Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

That's not ERA. The Challenger 2 is fitted with RAP made by Rafael. Afaik RAP stands for "Rafael Applique Armour" or something like that. It would be a very stupid design if it was ERA (way too large area and way too much weight). The Challenger 2 with full armour package weighs 74.95 tonnes! If the mine plate weighs 2 tonnes (like in Leopard 2), then there are still 10.45 tonnes for armour and jamming equipment.

E: The chassis of a M1A1 Abrams after ASU or a newer M1A2 can handle 69 tonnes.

Raphael is known, or rather Israelis are known that they offer ERA on world market. It is possible that this type of armor is some sort of ERA or SLERA combined with composite.

 

[methos]

The armour however has been described as "passive add on armour" in the Tankograd book "British Armour Evolution".

 

[hest]

Nice historical documents about US forces, comparing mainly M60 and T-62 tanks

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA392784

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA392790

In 1970s scenario, T-62 compared favorably with M60A1, in general similar mobility, protection but outclassed it in combat with superior firepower and accuracy, it's smoothbore gun and APFSDS were really a generation beyond. US strategy was reduced to a more defensive approach to reduce direct confrontation with enemy who had superior power, emphasizing on use of ATGM at longer ranges, adoption of defilade positions... Deployement of T-64 and T-72 of course further unbalanced the situation much in Soviet favour.

 

[Damian]

Hardly surprising and new information. NATO heavier and better protected tanks of that period, which are M60 series and Chieftain were more or less comparable in protection and mobility with T-62. T-62 of course had better firepower in terms of penetration capabilities, although conclusion that it had better accuracy is a bit misleading, these were times pre real fire control systems induction, so for a range further than 1,500m a rifled gun would be probably more accurate firing non fin stabilized rounds, while APFSDS ammunition on both sides would have the same accuracy, although APDS that do not have fins would probably have better accuracy beyond 1,500m.

 

[Damian]

And of course, with induction of T-64 and later T-72, Soviet Union and Warsaw pact gained superiority in tanks, however we need to understand that these were times when NATO's main defensive strategy, as to simply nuke soviets if they would dare to attack. But 1970's were a time when changes were slowly coming to the NATO ground forces, and when US, German and UK realized that they need next generation of MBT's, capable to defeat soviet next generation MBT's.

The NATO tank forces modernization whas, how to call it properly, multispectral, as it was both improving existing designs, and inducting new ones, as well as improving firepower by improving 105mm rifled guns and their ammunition, and inducting more capable 120mm smoothbore guns and more capable ammunition for them.

It was preaty interesting period.

 

[hest]

Hardly surprising and new information. NATO heavier and better protected tanks of that period, which are M60 series and Chieftain were more or less comparable in protection and mobility with T-62. T-62 of course had better firepower in terms of penetration capabilities, although conclusion that it had better accuracy is a bit misleading, these were times pre real fire control systems induction, so for a range further than 1,500m a rifled gun would be probably more accurate firing non fin stabilized rounds, while APFSDS ammunition on both sides would have the same accuracy, although APDS that do not have fins would probably have better accuracy beyond 1,500m.

The protection comparison is also very simplified, as design and smaller frontal and lateral projection contributed favorably, and with reduced weak zones. Despite that M60, Chieftain exceeded 10-20 tons in weight, it did not result in any improvement in armour or armament (rather the opposite).

115 mm APFSDS system was of superior ballistics, achieved notably higher muzzle velocity which improved it's accuracy and penetration (70% to defeat M60A1 when hit, against 50% to defeat T-62). Slower, rifled APDS were actually less accurate in at less than 1500 m, while at more range still suffering from great accuracy and penetration decrease. Also contemporary T-64 and T-72 had no match in 70s...

Chieftain protection was not high either, insufficient against 115 mm APFSDS and not capable to withstand even 84 mm HEAT

 

[Damian]

The protection comparison is also very simplified, as design and smaller frontal and lateral projection contributed favorably, and with reduced weak zones. Despite that M60, Chieftain exceeded 10-20 tons in weight, it did not result in any improvement in armour or armament (rather the opposite).

It was a tradeoff, bigger size and better crew comforts, or smaller size and... well T-62 was a b(i)tch when it comes to crew comfort, design is just awfull, cramped, and the loader position, was just idiotic from ergonomics point of view, who the hell get the idea to place loader, so he need to ram round in to the gun breach left hand, which is in majority of population a weak hand. Not to mention about ammunition placement, in combat it would be very difficult to reload the gun using storage racks, while ready racks didn't handle a lot of ammunition.

115 mm APFSDS system was of superior ballistics, achieved notably higher muzzle velocity which improved it's accuracy and penetration (70% to defeat M60A1 when hit, against 50% to defeat T-62). Slower, rifled APDS were actually less accurate in at less than 1500 m, while at more range still suffering from great accuracy and penetration decrease.

