Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[STGN]

@militarysta
If this is not NERA then what is it called?

Thank you I was able to find the photos of the M1A1HC via google. still need that M1A2 though.
Yeah I know those photos from primeportal.
@Damian If the springs are not capable of holding the array against the outer plate then why are they there?
STGN

 

[Damian]

@STGN IMHO springs are there to add flexibility for NERA array. If these hollow "bolts" are inserted in to holding openings in aray placed deeper in to cavity, this array can be less flexible, more solid, made from something more complex than NERA array. Additional springs giving a more movement capability for NERA array, might increase it's protective capability, because besides movement of the NERA elements alone, the whole aray starts to move, thus for example such solution can increase the yaw of penetrator or such things.

Of course the question is how the array placed deeper would look like, but if it looks like on my drawing, it gives a more options for possible configuration, for example on my drawing you can adjust a number of layers for the deeper placed array.

 

[methos]

You know explosions tend to bend thin metal.
Logic stops where measurement begins.

If the explosion came from the armour, then it would bend the armour in this way. And no, you didn't measure anything by yourself on the real tank, so saying "---- logic, let's take a look at my model" does not work.

Thought you would say as much. See you don't have an eye for detail, well I guess detail that show that you are wrong.
Now heres a clear picture for you:

Can your logic see what this means? or do I have to explain that too?

Let me give you a very clear picture for you (even though it's just a roughly made sketch):

The details of whom you assumed would proof me wrong, actually match pretty much with what I was saying.

Maybe because he doesn't really want to reveal practical thickness. Saying 2 foot is not really super accurate. Also my number was for the right side the left side is 600mm.

He was talking about the original M1 which wasn't even in service with the army anymore when he wrote his book. And are you claiming that both sides have different armour thickness? That really sounds like a senseful design...

Also you know there is a difference between hatch size and the size of the hole for the CWS installation.

I am aware of this fact.

Ever heard of simplifying a text to make short and understandable? also as the commanders hatch hole is not round which distance is the 17" is it along the length or the width of the tank?

Width is width. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.

And P. Matthews CAD drawing doesn't give 19" it gives 23" for loader hole and 31.6" for CWS installation hole, how did you get that number?

The values for the holes are 17 and 19 inches on sheet 10 of 13. Distance to the turret wall is 27 inches.
Btw: You can easily see on CATTB document that the values given there are not for the hatch hole, but for the complete cupola. P. Matthews CAD shows also that the armour ends in front of the gunner's main sight.

 

[STGN]

Oh boy you gotta be kidding this is so

If the explosion came from the armour, then it would bend the armour in this way. And no, you didn't measure anything by yourself on the real tank, so saying "---- logic, let's take a look at my model" does not work.

Great another pictures lie argument. You and few others can make a club "the photo deniers club". I didn't make a model first and then made measurements on it. I found data and made estimations on photos then i made the model.

Let me give you a very clear picture for you (even though it's just a roughly made sketch):

The details of whom you assumed would proof me wrong, actually match pretty much with what I was saying.

No it just proved you incapable of either being honest or doing observation. Look at the GPS see its got a edge/lip going around it just beneath the "windows" from my estimations of pictures that edge/lip is 1.5" wide and 1.5" deep, so here already we have added 1.5" till the distance you said was the end of the armor. Oh and BTW that edge helps make an air tight seal together with that black stuff we see on the image you carefully chose to forget. Yeah I can draw lines that have similar ratios to each other, on to different photos too. What you don't know is that the GPS is not the same width above and below the edge/lip so your drawing complete BS. now another point is that its 1.5" deep so that adds at least 1.5" on top of the edge we see in the internal photos which means that the corner is deeper down in the turret that it might look. this in tern means that the armor is thicker because of the angel it comes up at.

He was talking about the original M1 which wasn't even in service with the army anymore when he wrote his book. And are you claiming that both sides have different armour thickness? That really sounds like a senseful design...

