Leopard-2 turret, but it's not the truth. In fact developes are not idiots - the aim was to minimlaize weak zones and incarase armour portection. In result weak zones for T-80U and Leopard-2A4 are very simmilar (almoust the same).
Taransenko on btvt and his blog produce many bullshit about Leopard-2 turret and protection - the reason for this was that used, ex-Germnas, Leopard-2 was "deadly danger" for Ukrianian tank industry on many markets. So Taransno generate many, quite smart, bullshit about Leopad-2 and it's protection. On of them (refuted by me) was underestimated turret LOS. So I provide photos whit mesured. Second is weak areas case -and here is the same storry like in LOS case.