Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Its possible that might have an influence but I think that what they are really talking about is not the front turret or hull armor but the roof protection and spall liner, maybe side skirts and other "minor" parts. I see this as an "overall" protection % increase not that the armor in the turret front armor cavity of the Leo is 1.5+ times as effective as the Leclerc or Abrams. This makes sense to me since the 1" and 2" plates are used on the Abrams roof and looking at the leclerc it seems to be in the same order.
STGN

Hmmm, good point, we do not know the overall criteria of protection classification Swedes made, and you can be right.

 

[methos]

Looks more like 10 minutes CAD than anything real. How long is the Polish tank project going on? Have they already finished the conception phase?

Its possible that might have an influence but I think that what they are really talking about is not the front turret or hull armor but the roof protection and spall liner, maybe side skirts and other "minor" parts. I see this as an "overall" protection % increase not that the armor in the turret front armor cavity of the Leo is 1.5+ times as effective as the Leclerc or Abrams. This makes sense to me since the 1" and 2" plates are used on the Abrams roof and looking at the leclerc it seems to be in the same order.
STGN

The only IBD brochure showing a "normal" Leopard 2 (and not the Leopard 2 Evolution) is the AMAP-B brochure about ballistic armour. Militarysta has posted images from an IBD research paper about double-layered NERA as used on the Leopard 2 wedge and on the hull of the TVM, Strv 122, Leopard 2A5DK, Leopardo 2E, Leopard 2A6 HEL, etc...

1.5 times two inches steel is not enough to provide any relevant roof protection.

 

[militarysta]

Looks more like 10 minutes CAD than anything real. How long is the Polish tank project going on? Have they already finished the conception phase?

Becouse it's nothing more then stupid CAD model and wet dreams polish tank industry about "polish FMBT". It will be disaster as always :

1990-1997 the Gorilla program ---> closed due to money reson
~2000 Bumar had tried to seld PT-91MZ9Ex to the Polish Army. But Polish Army took ex german Leopard-2A4 and in army opinnion 25 years old Leo-2A4 was better in almoust all aspects then "new" PT-91MZ. So army wants Leopard-2A4 not PT-xx. Due to very powerfull Bumar lobbing polish stupid Kaczyński goverment stopped acquisition next free Leopard-2A4 batch from Germany.
~2007 -> Anders program had started. And polish industry had tried to made "light tank" or other IFV whit isolation from the military requirements so army said "no -we wants TANKS not "universal platform" or "light tank" or "MGS". So Anderrs was bottom-up initiative of the polish industry.
And now we have even bigger mess:
@methos
@Kunal
@Damian
(espacially Damian)

In last polish ARMIA magazine (The ARMY) is interview with gen Skrzypczak - former chief of the polish land forces and now:
Waldemar Skrzypczak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 25 June 2012 he became deputy minister of defence, responsible for armament and modernisation. So he is vell-known person. And his opinnion and offciall status of the minister of defence - expressed in this interview is very clear (about polish FMBT):
(ressume this interview)
1. Polish MoD wants withdraw and scrapped all T-72 and PT-91 becose "T-xx family upgrade is not technically and economically rational" T-72 will be scrapped as soon as it will be possible and PT-91 will be withdraw in to reserve when new tank will come.

2. Leopard-2A4 is greate tank but polish Leo-2A4 are old - so deep modernisation is necessery, and all polish Leopard-2 will be upgraded whit focus on firepower. The possible and desire is take next free leopard-2 batch - from any possible country becouse it will allowed to ASAP scrapped all T-72 and some PT-91. But last few gowerments and MoDs neglected this problem and now it can be not possible to take free leopard-2 - what is big problem for polish MoD

3. Polish industry is not able to develop "homemade" tank. It was repet many times in interviev. It's beyond polish industry abilities, Polish future number of the tanks (less then 500, propably near ~380 -militarysta) it to few to make whole program economically rational, and possible export is almoust impossible due to to strong competition. So nobody in polis MoD allowed to "invited the wheel again" or made "polish homemende tank". As gen. Skypczak said -we haven't enought time, money and internal demand to developed "polish tank".

4. MoD plans do the same whad did Greece, Sweeden, Swizterland, Spain, etc - choose the best tank during bilateral negotiations, polonize it and mounted on license in Poland whit law abilities to some modyfication and maybe reexport. Future polish tank will be polonize Leopard-2, Merkava Mk.IV, Leclerc or Abrams but not polish own program. it was repeted many times in interview.
Some rumors in polish MoD and Army give those 4 construction whit bigger German Leopard-2A7 chanse to be choosen. But frencht and israeli tanks have good opinion too.

