Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Ya, but one will ask how?

The standard ERA mounting on T-72 series, is to directly mount ERA cassettes to the rubber skirts by use of screws. This is not very solid and skirts tend to be damaged when hitting some obstacles.

Frame is more solid, and gives more solid attachement for ERA cassettes.

You can compare.

At the first look T-64BV and T-72B have similiar attachement of ERA on side skirts, however in reality.

T-64BV use a solid frame to mount ERA, while in case of mounting ERA directly on to rubber skirts, can result in damage and loss of ERA cassettes.

Even western tanks use solid frames to have ERA mounted.



This is American M19 ARAT ERA, as you can see ERA cassettes are mounted in a solid frame and have additional protection, so they won't be that easy to rip off the frame in case of hitting obstacle during manouvering. Also the frame itself is mounted to solid metal side skirts.

Challenger 2 with it's original up armor kit. As we can see ROMOR-A ERA is mounted on front hull inside a solid frame bolted to the hull front.

Challenger 2 with TES(H) up armor kit, as we can see to the solid side skirts, ERA is directly bolted on.

So it is rather a world wide conception to mount ERA in a more solid way, to prevent damage.

 

[Akim]

In the T-72 is "biting" side skirts because of the large diameter of the skating . In Chechnya, the three sections are not secured by bolts. A Western models, when will show themselves in combat, then we can compare. Of course, this is not a Syrian fought on other tanks except the T-55 and T-72. If he had such an opportunity in the intersection of the two schools, as for example, in Poland and Egypt, then he could compare.

 

[Damian]

A Western models, when will show themselves in combat, then we can compare.

Tanks I shown here (M1 and Challenger 2) fought in war, I have plenty of photos as well as several publications, there is no visible significant damage to skirts or ERA on any of these photos, besides of course damage made by enemy projectiles.

If he had such an opportunity in the intersection of the two schools, as for example, in Poland and Egypt, then he could compare.

As far as I remember, we had similiar problems with our PT-91 and their ERA on side skirts.

 

[Akim]

As far as I remember, we had similiar problems with our PT-91 and their ERA on side skirts.

I spoke of the opinion of the Syrians, that he liked this tank.

Tanks I shown here (M1 and Challenger 2) fought in war, I have plenty of photos as well as several publications, there is no visible significant damage to skirts or ERA on any of these photos, besides of course damage made by enemy projectiles.

And what about the fighting in the city there are the only «Western» tank, which they attended - is an Israeli Merkava, which is not very proved itself to these conditions.
In at a minimum, not better than the syrian T-72M1.

 

[Damian]

And what about the fighting in the city there are the only «Western» tank, which they attended - is an Israeli Merkava, which is not very proved itself to these conditions.

American and British tanks fighted in a cities like Baghdad and Basra. General conclusion was very positive, and with TUSK and TES(H) kits, damage rate decreased and survivability increased. I seen some photos of M1 tanks with TUSK after shaped charges and EFP attacks, despite obvious damage, tanks got back to bases on their own, and there were no crew casualties.



Example, we have multiple hits, I don't know what it was but despite detonation of 4 (or more) ERA cassettes, tank was ok and was capable to get back to base on it's own.

 

[volna]

Syrian tankman gives an interview about the T-72AV

Does the air system means the air intake for engine?

 

[volna]

I let myself to slighty improved Dejawolf 3D Leopard-2A4 modell:

misty idea about Leopard-2A0/A1 armour

Very interesting!
Any idea on the glacis armor of Leo-2 and other modern western tanks?
Thanks!

 

[Damian]

Does the air system means the air intake for engine?

I think not, it probably means air pipes from air intakes to crew compartment.

Very interesting!
Any idea on the glacis armor of Leo-2 and other modern western tanks?
Thanks!

Few explanations, In Leo2 and M1 glacis armor is a steel armor 50mm thick extremely inclined so it's thickness for projectiles is around 400mm (in M1 glacis have additional protection from fuel tanks and later Leo2's have additional NERA installed) also due to angle, glacis plate have very small surface thus is small and difficult to hit.

The composite armor is however placed as a module on the lower front hull plate also known as "beak". And it should have similiar composition as turret front. It's thickness is approx 600-650-700mm.

Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 have the opposite, composite armor is placed in glacis plate and lower front hull "beak" is made from approx 100mm steel plate.

Leclerc is somewhat similiar to Challenger 1 & 2.

 

[volna]

Is the western style composite armor hard to used on the high slope glacis armor such as Russian T-64/72/80,due to its thickness?

 

[Damian]

I think the problem is not thickness, this thickness can be adjusted. It was probably a tradeoff, because glacis plate was inclined in such a way, that it present a small target, difficult to hit, it was decided to reduce it in M1 and Leopard 2, for weight savings, afterall both tanks originally were planned as 54-55 tons class.