Well when you know the armor LOS thickness of the old one its not hard to figure out the new one. He has written several books on the subject which one are you talking about? I am claiming that the armor array are different from side to side, the right on being thicker to offset the lesser angel of slope, the frontal LOS of both sides are equal.
Whether you think a design is senseful or not, is irrelevant to determining how it really is.

I am aware of this fact.

Then whats the argument about?

Width is width. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.

So if I laid a piece of paper(say 20x10cm) in front of you with the 20cm edge facing you, you would say the paper is 20cm wide and 10cm long?

The values for the holes are 17 and 19 inches on sheet 10 of 13. Distance to the turret wall is 27 inches.
Btw: You can easily see on CATTB document that the values given there are not for the hatch hole, but for the complete cupola. P. Matthews CAD shows also that the armour ends in front of the gunner's main sight.

So you don't know how to read blueprints that is not what it means. it means that one hole is 17" of center and the other is 19" of center. and if you actually used the scale you get ~23" and ~31.6" diameters of the holes.
When did I say the hatch was 31.75? I was arguing that the hole for the CWS is 31.75" in diameter.
And no the CAD doesn't show that. It shows where the chimney for the GPS begins, go back to the third quot by you in this post and read again.

Your opinion on the subject is duly noted and ignored. Because you don't know how to read blueprints. You cherry pick photos you think support your opinion, only to show your ignorance. You worship people who write books, a bit too much, so much in fact you are unwilling to put their claims to the test. And my felling is that you are doing this on purpose and not from ignorance.
STGN

 

[STGN]

Let me give you a very clear picture for you (even though it's just a roughly made sketch):

The details of whom you assumed would proof me wrong, actually match pretty much with what I was saying.

Heres a illustration of your fault.

STGN

 

[methos]

 

[Damian]

May I only place here one argument.

On the interior photo showing GPS "chimney", there is a shadow, I do not think that plate is bented there, on the turret roof the weld is made such way because it was easier to weld turret roof and that part of roof where GPS chimney is, is more solid.

 

[methos]

Oh boy you gotta be kidding this is so

At least I am not trolling like you.

No it just proved you incapable of either being honest or doing observation.

No arguments, start ad hominem?

Look at the GPS see its got a edge/lip going around it just beneath the "windows" from my estimations of pictures that edge/lip is 1.5" wide and 1.5" deep, so here already we have added 1.5" till the distance you said was the end of the armor.

The edge which extends above the sight channel is completely covered under the GPS cover and this is taken into account. Take a look at the images you posted. The sight without the edge extending over the armour (for allowing the installation via bolts/screws) is about the same size as the sight channel (illustrated via the yellow line in the sketch). The blue line starts at the point where the sight without the edge extending over the armour is meeting the yellow line. So much avout me "incapable of being honest".

What you don't know is that the GPS is not the same width above and below the edge/lip so your drawing complete BS.

It is actually slightly larger:

But given the fact that you simply ignore everything what speaks against your 3-D model, you won't accept anything I say.

So if I laid a piece of paper(say 20x10cm) in front of you with the 20cm edge facing you, you would say the paper is 20cm wide and 10cm long?

That's a very stupid comparasion, since the turret got a directions like a front. The length and the width of the turret are thus fixed measurements.

So you don't know how to read blueprints that is not what it means. it means that one hole is 17" of center and the other is 19" of center.

You are right, I did a mistake there in the haste of answering. But that doesn't change the two reports providing other (nearly identical) values which match with the scale drawings from Hunnicutt, FAS, Hilmes, etc.

Btw:

Pespective aside, the turret is clearly too long.

 

[Damian]

@methos, the turret on a real tank is not perfectly at 12 o clock like on 3d model, this can cause visual confusion.