Nothing surprising, although L7 and it's clones still had a growth potential, which newer rounds it have performance of 125mm smoothbore gun, so it was not that bad.

Chieftain protection was not high either, insufficient against 115 mm APFSDS and not capable to withstand even 84 mm HEAT

Incredible, you get a conclusion that a simple homogeneus steel armor is not offering any protection that is significant against shaped charge weapons, just incredible deduction!

 

[hest]

It was a tradeoff, bigger size and better crew comforts, or smaller size and... well T-62 was a b(i)tch when it comes to crew comfort, design is just awfull, cramped, and the loader position, was just idiotic from ergonomics point of view, who the hell get the idea to place loader, so he need to ram round in to the gun breach left hand, which is in majority of population a weak hand. Not to mention about ammunition placement, in combat it would be very difficult to reload the gun using storage racks, while ready racks didn't handle a lot of ammunition.

There is a lot of bullshit about ergonomics and all from people who never experienced it. Sure, interior space was less than in sizeable M60, Chieftain... and there was less comfort, but nothing should be taken to exageration. Optimal design was chosen. The loading process in T-62 was workable for trained crew and learning process to targeting, fire was simple, and all was designed taking past experience. There was advantage and disadvantage, but not extreme. In practice nothing prevented normal operation.

Nothing surprising, although L7 and it's clones still had a growth potential, which newer rounds it have performance of 125mm smoothbore gun, so it was not that bad.

Not surprising but it was serious problem for NATO in 70s. About growth potential it is obviously wrong as shows developement imperative of smoothbore guns and emphasis on use of HEAT, missiles.

Incredible, you get a conclusion that a simple homogeneus steel armor is not offering any protection that is significant against shaped charge weapons, just incredible deduction!

No, that what was suposed to be heavy, protected tank in great sacrifice of another aspects, Chieftain, resulted as a failure against the most abundant threats.

 

[Damian]

There is a lot of bullshit about ergonomics and all from people who never experienced it. Sure, interior space was less than in sizeable M60, Chieftain... and there was less comfort, but nothing should be taken to exageration. Optimal design was chosen. The loading process in T-62 was workable for trained crew and learning process to targeting, fire was simple, and all was designed taking past experience. There was advantage and disadvantage, but not extreme. In practice nothing prevented normal operation.

T-62 was and is a b(i)tch to the crew, and tired crew is less efficent than not tired one, same goes for ergonomics.

Not surprising but it was serious problem for NATO in 70s. About growth potential it is obviously wrong as shows developement imperative of smoothbore guns and emphasis on use of HEAT, missiles.

You clearly have problem with reading with understanding, do you?

Read what I written again.

No, that what was suposed to be heavy, protected tank in great sacrifice of another aspects, Chieftain, resulted as a failure against the most abundant threats.

Chieftain was protected like all tanks of such armor thickness, material from which armor was made and within size and weight back then. It is truth that British were overhyped with Chieftain protection, but then again, other comparable tanks were not better or worser in this aspect.

This is just typical for you, create a non existing problem and with all courage fight with it... silly.

 

[hest]

T-62 was and is a b(i)tch to the crew, and tired crew is less efficent than not tired one, same goes for ergonomics.

Nothing prevented efficient operation, comfortability could have been worse, and that was it. Statements as shit, dangerous are not taken seriously.

You clearly have problem with reading with understanding, do you?

Read what I written again.

Rotating APDS munition was outdated, while fin stabilisation necessary for L/D ratio >5 was realised late, for end of decade, but was also later outclassed by existing smoothbore.

Chieftain was protected like all tanks of such armor thickness, material from which armor was made and within size and weight back then. It is truth that British were overhyped with Chieftain protection, but then again, other comparable tanks were not better or worser in this aspect.

This is just typical for you, create a non existing problem and with all courage fight with it... silly.

It is difficult to not say there were better tanks, when weight excess of Chieftain to 20 tons only worsened it's explotation and made no improvement in protection or firepower, when there were lighter, more mobile, reliable, better armed designs.

 

[Damian]

Nothing prevented efficient operation, comfortability could have been worse, and that was it. Statements as shit, dangerous are not taken seriously.

I am not interested in your silly beliefs caveman, now get back to your cave.

Rotating APDS munition was outdated, while fin stabilisation necessary for L/D ratio >5 was realised late, for end of decade, but was also later outclassed by existing smoothbore.

It still do not mean that there was no growth potential in the L7, do you understand such simple fact caveman?

It is difficult to not say there were better tanks, when weight excess of Chieftain to 20 tons only worsened it's explotation and made no improvement in protection or firepower, when there were lighter, more mobile, reliable, better armed designs.

Maybe you should first talk with British tankers that were serving on this equipment, before you start this silly myth campaing of yours.