5. Polish industry will be "feed" by "Rydwan" (the Chariot) program -when universal medium and light platform will be developed to replaced all IFV and other chassis (AA, motars, artilery, etc) and in that aspect "Anders" program can be continued -as uiversal medium platform but not as a tank.

=======================================================================================

 

[darklabor]

Heres the paper
There are two mentions of ballistic protection first is that swedish-german developed armor was between 50-100% more effective than the French developed armor in some aspects and also more effective than then Abrams armor.
This part seems really unclear, they tested different modules of turret and hull armor but where the improvement was? How ever Ã…kers Krutbruk today makes addon armor moduls and from old 1996 page seems to say that they made the turret roof protection and spall liner for the Strv122.

Second is that the armor protection/survivability rating 1: LEO2 2:M1A2 3:Leclerc

STGN

Thanks a lot! :thumb:
I will take a look at it!

 

[Damian]

Looks more like 10 minutes CAD than anything real. How long is the Polish tank project going on? Have they already finished the conception phase?

Couple of months, seriously I said that this is very early overall concept model. Please wait several months.
@militarysta, before you make any conclusions wait untill we see at least better 3d models, or technology demonstrator.

Also you did not what General SKrzypczak said, I have interview with him, and he didn't said that any of constructions you mentioned is considered. He only said that cooperation with foreing manufacturer is seriously considered but manufacturer is not choosen yet.

 

[Damian]

I just read again interview with our vice MoD. He says that designing everything from scratch is nut not an option, it is too expensive, take too much time and is too risky. He was asked if any off the shelf product will be bought but from what he said it seems that more desired is to design the basic structure of vehicle on our own and just integrate it with components that are already avaiable on market, this is because MoD still wants unified modular platforms. He also said that there are talks with several big manufacturers to see if they can provide what we need, so it is more about transfer of technology than purchasing ready product.

 

[STGN]

The only IBD brochure showing a "normal" Leopard 2 (and not the Leopard 2 Evolution) is the AMAP-B brochure about ballistic armour. Militarysta has posted images from an IBD research paper about double-layered NERA as used on the Leopard 2 wedge and on the hull of the TVM, Strv 122, Leopard 2A5DK, Leopardo 2E, Leopard 2A6 HEL, etc...

1.5 times two inches steel is not enough to provide any relevant roof protection.

According to Reinmetall AMAP-B offeres STANAG level 5 protection when used together with base armor so that is protection against 25mm autocannon.
I didn't say that roof protection was 1.5 times 2". What I meant was that Abrams and Leclerc has very little roof protection and so adding substantial protection like the strv 122 and you suddenly have a vehicle that has a higher survivability rate and increased % protection.

@militarysta

I am sorry but this is wrong the Leopard2 and Leclerc should not change places. In the original table lower is better. so Leo2 had best mobility, weapon system and survivability, the Abrams had better command and control and was easier to maintain but had the worst mobility.
Because the Leo2 was best in most categories and worst in non it won.
STGN

 

[militarysta]

I am sorry but this is wrong the Leopard2 and Leclerc should not change places. In the original table lower is better. so Leo2 had best mobility, weapon system and survivability, the Abrams had better command and control and was easier to maintain but had the worst mobility.
Because the Leo2 was best in most categories and worst in non it won.
STGN

Ok, thanks -it's explain a lot, but still I don't understand this about the worst M1 mobility... It's really strange.

 

[STGN]

Ok, thanks -it's explain a lot, but still I don't understand this about the worst M1 mobility... It's really strange.

well the category is Vehicle/mobility, so it might be a mix of cost and mobility. Read on some forum that the Abrams was the most expensive to buy and given the higher cost for fuel this could be the reason it placed last. Does anybody have price figures for the vehicles in 1993?
All the vehicles have similar mobility either way.
STGN

 

[militarysta]

Also you did not what General SKrzypczak said, I have interview with him, and he didn't said that any of constructions you mentioned is considered. He only said that cooperation with foreing manufacturer is seriously considered but manufacturer is not choosen yet.

