Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

None of these are arguments, but self induced beliefs.

But this is irrelevant for us if you believe or not, we have a reliable source from Fort Knox who seen this tank and proper data about it.

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.

Ah the same old pseudo argument, "they are from west so they definetely were wrong"... oh just shut up.

 

[Akim]

The difference between T-72A and T-72B armour is also about 9 inches. There is not much difference in appearance also. .

In fact the difference is apparent: - in sensor wind - location anti-aircraft machine-gun, on the exhaust system, the diameter IR -spotlight.

 

[STGN]

If we look at how the side skirts have been bend, how the left side of the rear turret has been deformed, the bottom of the turret bustle, the bend up turret bustle side forward leaning loader hatch by the loader mg mount, the blown up wind sensor mount. I think its pretty safe to say that these are two pictures of the same tank and there for its not unreasonable to assume that the armor array on the engine cover has been taken on from the right side, how the array has been cut supports this view.
STGN

 

[313230]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

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:

Quality of SC in the old day was very poor because of the precision of liner. 152mm SC maybe was equivalent to 105mm now a day

 

[Dazzler]

talking of tanks, hmm...

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Quality of SC in the old day was very poor because of the precision of liner. 152mm SC maybe was equivalent to 105mm now a day

Yes, and no
Quality and penetartion values both SC used in Burlinghton test in 1968 is given in document -the penetration into RHA is 28 inches (711 mm) for the 152 mm charge and 23 inches (584 mm) for the 127 mm charge.
Is this big value? Well we can compare this - Kornet have the same caliber:

test 152mm SC in 1968 -711mm RHA
Kornet in 1993 (152mm SC) - 1100mm RHA but including precursor
So between 1968 and 1993 we have "only" 35% improvment - if we include precursor in Kornet, without it penetration level will be around 1000mm RHA so almoust ~30% better.

 

[Damian]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Quality of SC in the old day was very poor because of the precision of liner. 152mm SC maybe was equivalent to 105mm now a day

And you think that vehicles protection stays in one place and do not evolve?

AGM-114 have a 178mm calliber warhead, which is far more capable (AGM-114 penetration capabilities are estimated as approx ~1,200mm RHA) than 152mm used in ballistic tests for Burlington, yet it was not capable to perforate front turret armor of M1A1HA.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

And you think that vehicles protection stays in one place and do not evolve?

AGM-114 have a 178mm calliber warhead, which is far more capable (AGM-114 penetration capabilities are estimated as approx ~1,200mm RHA) than 152mm used in ballistic tests for Burlington, yet it was not capable to perforate front turret armor of M1A1HA.

But remember Damian that we haven't hit angle - as we know AGM-114 during ODS have sh!tty hit angle near 5 degree (only!) but the ask is about azimuth not elevation. We know only that AGM-114 hit M1A1HA in frontal turret armour, and don't perforate armour protection. Of course AGM-114 was on duty and without faliture.

For thre other hand - gus who where in Fort Knox told that US instructor told them that those AGM-114 was able to penetrate circa ~70cm deep into armour. It can be disinformation, but if it's true (if....) then difrences between live anbd deth for that M1A1HA crew was circa 10cm in worst case. But this info IMHO needs second confirm.

BTW SC in AGM-114 is silghty smaller then 178mm diameter:

circa 170mm but it's still give 1000-1100mm RHA penetration. So those M1A1HA protection was impressive.
BTW: penetration is equal to 6 -6.5 SC diameter in end of the 1980s'.

 

[JKD01]

Interesting video of T-90 SM.


Too bad there's no english translation

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Interesting video of T-90 SM.


Too bad there's no english translation

You can turn the Russian captions on and have them translated at the same time. => letter looking sign at the bottom of the video frame

 

[Akim]

Write subtitles for the videos laziness - is a 25 minutes! Moreover, almost all were formerly in other programs. Tell me which parts of the video are particularly interesting, I will engrave and translate.

 

[313230]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Yes, and no
Quality and penetartion values both SC used in Burlinghton test in 1968 is given in document -the penetration into RHA is 28 inches (711 mm) for the 152 mm charge and 23 inches (584 mm) for the 127 mm charge.
Is this big value? Well we can compare this - Kornet have the same caliber:

test 152mm SC in 1968 -711mm RHA
Kornet in 1993 (152mm SC) - 1100mm RHA but including precursor
So between 1968 and 1993 we have "only" 35% improvment - if we include precursor in Kornet, without it penetration level will be around 1000mm RHA so almoust ~30% better.