It was also different concept, because glasis plate was a small target, and lower front hull "beak" had been exposed, it was a more logical plate to put composite armor. In the end it seems to be better decision, where M1's in Iraq hit in "beak" plate by RPG-29 survived, and Challenger 2 had been penetrated, this is why newest up armor kit for Challenger 2, includes similiar bolt on armor module for front hull "beak".

There were of course more reasons, if I am correct, I think that Germans got to conclusion that a simple block of composite armor offers greater mass of armor in path or projectile than a sloped design, this is why tanks like Leo2 or M1 does not have extremely sloped armor for turret and hull, it is still sloped but not extremely as I said.

The Leclerc have also composite armor in glacis plate not lower front hull "beak", althouth how the whole array is designed is a point of discussion in tanks enthusiasts community circles.

Also take a note that Soviet Object 187 had different front hull design, more similiar to tanks like Leopard 2 or M1, later I will show you some good photos that I have, just let me scan them.

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



Promised photos, take a look, some of prototypes have western style hull front. Author of article that talk with Russian sources, says in article that such design was choosen for most of prototypes because it offered greater protection and did not had exposed weak zone like classic glacis design inherited from T-64.

It was also said in article that classic glacis design had a such weakness that welds when hit tended to break and projectiles during tests often were able to get inside vehicle interior. Authors says that this problem was with the upper welds when glacis meet hull roof, where driver hatch is.

As far as I know, there are approx 6 prototypes in Kubinka, 4 are with western style front hull, one have more classic front hull with build in ERA, and one have similiar glacis design but with modular ERA.

 

[volna]

Very good viewpoint,Damian!
I also think that the western style front hull is the most common design in the current.
BTW,I have some follow-on questions:
Is the Leo-2A4 the 1st tank fitted with NERA armor?
Does the original Chobham Armour contains NERA layers?

 

[Damian]

I do not think that Leopard 2 was the first tank fitted with such armor. The Burlington armor (you call it Chobham) as far as we know had been developed as NERA like array, however the fact is that Burlington codename do not reffers to one specific armor type but is a codename of a R&D program that resulted in different types of armors. We still do not know what type of armor was finally use by the British, Americans and Germans. And believe me there were plenty of different variants, one even with build in to structure ERA.

So I think that the first tanks fitted with NERA like armor, were the made in UK, Burlington test rigs based on Chieftain.

 

[methos]

Leclerc is somewhat similiar to Challenger 1 & 2.

I don't think that in the Leclerc the glacis is covered by composite armour and not the lower hull. The original Leclercs from series 1 had thinner glacis armour, which was thickened on later models. I don't think that this would be necessary if the glacis was covered by (semi-modular) composite armour.

Is the western style composite armor hard to used on the high slope glacis armor such as Russian T-64/72/80,due to its thickness?

It is not. The early T-72B, T-80U and the late T-72B already show that more complex multi-layered armour is possible in the Soviet glacis design. The thickness of their glacis armour is very similar to the thickness of the hull armour of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams.

Is the Leo-2A4 the 1st tank fitted with NERA armor?
Does the original Chobham Armour contains NERA layers?

The Leopard 2A4 is definetly not the first tank with NERA, because the previously posted drawings show a combination of Leopard 2A4 armour and an early NERA array from the 1970s.
The first Leopard 2 tank with the box-shaped turret (i.e. the first with more modern composite armour) was the Leopard 2 prototype T14 mod. from 1974/75.
Prior to this the Germans already employed a different type of NERA on the Leopard 1A1A1 and Jaguar 1, which consits of rubber-coated steel plates mounted flexibly in a spaced configuration on rubber-coated bolts. When the armour is hit, it will move closer to the turret, forcing the bolts to compress. When the rubber decompresses (after reaching the maximum point of compression), it forces the armour plates to "jump back" into the path of the projectile (like spring coils). According to German literature this armour offered in combination with the base armour protection against small RPGs and HEAT ammunition (RPG-7 and BMP-1 ammunition).
Most people here believe that Chobham (or more correctly Burlington) armour is heavily relying on NERA. This armour was in development since the mid/late-1960s, but besides that not much is clear about it's exact history or configuration.
But there are many other types of armour which might be NERA and are possibly older than Burlington. E.g. if glass is sandwiched between steel plates and this sandwhich is set at an angle, it also will have some "bulging-effect" making it some kind of NERA (not as good as steel-rubber-steel, but still something). The U.S. had a type of armour known as "Silaceous Core Armour" which used a glass-like material between steel plates - it could be that this armour had a minor NERA effect, however it also could have been purely passive armour. In the same sense some people believe that the T-72A (which has afaik similar armour as the T-64B) used a type of silicate in the turret, which also could have some bulging performance (afaik this was mentioned in an older issue of the ARMOR magazine).

 

[Damian]

I don't think that in the Leclerc the glacis is covered by composite armour and not the lower hull. The original Leclercs from series 1 had thinner glacis armour, which was thickened on later models. I don't think that this would be necessary if the glacis was covered by (semi-modular) composite armour.