Damian -in this interviev is part that foregin western construction will be conider. How many western construction whit smoothbore 120mm are in service on west?
M1
Leo-2
Leclerc
Merkava Mk.IV
It's almoust all when we consider western tanks. So we can't count Altay, K2, and others. Of cource Ariette is not option
And If You are interested - polish tank oficers went to Fort Knox not without reson...
In fact Leopard-2 have the best opinnion and it's used now in polish army, Merkava Mk.IV have strong lobbing but polish industry have very very bad expieriences whit Israeli weapon like UTD-30 RCWS-30, PRONIT 125mm APFSDS, and even firs batch SPike ATGMs (more then 14,5% had falitures and cant hit targets). Abrams is assessed like tank on circa Leo-2A5/A6 level but gas turbine is unacceptable. And the blackhorse can be Leclerc. And it's all about rumors.
And I nnoticed it in those post.

he said it seems that more desired is to design the basic structure of vehicle on our own and just integrate it with components that are already avaiable on market, this is because MoD still wants unified modular platforms. He also said that there are talks with several big manufacturers to see if they can provide what we need, so it is more about transfer of technology than purchasing ready product.

Did You red the same interviev?
In that intervev it's really clear part about that - tan will be tank and "unified modular platforms" will be smth diffrent -maybe based on Anders, but with western componens.

 

[average american]

http://defensetech.org/2011/11/14/video-russias-t-90m-main-battle-tank/

Here are those upgrades according to a tipster:
"¢Improved front and side armor protection against kinetic energy and high-energy anti-tank rounds.
"¢ New V-93 1130hp diesel engine.
"¢A new version of the Kontakt-5 reactive armor that covers a greater portion of the tank.
"¢New "Kalina" automatically target tracking system using a new THALES-made thermal-imaging camera that is integrated with the Sozvezdie tactical battle management system.
"¢New 2A82 125mm main gun — abandoning the continuously upgraded 2A46 series.
"¢A commander's independent thermal viewer linked to a 7.62mm machine gun.
"¢New communications systems.
"¢Active Suspension Control.
"¢Anti-RPG grills.
"¢Laser warning receivers and the "Shtora" laser and EO/IR rangefinder countermeasure.
"¢Safer turret ammunition stowage compartment.
"¢GLONASS and GPS satellite navigation system as well as an inertial navigation system.


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/11/14/video-russias-t-90m-main-battle-tank/#ixzz2Luz4Fi3B
Defense.org

 

[methos]

According to Reinmetall AMAP-B offeres STANAG level 5 protection when used together with base armor so that is protection against 25mm autocannon.

No, it doesn't say that. It says that depending on the desired protection level STANAG 4569 level 1 to 5 can be reached with a substinal weight reduction. It does not say that AMAP-B is only manufactured up to STANAG 4569 level 4 nor that all AMAP-B arrays look the same. The image posted by me is a screenshot taken from an older IBD brochure, which can still be accessed via archive.web.org. There AMAP-B is divided into three variants - light, medium and heavy. The light variant is the one mentioned on the Rheinmetall Chempro website - protection against 14.5 mm AP mm for soft-skinned vehicles. The medium variant offers protection against KE-projectiles, typically up to 30 mm and against anti-tank missiles. The heaviest variant, the screenshot is shown above offers protection against all KE calibers (up to 125 mm) and anti-tank missiles.


Actually "AMAP-B" was not existing at the time of the Swedish trials and earlier when the Leopard 2A5 was developed - but IBD changed the name of the armour later one, when they had a wider range of products and made (at least partial) MEXAS to AMAP-B.

well the category is Vehicle/mobility, so it might be a mix of cost and mobility. Read on some forum that the Abrams was the most expensive to buy and given the higher cost for fuel this could be the reason it placed last. Does anybody have price figures for the vehicles in 1993?

In the Swedish article, it says that after the first assessments, Clinton reduced the M1's costs by 1 billion.

 

[STGN]

No, it doesn't say that. It says that depending on the desired protection level STANAG 4569 level 1 to 5 can be reached with a substinal weight reduction. It does not say that AMAP-B is only manufactured up to STANAG 4569 level 4 nor that all AMAP-B arrays look the same. The image posted by me is a screenshot taken from an older IBD brochure, which can still be accessed via archive.web.org. There AMAP-B is divided into three variants - light, medium and heavy. The light variant is the one mentioned on the Rheinmetall Chempro website - protection against 14.5 mm AP mm for soft-skinned vehicles. The medium variant offers protection against KE-projectiles, typically up to 30 mm and against anti-tank missiles. The heaviest variant, the screenshot is shown above offers protection against all KE calibers (up to 125 mm) and anti-tank missiles.