Problems with Leyland L60 engine were mostly cause because of demand to make all NATO tank engines multifuel, this compromised reliability of engine mostly.

Second thing is that problems with L60 were in time overcome, and reliability was greatly improved. Chieftains weight was standard for vehicle of it's size and armor protection.

It is obvious that Chieftain was not the best tank outhere in all characteristics, but was not a failure either.


You are again starting this idiotic behavior of "Russia Strong Team" with bashing all other countries and their developments, this is typical mentality of primitives called homo sovieticus.

 

[Damian]

All in all, Chieftain was formidable enemy for other tanks of it's generation, and showed a significant modernization potential, which was in case of this generation of tanks, surpassed pobably only by M60 series and Leopard 1 series.

 

[Damian]

British MBT-80 prototypes.

 

[hest]

I am not interested in your silly beliefs caveman, now get back to your cave.

You have also real document about US estimation, and serious, intelligent planners have an objective view, no silly shit or junk statements. It's also funny to hear criticism related to a personal experience, operation from someone who barely knows anything about it.

It has such interior disposition, and in combat it would perform constantly without problems, aquire targets, fire, reload and nothing prevented it.

It still do not mean that there was no growth potential in the L7, do you understand such simple fact caveman?

Growth potential depends on ability, and it is relevant only if realised. Smoothbore was ready even before 70s while that gun fired outdated rotating ammunition, and not adopted APFSDS until end of decade, was then left behind by contemporary smoothbores.

Maybe you should first talk with British tankers that were serving on this equipment, before you start this silly myth campaing of yours.

Problems with Leyland L60 engine were mostly cause because of demand to make all NATO tank engines multifuel, this compromised reliability of engine mostly.

Second thing is that problems with L60 were in time overcome, and reliability was greatly improved. Chieftains weight was standard for vehicle of it's size and armor protection.

It is obvious that Chieftain was not the best tank outhere in all characteristics, but was not a failure either.

A tank is about optimisation and sacrifice of characteristics, there is british document talking about different approaches, contrasting with Soviet mobility and firepower, and it resulted that Chieftain, which weight increase was at cost of sacrifice of rest of aspects, ended in failure not resulting in any improvement in protection and ending vulnerable, thus Mk.5 modernisation was studied.

You are again starting this idiotic behavior of "Russia Strong Team" with bashing all other countries and their developments, this is typical mentality of primitives called homo sovieticus.

I am providing historical documents, if you have something, provide, or cease unmature behaviour.

 

[Damian]

You have also real document about US estimation, and serious, intelligent planners have an objective view, no silly shit or junk statements. It's also funny to hear criticism related to a personal experience, operation from someone who barely knows anything about it.

It has such interior disposition, and in combat it would perform constantly without problems, aquire targets, fire, reload and nothing prevented it.

Oh, but I do not say anything about US documents. I am against your silly fantasies.

And the fact remain fact, T-62 as most if not all Soviet tanks, actually lacked any ergonomics, making crew more tired and less effective.

Growth potential depends on ability, and it is relevant only if realised. Smoothbore was ready even before 70s while that gun fired outdated rotating ammunition, and not adopted APFSDS until end of decade, was then left behind by contemporary smoothbores.

Listen, I know that you, as a poorly educated, mentally ill person, have problems with reading with understanding, but... just shut up, you pathethic creature.

A tank is about optimisation and sacrifice of characteristics, there is british document talking about different approaches, contrasting with Soviet mobility and firepower, and it resulted that Chieftain, which weight increase was at cost of sacrifice of rest of aspects, ended in failure not resulting in any improvement in protection and ending vulnerable, thus Mk.5 modernisation was studied.

Where someone with you poor intelect definetely not understand a fact, that British had their norms, requirements, and experiences, and that Chieftain had better protection, than previously used tanks, not tanks of it generation or the next generation.

But what to expect from a caveman.

I am providing historical documents, if you have something, provide, or cease unmature behaviour.

You have no right to tell me what I should do caveman, neither you understand properly what is written in other languages it seems.

First perhaps you should get back to school and learn how to read with understanding, then start to discuss with others, other than that you simply behave loike a primitive, which you are.

If you are not capable to even understand a simple fact, that a documents from each time period, that provides some informations, for example vehicle protection, are not nececary reffering to the comparision between vehicles of the same generation or with newer vehicles of next generation, it is simple.

British Army creating requirements for Chieftain, was basing these requirements after their previous experiences with Centurion, Conqueror and Cearnevron. Chieftain was designed in such way, to be better armored than Centurion, comparably or better armored than Conqueror, at least as good armed as Conqueror, and have greater mobility than Conqueror.

Of course it was meant to deal with hordes of T-54 and T-55 tanks.

Same can be applied to the M60.

