Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

80 Leopard-2A5 and 40 Leopard-2A4 from circa 1987r.
116 older polish Leopard-2 will be ugraded.

 

[Damian]

So U Guys r not goin for Leo-2 PL ( in which rhienmetall leo-2 evo is involved) in that upgrade or U will upgrade the new tanks to that level.

No, no, all of our Leopard 2's will be upgraded to Leopard 2PL standard, these currently used and these that are planned to be purchased. However it is still not known what standard will finally be represented by Leopard 2PL, it might be similiar to Evolution or Revolution modernization packages, or it might be closer to Leopard 2A5/A6 or A7 even. Depends on how much money will be spend on it and what offer will be choosen.

80 Leopard-2A5 and 40 Leopard-2A4 from circa 1987r.
116 older polish Leopard-2 will be ugraded.

Seriously, they want to buy Leopard 2A5's?

I have a hunch that Leopard 2PL upgrade might be based on German KWS improvements.

 

[militarysta]

Even if passive it is still considered composite structure (layers of steel, ceramics, space, etc), not homogeneous steel and it is most of volume of Western tanks. In Soviet you have greater use of steel in front and behind of filler.

And this is disadvantage not advantage. Cast steel have constans mass and thicknes effciency, "special armour" both have better then only pasive layers. It's very good visible on vs HEAT (SC) effciency. In that case armour whit bigger "special armur" LOS will be better then armour whit smaller "special armour" cavity.

Issue is that you want to apply it directly to Leopard 2 armour structure, but what you show belongs to a decade after and earlier Leopard 2 armour (1979...1980) does not necessarily has to be that. But you can take estimate for early version, and this kind of structure.

But the problem is that there is no option that those "erly german armour from 1970's" takes whole armou LOS in Leopard-2 case...

And you see by relation between thickness of armour of T-80U, T-72B and HEAT protection.

??? Whats the point? Of course that polymer cels in light alloy cast will be slighty better then some NERA layers...

So important conclusion:
- What is shown is only theoretical estimate and not test result, even without real knowledge about 115 mm ammunition. So it is not true result but only estimation.

No, it's not -this "conclusion" its bullshit becouse whole article about Burlinghton is based on whole files -including other real armour tests. Rest on the bottom of the post.

This is only example, but problem is that we cannot know how it really is because:

1 You take estimates as actual results
2 You try to take it out of context

Im taking only comfirmed test from very decent methodologically article about Burlinghton, or other but the same good, test. Test not "estimates". And im placing it in context. So what is your point? I don't get it...

I will not discuss values. So do I, and you should know as well that you cannot make such simple relation, neither can we be sure about actual performance.

Indeed you can't discuss values becouse those are clearly given in those Burlinghton files:
penetration into RHA is 28 inches (711 mm) for the 152 mm charge and 23 inches (584 mm) for the 127 mm charge.
So there is no point to discuss. Burlinghton was able to protect against 84mm SC form 90.degree and for 30-35. degree whit LOS thickens 400-450mm and hull sides thicknes 100-120mm RHA provide protection against SC (HEAT) warhed 152mm dimatere whit 711mm RHA perforation, so armour LOS (500-570mm) was mucht smaller then SC perforation (711mm RHA). So You claimd was completly wrong.

No, it was not able, it was estimated in best case .

Of course it was. It's again - you are based only on few paper placed on GSPO and Autor based on whole avaible Burlinghton files. And in article it's clearly written:


Translate part 1:
In the second half of the seventies began to pay more attention to the protection against kinetic munitions. "Biscuits" (Burlinhton-milit.) developed for Chieftain mk 5/2 was able to stop 105 mm APDS shot virtually "with relief" (0m distance) or 120 mm APDS from a distance
1200-1300m. In 1975 in the United States, "Americanized" armor was successfully tested against 152 mm XM578 APFSDS munition and HEAT projectiles (unspecified caliber) which represented the expected level of the warhed in 1980s'. The bigger challenge was more modern sub-caliber (APFSDS) ammunition. During one of the tripartite weapon test (UK, FRG, USA about main gun -milit) one APFSDS fired from a German smoothbore 120mm gun overpass on of he "Cobhan" armour variant whit velocity simulating the hit from 6000m distance. Developed heavier version of the armour was however, pierced only from 200m distance.