Well, there are different concepts of how front hull armor of Leclerc is made, although none of them are official.

As for the NERA part, we should not to forget the BDD armor for T-54/55 and T-62 series. However there are still some issues with this armor, some claims that photos showing BDD are not showing the exact BDD used on vehicles in combat units but is sort of "maskirovka".

 

[hest]

It is not. The early T-72B, T-80U and the late T-72B already show that more complex multi-layered armour is possible in the Soviet glacis design. The thickness of their glacis armour is very similar to the thickness of the hull armour of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams.

Steel percentage only increased with the evolution of this armour in relation with fillers, structure is different though it was good composite array.

The Leopard 2A4 is definetly not the first tank with NERA, because the previously posted drawings show a combination of Leopard 2A4 armour and an early NERA array from the 1970s.
The first Leopard 2 tank with the box-shaped turret (i.e. the first with more modern composite armour) was the Leopard 2 prototype T14 mod. from 1974/75.
Prior to this the Germans already employed a different type of NERA on the Leopard 1A1A1 and Jaguar 1, which consits of rubber-coated steel plates mounted flexibly in a spaced configuration on rubber-coated bolts. When the armour is hit, it will move closer to the turret, forcing the bolts to compress. When the rubber decompresses (after reaching the maximum point of compression), it forces the armour plates to "jump back" into the path of the projectile (like spring coils). According to German literature this armour offered in combination with the base armour protection against small RPGs and HEAT ammunition (RPG-7 and BMP-1 ammunition).

Issue is that NERA can be too broad definition. There are few compositions which do not have any semi-active effect, even seemingly passive structures give it to some degree (even two steel plates). What should make the difference is the degree of optimisation. Proper NERA did not appear until significant advancement was done in 70s to 80s with well studied bulging effect, fillers, quasi liquid behaviour... Armour which great deal of protection increase is given by such effect.

Most people here believe that Chobham (or more correctly Burlington) armour is heavily relying on NERA. This armour was in development since the mid/late-1960s, but besides that not much is clear about it's exact history or configuration.
But there are many other types of armour which might be NERA and are possibly older than Burlington. E.g. if glass is sandwiched between steel plates and this sandwhich is set at an angle, it also will have some "bulging-effect" making it some kind of NERA (not as good as steel-rubber-steel, but still something). The U.S. had a type of armour known as "Silaceous Core Armour" which used a glass-like material between steel plates - it could be that this armour had a minor NERA effect, however it also could have been purely passive armour. In the same sense some people believe that the T-72A (which has afaik similar armour as the T-64B) used a type of silicate in the turret, which also could have some bulging performance (afaik this was mentioned in an older issue of the ARMOR magazine).

Chobham and Burlington are two different things. Burlington is early structure employing angled, spaced plates maybe of aluminium, overall light material and screen effect. Chobham appeared later under different requirements and employed ceramics, not so bulging design.

As for the NERA part, we should not to forget the BDD armor for T-54/55 and T-62 series. However there are still some issues with this armor, some claims that photos showing BDD are not showing the exact BDD used on vehicles in combat units but is sort of "maskirovka".

It is good example of NERA involving reflection and incidence of waves created by projectile in polyurethane acting as liquid, and at same time bulges created by these waves to steel layers.

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

According to a French tanker from TankNet the newer Leclerc series 2 and 3 (XXI) tanks have a glacis armor scheme similar to this:

.

 

[Damian]

Chobham and Burlington are two different things. Burlington is early structure employing angled, spaced plates maybe of aluminium, overall light material and screen effect. Chobham appeared later under different requirements and employed ceramics, not so bulging design.

There is no such thing like Chobham armor separate to Burlington program. Chobham is just a generic codename made by someone for the one of armor types developed under Burlington program, just like Americans give their own codename Starflower.

But in non known document, there is such codename.

In UK follow on to Burlington was Dorchester, in USA it was Heavy Armor Package but it's real codename does not exists or at least it is not known to general public. Some like Paul Lakowski speculated that HAP might be a US offspring from Dorchester.

According to a French tanker from TankNet the newer Leclerc series 2 and 3 (XXI) tanks have a glacis armor scheme similar to this:

I would be carefull, watching some photos I think, in the end it might be similiar to M1 and Leo2... hmmm

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

The armor scheme for Leclerc S2 and S3 summed up:

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Here are some pictures of the changes to turret front of the Leclerc over the years (S1, S2 and XXI) - Much thanks to DarkLabor:

 

[Damian]

Well, Darklabor is definetely reliable source of information when it comes to Leclerc. Also I know that there was a book written by one of Leclerc designers, pity it is difficult to get, it could definetely shed some light on the vehicle protection design.

As for these graphics, photos and drawings, they are still not showing how the front hull armor is arranged.