Also photographs is not perfectly from the side, but is at angle.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Every tank armour has weakness including leopard and m1a2. even the (9M14-2T Serbian Yugoimport SDPR Malyutka-2T SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s) which is an improved version of a wire guided anti tank projectile of soviet union in which originally entered service in 60's is enought to penetrate the frontal armour of leopard2a7,m1a2sep,challenger 2 and other mbt(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K11_Malyutka).so do we conclude that these western mbt have 80's technology?also every country boasts it's mbt,aircrafts,ships tanks,special forces are better than others.even chinese blogger's claim that the frontal armour of their type 99g is 1200 mm against ke and it's main gun 125mm can have a max barrel velocity of 1780m/s and it it's new rounds can penetrate 960mm rha,it is powered by a 2100hp engine.if we take these chinese claim with a pinch of salt then same should be the case of western mbt's who biggest acheivement is to defeat some t-72 tanks in GW1 AND OP IRAQI FREEDOM and some insurgents firing rpg-7 and rpg29.

 

[Damian]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Every tank armour has weakness including leopard and m1a2. even the (9M14-2T Serbian Yugoimport SDPR Malyutka-2T SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s) which is an improved version of a wire guided anti tank projectile of soviet union in which originally entered service in 60's is enought to penetrate the frontal armour of leopard2a7,m1a2sep,challenger 2 and other mbt(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K11_Malyutka).so do we conclude that these western mbt have 80's technology?also every country boasts it's mbt,aircrafts,ships tanks,special forces are better than others.even chinese blogger's claim that the frontal armour of their type 99g is 1200 mm against ke and it's main gun 125mm can have a max barrel velocity of 1780m/s and it it's new rounds can penetrate 960mm rha,it is powered by a 2100hp engine.if we take these chinese claim with a pinch of salt then same should be the case of western mbt's who biggest acheivement is to defeat some t-72 tanks in GW1 AND OP IRAQI FREEDOM and some insurgents firing rpg-7 and rpg29.

You write a lot of BS. Not to mention that what I marked, are just lies, and believe me, I closely watched the events and had informations from reliable sources, what you write here is just not truth. You should educate yourself.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

You write a lot of BS. Not to mention that what I marked, are just lies, and believe me, I closely watched the events and had informations from reliable sources, what you write here is just not truth. You should educate yourself.

you are full of bs as i have read many of your posts and there is zero amount of worthwhile information in it as most of it is not backed by credible sources.also i don't know which part you don't agree.regarding sagger atgm information can be obtained from wikipaedia page of 9k11 malyukta atgm .regarding hybrid armour click on this link(http://geneva-globaldefence.blogspot.in/2010/12/indias-drdo-readies-hybrid-armour-for.html) regarding type 99g mbt click on this link(China new tank is a M-1 Killer? | The Few Good Men).regarding engaging tanks which are not t-72 by western mbt every kid in the world knows it.

 

[STGN]

Just goes to show you don't understand my position at all and have a wrong understanding of the internal structure of the tank, you seem to live in a 2D world when you should be thinking 3D, I originally though the same as you but its wrong I will be back to show you why. BRB
STGN

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@shuvo@y2k10

even the (9M14-2T Serbian Yugoimport SDPR Malyutka-2T SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s) which is an improved version of a wire guided anti tank projectile of soviet union in which originally entered service in 60's is enought to penetrate the frontal armour of leopard2a7,m1a2sep,challenger 2 and other mbt

No, it's not. 1000mm RHA vs HEAT was achive in western tank in half of the 1980s.
If You are interested - in orgins of the Burlinghton there is descripsion test whit very erly burlinghton armour module:




And notice that for 90. degree HEAT diametr 84mm (SC) - so with perforation around 340-380mm RHA in those years - was stopped by: 203cm LOS thick erly Burlinghton module, and only ~50mm RHA (hull sides). In fact only Burlinghton module provide protction like (Carl Gustav warhed rforation - hull sides) ~290-330mm RHA.
For 30-35 degree the same module whit LOS thickens 400-450mm and hull sides thicknes 100-120mm RHA provide protection against SC (HEAT) warhed 152mm dimatere whit penetration into RHA is 28 inches (711 mm) for the 152 mm SC.
Notice that we are talking about 1960s.
As I said for middle 1980's it was near 1000mm RHA vs HEAT warhed. Propably in half of the 1990 it's about ~1600mm RHA vs HEAT.

even chinese blogger's claim that the frontal armour of their type 99g is 1200 mm against ke and it's main gun 125mm can have a max barrel velocity of 1780m/s and it it's new rounds can penetrate 960mm rha

And those values for Chineese tanks are dumb as sh!t it just bullshit unable to achive now in China. It;s obvious for all person interested in tank industry and modern MBTs technology.

nother thing is even though arjun has much better top armour protection than t-90 so it can defeat tandem warhead of top attack munitions to a certain extend.but specifically for this purpose hemrl has developed some kind of hybrid armour which can drive back tandem warheads as well as KE projectiles)

What? I beg You pardon about what armour You are talking?
This:




?