Translate part 2:

Later, the designers were able to increase the resistance of the modules. At the beginning of 1970, reported: "All technical problems attaching armor so that it have the ability to repel (windstand) many attacks have been overcome. For example, the first module of the front of the hull withstood (survive?): 9 SC warhed attack, including 5 SC whit 152mm caliber (diameter) and 4 whit 127 mm caliber (diameter). Second (Buringhton module -milit) stopped 120mm HESH round, which was followed by many 127mm diameter SC warhed hits. The other (Burlinghton armour module -milit) survive 3 APDS cal.105mm and after that hits (more then two? milit) by 127mm diameter SC." In July 1970 the "biscuit" No. 4 (Burlinghton version -milit) mounted whit some kind of amortisation on 50mm thick RHA plate (front hull) survive multiple hits by: 105mm round from "0m distance", 152mm diameter "žShillelagh" warhed, two SC 152mm dimater test warhed and finnaly 120mm APDS whit velocity like on 1300m distance hit. Ability to protect against multiple attacks has become an important asset, of the "Burlington" armour.

Do you know characteristics of Carl Gustav warhead ?

Yes. And even HEAT FFV 551 have 400 mm armour penetration, so more then I posted. In fact even if British used in 1965 old CarlGustav warhed (from erly 1950's) then still it will be at least 350mm RHA.

I wouldn't be so easy to make estimations without being certain that my data is valid and belongs to context...

Im sure that data given by Paweł Przeździecki article abour Burlinghtonare correct for circa 1978 armour. And if we take these values for knowing data fo Leopard-2A4 then it just must have (of course if armour have the same composition) those 540mm RHA vs KE and more then 1000mm RHA vs HEAT. Of course there is relatio between armour LOS and protection so it seems to be:
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.).

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Just a fun question, why have modern MBTs never been designed with twin main guns?

 

[militarysta]

Just a fun question, why have modern MBTs never been designed with twin main guns?

They are dozens of reson. The most important is diamensions. Tank whole width is limited -ussaly by train transport, and road ransport. Whole tank width (without balistic skirts) shoud allowed to use train platform as transport. So whole tank width have some limit -ussaly it's circa 3,75m.
This problem (max hull width)is importan when we consider place gun in turret. Eacht gun need gun mantled mask, and part when it's mounted to the turret. This whole part have some width which is weak point in all tanks -ussaly 80-95cm width (depend on tank and gun). If You put two guns you have doubled "weak area" width whit still max limited turret width (as hull). Apar that we have problem whit turret ballance, autoloader, place in turret, ammunition rack, etc etc.
So whole idea haven't any sense.

 

[militarysta]

Moved from other topick.

CAWA-2:

CAWA-2 -230mm thick
witness plate 100mm thick
EDIT : in case tandem SC warhed (double HEAT warhed) during test ERAWA- was placed on CAWA-2 module. So propably that's the reson of sucht hight (1000mm RHA) protection becouse layout was:
ERAWA-2 ERA + CAWA-2 module + basic T-72M1 hull armour -whole as 1000mm RHA against double SC warhed.

EDIT-2
On draw:
blue : RHA plates whit more then 300HB scale
brown: ceramic tiles
gray: Kevlar/Twaron layer as layer which "hold" ceramics tiles
light blue: intermediate RHA - layer after Kevlar/Twaron layer.

EDIT-3
CAWA-2 armour mass efficiency is about 1.60 vs APFSDS
CAWA-2 armour thickness efficiency is about 1.16 vs APFSDS

 

[Damian]

Pity that due to economic problems PT-91's never received that armor, it was not only because of armor costs, but because turret armor replacement was not possible (each attempt ended with turret structure damage), and there was need for new, turret welded from rolled plates. There were also other problems with PT-91 modernization program.

 

[313230]

Just a fun question, why have modern MBTs never been designed with twin main guns?

There was a German cold war experiment tank with twin guns

The question is similar to, why they don't design a twin sniper rifle? Why archer don't shot two arrow at the same time? It is a waste of effort, as tank is somehow similar to sniper, first shot, first kill. In armor warfare, one penetrated shot > 10 non penetrated hits, so for every reason you add a second gun, the weight of that gun could be used better to increase the first gun power and accuracy.