Actually "AMAP-B" was not existing at the time of the Swedish trials and earlier when the Leopard 2A5 was developed - but IBD changed the name of the armour later one, when they had a wider range of products and made (at least partial) MEXAS to AMAP-B.

In the Swedish article, it says that after the first assessments, Clinton reduced the M1's costs by 1 billion.

That is what it says:
"AMAP-B offers ballistic protection against conventional ammunition of various calibres. Depending on the desired protection array, it conforms to STANAG levels 1-4, or STANAG level 5 in combination with base armour. AMAP-B has been certified accordingly." direct copy paste from Reinmetall website.
How do you see which weight class they are talking about?

Any way MEXAS/AMAP is bolt on armor like turret roof, side skirts, front of beak etc. that is why it could offer improved protection on Leclerc and Abrams. And unlike early ERA it offers protection against both KE and CE, agree?

ETA as we can see from the table reducing the price was the only possible way to win the competition as it seems to be the Abrams biggest problem.
STGN

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Merkava 4 has a peculiar turret design.Mayebe someone here can give it's approx armour protection and also it's advantages/disadvantages compared to a coventional turret design like leoa6,m1a2,challenger2 and arjun mbt.

 

[methos]

That is what it says:
"AMAP-B offers ballistic protection against conventional ammunition of various calibres. Depending on the desired protection array, it conforms to STANAG levels 1-4, or STANAG level 5 in combination with base armour. AMAP-B has been certified accordingly." direct copy paste from Reinmetall website.
How do you see which weight class they are talking about?

Because I rather look at the much more detailed IBD brochure. There the Strv 122 (and other Leopard 2s) is listed as using the heavy class against large caliber projectiles and anti-tank missiles:

Any way MEXAS/AMAP is bolt on armor like turret roof, side skirts, front of beak etc. that is why it could offer improved protection on Leclerc and Abrams.

The roof armour is not bolted on, it is integral. Bolt-on armour are only the hull front, turret front and side-skirts. But theoretically the armour might also be used integral.

And unlike early ERA it offers protection against both KE and CE, agree?

Yes, but mainly against KE: For protecting against CE later AMAP-SC was introduced.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

57mm perhaps most powerful auto-cannon and this new system shows continues feed unlike in earlier version it was clip feed..

 

[Damian]

Merkava 4 has a peculiar turret design.Mayebe someone here can give it's approx armour protection and also it's advantages/disadvantages compared to a coventional turret design like leoa6,m1a2,challenger2 and arjun mbt.

Merkava Mk4 have conventional turret design, just armor modules are inclined more than in other tanks. It is because turret modules per se have smaller thickness than in other modern MBT's, so to not exceed weight too much and provide good protection over front and sides, it have such specific shape. However due to armor inclination and it's shape it can create sort of illusion that armor is much more thicker than in other MBT's.

It's approx protection levels are comparable with other modern MBT's.

 

[militarysta]

Merkava 4 has a peculiar turret design.Mayebe someone here can give it's approx armour protection and also it's advantages/disadvantages compared to a coventional turret design like leoa6,m1a2,challenger2 and arjun mbt.

Well, Merkava Mk.IV turret protection is really interesting. In this tank israeli developers had tried to protect turret from almoust any side - top, left and right side and front of course. Merkava Mk.IV turret armour is full modular and can be easly replaced, but those idea (protect turret from almoust any side) case that phisical thickness of armour is smaller (for +/- 30. degree) then in M1A2, Leo-2A4 and Younger, and even then in Leclerc... In the same thime turret roof protection and side is bigger then in other tanks.

here we have Merkava Mk.IV modules (notice how thin is upper glastic plate on hull):

And take a notice -while LOS thickenss for A2 is quite impressive then for A1 is smaller, but Merkva armur modules have more serious problem:

LOS thickness for red line is almoust twice smaller then for blue line. And it's impossible to cheat LOS in that case - armour protection for that angle must be just 2x worse.

 

[JKD01]

Strv 122B has more than just 350kg of armor added, according a article it has around 65t

Sadly, forum won't let me post the link of that pdf file

(Just try to google strv 122b int and first pdf file result is that article)

 

[STGN]

The roof armour is not bolted on, it is integral. Bolt-on armour are only the hull front, turret front and side-skirts.

The armor around the crew hatches does look to me like its removable and replaceable, a lot easier than the turret armor cavities which are welded shut.
STGN