And if You want find smth close to the Nag just find those pdf in google:

Inconsistent Performance of a Tandem-shaped Charge Warhead
S. Harikrishnan and K.P.S. Murthy
Armament Research and Development Establishment, Pashan, Pune -411021

from that pdf:

3. INCONSISTENT PERFORMANCE OF TANDEM
WARHEAD
Shaped-charge jet emanating from precursor charge
initiates the ERA. Main charge is initiated after certain time
delay when the debris of detonated ERA is cleared from
the main charge jet path. As per one dimensional codes
based on generalised PER theory, the expected penetration
of warhead is 800 mm after defeating ERA. However, penetration
recorded on the target was inconsistent varying from 260
mm to 750 mm. Crater formed at the entry of target was
elongated. It was also noticed that when the warhead registers
its intended penetration, elongated craters are not observed.
Data from various tests are reported in Table 1.

 

[Damian]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

you are full of bs as i have read many of your posts and there is zero amount of worthwhile information in it as most of it is not backed by credible sources.also i don't know which part you don't agree.regarding sagger atgm information can be obtained from wikipaedia page of 9k11 malyukta atgm .regarding hybrid armour click on this link(Global Defence: India's DRDO develops hybrid armour for tanks) regarding type 99g mbt click on this link(China new tank is a M-1 Killer? | The Few Good Men).regarding engaging tanks which are not t-72 by western mbt every kid in the world knows it.

You should start to read proffesional books, scienfitic articles and such sources written by respected authors, not some silly blogs that can be written by anyone.

Such blogs are good for majority of poorly educated human population, not people that actually want to gain knowledge.

 

[STGN]

At least I am not trolling like you.

Sure feels like you are, waddling in distortions and illogical conclusions. I am not trolling, I am ridiculing you, there a difference.

No arguments, start ad hominem?

So you have no arguments and you misunderstand "ad hominem".

The edge which extends above the sight channel is completely covered under the GPS cover and this is taken into account. Take a look at the images you posted. The sight without the edge extending over the armour (for allowing the installation via bolts/screws) is about the same size as the sight channel (illustrated via the yellow line in the sketch). The blue line starts at the point where the sight without the edge extending over the armour is meeting the yellow line. So much avout me "incapable of being honest".

Thats nice qoute mining, but not really what I said now is it? And still your flawed logic lives in a 2D world.

It is actually slightly larger:

http://www.campatterbury.in.ng.mil/Portals/3/images/Autumn and Winter 2011/111101-A-PX072-120.jpg
But given the fact that you simply ignore everything what speaks against your 3-D model, you won't accept anything I say.

Its great that you can realize that its larger on top can you also realize why your drawing then is wrong?

That's a very stupid comparasion, since the turret got a directions like a front. The length and the width of the turret are thus fixed measurements.

No its not, you just refuse to consider that you are wrong in your previous assumption.

You are right, I did a mistake there in the haste of answering. But that doesn't change the two reports providing other (nearly identical) values which match with the scale drawings from Hunnicutt, FAS, Hilmes, etc.

Hilarious argument from authority, yet you clearly haven't looked to see if the authority actually supports your position. If you did you would find they actually support my position. BTW the FAS drawing is the Hunnicutt drawing. both support me, 3 color NATO drawing manual supports me. In fact I cant find a single blueprint which show you right, but I am not sure I know the Hilmes drawing, why don't you humor me and show it.

Btw:
http://s14.directupload.net/images/130212/zfwfys59.png
Pespective aside, the turret is clearly too long.