 

[militarysta]

I have comfirmed engine lifetimes.
Time to first factory service (lifetime):

V46 - 500-800h
V92S2 - 700h
6TD - 800h
UTD1250 -1000h
AGT-1500 - 700h
AGT-1500 after TIGER -1500h
MB873 - 1500h

In MB873 time to first factory sevice is 1500h. Guaranteed ife time is between 1000 and 4500h. Important - lower value (1000h) is given for engine without eny service (changes of oils, filters etc) and using in very bad conditions.So factory warranty is minimum 1000h for engine without any human interference and used in very heavy conditions (desert, etc). Value 4500h is given for typical Europe climate and for engine whit periodic replacement of supplies (oils, filters, etc).


And time to replace engine/power-pack in tanks:

Leopard-2 - MB873 -15min (PP)
Leopard-2 EuroPower-Pack MB883 - 35min (PP)
M1 Abrams - AGT-1500 - 40min (PP)
Lelerc - V8X - 25min (PP)
Challenger-2 - (Perkins Condor?) - 25min (PP)
T-72 - V46, V84 - 15h (engine only -LOL)
T-84 - 6TD - 15h (in Oplot-M 1,5h) (infirst case engine only, in second whole block -it's not typical pp)
T-90 - V92S2 - 2h (120min) (engine only!)
T-80U - GTD - 1h 40min (gas turbine only!)

 

[average american]

Sensor Fuzed Weapon - 1000 Pound Smart Cluster Bomb - YouTube Are you sure you want to be in a tank in the 21st century.

 

[militarysta]

Yes, 84mm EFP can by easly stopped by this:

Here is visible thickness:

Those Arkes armour was meade (propably whit small IBD support) aginst EFP and HEAT bomblets and "smart munitions". And the thread was not funny 84mm EFP Skeet but 155mm EFP from BONUS round.

Agains small caliber bomblets solution is even simpler:

Korean countr-EFP roof ERA:

Polish ERAWA-2 ERA have lower abilities but still it can reduce EFP penetration up to 94% (EFP 85mm diameter, angle of hit 60 degree)

 

[Dejawolf]

I have comfirmed engine lifetimes.
Time to first factory service (lifetime):

V46 - 500-800h
V92S2 - 700h
6TD - 800h
UTD1250 -1000h
AGT-1500 - 700h
AGT-1500 after TIGER -1500h
MB873 - 1500h

In MB873 time to first factory sevice is 1500h. Guaranteed ife time is between 1000 and 4500h. Important - lower value (1000h) is given for engine without eny service (changes of oils, filters etc) and using in very bad conditions.So factory warranty is minimum 1000h for engine without any human interference and used in very heavy conditions (desert, etc). Value 4500h is given for typical Europe climate and for engine whit periodic replacement of supplies (oils, filters, etc).


And time to replace engine/power-pack in tanks:

Leopard-2 - MB873 -15min (PP)
Leopard-2 EuroPower-Pack MB883 - 35min (PP)
M1 Abrams - AGT-1500 - 40min (PP)
Lelerc - V8X - 25min (PP)
Challenger-2 - (Perkins Condor?) - 25min (PP)
T-72 - V46, V84 - 15h (engine only -LOL)
T-84 - 6TD - 15h (in Oplot-M 1,5h) (infirst case engine only, in second whole block -it's not typical pp)
T-90 - V92S2 - 2h (120min) (engine only!)
T-80U - GTD - 1h 40min (gas turbine only!)

values for the continental AVDS-1790 of the M60: 5000 miles/350 hours.

 

[JBH22]

Syrian tankman gives an interview about the T-72AV

 

[SPIEZ]

Syrian tankman gives an interview about the T-72AV

I m sure our tank experts should come calling with their own designs, very soon.

 

[Akim]

We discussed at the Russian forum of this video. Pretty detailed few shortcomings.

 

[Damian]

Well definetely the problem is how ERA is mounted on side skirts, I agree that Ukrainian solution with frame for ERA is better and prevents loss of most of ERA cassettes during movement in difficult terrain.

 

[Akim]

Well definetely the problem is how ERA is mounted on side skirts, I agree that Ukrainian solution with frame for ERA is better and prevents loss of most of ERA cassettes during movement in difficult terrain.

At the T-64BV the ERA is fixed rigidly to the frame, but can still break away in the narrow streets. For the 46-ton machine, it is virtually no difference.

 

[Damian]

Yes I know, but in the end frame seems to be better idea.

 

[Akim]

Yes I know, but in the end frame seems to be better idea.

I agree. In General the location of the protection of carefully better. But Syria tanker said that often lose their skirts on the streets of the town.

 

[SPIEZ]

Yes I know, but in the end frame seems to be better idea.

Ya, but one will ask how?

Anyways leave it.