RHA is not a global standard. RHA in 60s is different to today. It seems you read a lot of paper but still don't know this?

Isn't it rpg with 105mm rated something like 750mm?

And you think that vehicles protection stays in one place and do not evolve?

AGM-114 have a 178mm calliber warhead, which is far more capable (AGM-114 penetration capabilities are estimated as approx ~1,200mm RHA) than 152mm used in ballistic tests for Burlington, yet it was not capable to perforate front turret armor of M1A1HA.

Source of AGM 114 can not penetrate m1a1ha?

I only want to point out sc diameter and even rha are not global standard. Even in one country they change with time

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

RHA is not a global standard. RHA in 60s is different to today. It seems you read a lot of paper but still don't know this?

I know this very well but still - RHA is typical "standard" to give some penetration value in allmoust all cases. The difrencess can be in thickness and layout stack os RHA plates -mostly in HB scale in NATO there was using 220HB scale in younger closer to 270HB but it's still not the point - mm RHA is RHA not THS or HHS SHS so if we have RHA value then siffrence is not so big.

Isn't it rpg with 105mm rated something like 750mm?

Not, it's circa 650mm RHA. In offcial Bazalt brochure we have for 105mm SC RPG-29 value "over 600mm RHA". So definetly not "750mm"

Source of AGM 114 can not penetrate m1a1ha?

Polish Army - soilders from 10TkBde, who where on US Army tank trening in Fort Knox. Other source was placed on some forums couple years ago, but until I had confirm for better sources I didn't take this (forums) as a source. Now I have two sources (one is weak - forums, other is rather strong) so IMHO those M1A1HA really windstand AGM-114.

 

[Damian]

I actually want to add that RHA is a world wide standard to meassure penetration values while RHAe is world wide standard to meassure protection levels.

However naturally when it comes to factual meassures different factors are significant. There are such factors like thickness, hardness, density and other characteristics of attacked armor array.

 

[Damian]

It is settled then, Polish companys will created a consortium to design and later manufacture a new Polish Main Battle Tank and Universal Modular Combat Platform.

Będzie polski czołg. Bumar liderem konsorcjum | Defence24 | Wojsko Polskie | Bezpieczeństwo | Przemysł zbrojeniowy | Wojska lądowe | Marynarka Wojenna | Siły Powietrzne | Wojska Specjalne | Geopolityka | Targi Kielce | Dowództwo Operacyjne | M

It is written that all major companys and two design centers/institutes will create consortium, these are OÅ›rodek Badawczo – Rozwojowy UrzÄ…dzeÅ„ Mechanicznych OBRUM Sp. z o.o., ZakÅ‚ady Mechaniczne "žBumar – ŁabÄ™dy" S.A., Bumar Å»oÅ‚nierz S.A., Bumar Elektronika SA, a także - Huta Stalowa Wola S.A., Wojskowe ZakÅ‚ady Motoryzacyjne S.A., Wojskowy Instytut Techniki Pancernej i Samochodowej – Instytut Badawczy and Wojskowe ZakÅ‚ady Mechaniczne S.A.

 

[militarysta]

better quality:

 

[Dazzler]

an insight into Russian armour.. T-90 composite cavity looks depressed, T-80 does well though

 

[Dazzler]

Pakistan Air Weapon Complex.

Description

* Provides effective concealment of land platforms from surveillance methods by reducing their thermal signature.
* Light-weight: rapidly and noiselessly deployed and removed.
* Water-repellant, weather-proof and fire-resistant.
* Strong, non-rip material ensuring long service-life.

camouflage characteristics

* Anti-Visual
* Anti-Night Vision
* Anti-Infra-red
* Anti-Radar
* Anti-Millimeter Wave

mechanical characteristics

* Size Customized
* Available Colors Desert sand & grass (double-sided)
* Weight Nominal 240 g/m2
* Thickness Nominal 300 µm
* Tensile Strength (typical)
Warp 1700N/50 mm
Weft 1500N/50 mm
* Tear Strength (typical)
Warp 80N
Weft 100N

technical characteristics

* Base Fabric classified
* Coating classified
* Temperature Stability -25°C to 80°C
* Fire Resistance Flame retardant
Storage Life >10 years (dry, <50°C)




Vehicle under the Net cannot be detected by a Thermal camera (Day time)

 

[Dazzler]

Al Zarrar gunner position

 

[Dazzler]

MVRDE Dragon EMP..