Yes never mind perspective, I guess never mind parts of the turret which is in the shadow, either. Look at your picture again you placed the yellow line wrong.
STGN

 

[hest]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

No, it's not. 1000mm RHA vs HEAT was achive in western tank in half of the 1980s.

Not in reality though.

And notice that for 90. degree HEAT diametr 84mm (SC) - so with perforation around 340-380mm RHA in those years - was stopped by: 203cm LOS thick erly Burlinghton module, and only ~50mm RHA (hull sides). In fact only Burlinghton module provide protction like (Carl Gustav warhed rforation - hull sides) ~290-330mm RHA.
For 30-35 degree the same module whit LOS thickens 400-450mm and hull sides thicknes 100-120mm RHA provide protection against SC (HEAT) warhed 152mm dimatere whit penetration into RHA is 28 inches (711 mm) for the 152 mm SC.
Notice that we are talking about 1960s.

It was not. As I understand Burlington module was placed with a minimal distance from hull of 400 to 850 mm, and projectile incided from an angle of more than 60 degrees from normal. To say it is protection given by 253 cm of armour is just wrong since significant reduction comes from screen effect from great space needed. For armour to provide similar or somewhat lower protection per thickness (without gap) than steel is nothing. These coefficients would not be achieved in main armour for example, where there aren't such screen effects.

 

[Damian]

Not in reality though.

Reality was as Militarysta described it, you can fight with it as much as you wish, but M1A1HA fielded in 1988 was capable to withstand at frontal armor hits from warheads capable to penetrate ~1,200mm RHA. So his point is valid.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Not in reality though.

In reality definetly yes. I haven't any doubt in case Leopard-2A4 since 1986. The same M1A1HA. Any known fact is consist whit that statment:
a) knwon features Burlinghton armour and achivable protection level in erlyier decades
b) rapid growth soviet HEAT warhed perforation level consist whit 4-5 yers developmend phase in 1983-1993
c) known values for AGDUS (german MILES) system
d) life test from ODS (M1A1HA vs AGM-114 )
etc.

and projectile incided from an angle of more than 60 degrees from normal.

For HEAT diametr 84mm (SC) it was 90. degree. It's first.
Second - in other part of quoted article is decribe front Cheftian Mk.5 hull armour without any space. In middle late 1960s it was able to stop 152mm SC too whit LOS 480mm. So as Damian said.


btw: I know it can be difficult to deal with it but on west without ERA was able to stop even 152mm SC warhed For 480mm LOS burlinghton module in circa 1968. Of course whole "redy to use" protection was redy almoust 10 yers later -due problem to protect against APFSDS rounds (german 120mm...) and...stoppeed MTB-80 in GB:

 

[hest]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

In reality definetly yes. I haven't any doubt in case Leopard-2A4 since 1986. The same M1A1HA. Any known fact is consist whit that statment:
a) knwon features Burlinghton armour and achivable protection level in erlyier decades
b) rapid growth soviet HEAT warhed perforation level consist whit 4-5 yers developmend phase in 1983-1993
c) known values for AGDUS (german MILES) system
d) life test from ODS (M1A1HA vs AGM-114 )
etc.

None of these are arguments, but self induced beliefs.

For HEAT diametr 84mm (SC) it was 90. degree. It's first.
Second - in other part of quoted article is decribe front Cheftian Mk.5 hull armour without any space. In middle late 1960s it was able to stop 152mm SC too whit LOS 480mm. So as Damian said.

It is all described as it is, even mentioning possible secondary effects of spaced armour since it is theoretical estimate. Your arguments about efficiency coefficients are not valid because you account such effects for protection but not for measure.

btw: I know it can be difficult to deal with it but on west without ERA was able to stop even 152mm SC warhed For 480mm LOS burlinghton module in circa 1968. Of course whole "redy to use" protection was redy almoust 10 yers later -due problem to protect against APFSDS rounds (german 120mm...) and...stoppeed MTB-80 in GB:

There is nothing difficult to believe. Why it should be ? And also there is nothing special with that armour for that time. What is interesting is their error in theorethical concept when measuring APFSDS effect.