And T-62 was designed as a short term stop gap, to have something comparable to Chieftain and M60. Simple as that, T-62 was not better, not worser, comparable only, all these 3 tanks, could destroy each other at typical engagement ragnes, even with purely front armor hits.

And there is nothing special here, nothing new either, as such conclusions are decades old, and it was obvious that different NATO armis, created proper analisis of the problem, to create newer tactics and training, better suited for new situation.

What we have here, is some stupid Bellarussian, who thinks he is Russian, that have low IQ, problems with understanding written text in english, and starts to write his believes inherited from the old soviet times, when national propaganda brainwashed most of population.

So seriously, perhaps you should consider to shut up eh?

 

[Damian]

Besides this, I am waiting when you start to convience everyone here, that T-62 was the best tank of it's times, and to show it's absolute superiority over other designs...

To be honest, it seems that former Soviet Union, have finally his own "Sparky".

 

[hest]

Oh, but I do not say anything about US documents. I am against your silly fantasies.

And the fact remain fact, T-62 as most if not all Soviet tanks, actually lacked any ergonomics, making crew more tired and less effective.

You can say nothing because you have no idea about operation, your argument about horror, horrible ergonimics is funny, certainly serious planners did not downplay it.

Listen, I know that you, as a poorly educated, mentally ill person, have problems with reading with understanding, but... just shut up, you pathethic creature.

If your point was that that rifled gun ammunition was improved over time, which is not denied, it did not keep with world advancements and was in need of replacement.

Where someone with you poor intelect definetely not understand a fact, that British had their norms, requirements, and experiences, and that Chieftain had better protection, than previously used tanks, not tanks of it generation or the next generation.

But what to expect from a caveman.

Yes, point of a tank is to meet requirements of protection corresponding with threats to be expected in battle. There is british document discussing this, showing failure of Chieftain to meet these demands and urging developement of new armour. You will also argue with officials, workers responsable of it ?

And T-62 was designed as a short term stop gap, to have something comparable to Chieftain and M60. Simple as that, T-62 was not better, not worser, comparable only, all these 3 tanks, could destroy each other at typical engagement ragnes, even with purely front armor hits.

And there is nothing special here, nothing new either, as such conclusions are decades old, and it was obvious that different NATO armis, created proper analisis of the problem, to create newer tactics and training, better suited for new situation.

Thruth is that there was a moment when forces were unbalanced, due to number of Soviet tanks and sophistication, clear superiority in firepower, and it is said not by me, but by official documents.

What we have here, is some stupid Bellarussian, who thinks he is Russian, that have low IQ, problems with understanding written text in english, and starts to write his believes inherited from the old soviet times, when national propaganda brainwashed most of population.

So seriously, perhaps you should consider to shut up eh?

Ohh talk with child...

 

[Damian]

You can say nothing because you have no idea about operation, your argument about horror, horrible ergonimics is funny, certainly serious planners did not downplay it.

Oh, I can say a lot, because I do not have any agenda to lie to people from countries outside a former soviet block.

If your point was that that rifled gun ammunition was improved over time, which is not denied, it did not keep with world advancements and was in need of replacement.

But I never said it had a growth potential making it capable to be still good weapon, I said it had growth potential and was not a bad gun, L7 and it clones were and still are one of the better tank guns designed.

Thruth is that there was a moment when forces were unbalanced, due to number of Soviet tanks and sophistication, clear superiority in firepower, and it is said not by me, but by official documents.

And where did I said otherwise? I don't know, or you are stupid or blind or both. I said that T-62 was neither superior, neither inferior compared to M60 or Chieftain, it was comparable. And this is obvious for anyone who have any deeper interest in tanks.

This is you who after reading some documents, start to create some fantasies to calm up his old sentiment to a failed state that does not exist anymore.

Ohh talk with child...

I can say the same... ohhh talk with old moron from former Soviet Union.

 

[Damian]

Also what can be said about Chieftain, is that it had several, well thinked solutions for a tank of it's generation. For example lack of conventional gun mantlet greatly reduced a front turret weak zone, I really like tank commander cupola and seat, of course these are not today standards, yet back then, it was probably one of more comfortable stations in tank.

Driver position that reduced hull height (and overall vehicle height), as well as significantly improved front hull protection.

Chieftain was not a bad tank, it had it's issues but what tank haven't, especially back then?

So calling Chieftain a failed design is not only unreasonable, it is plainly stupid, and show ignorance.


This video shows well, Chieftain details.

Seriously, what Chieftain lacked to be really good tank, was a composite armor back then, or at least a something similiar to later Stillbrew addon armor. But in terms of protection, it was not design superior or inferior to other comparable tanks of that time, and in terms of crew survivability it was definetly superior to other designs used back then, obviously the propelant charge bags in armored bins is not a perfect solution, not 80-100% safe, but still better than exposed ammunition in crew compartment like most tanks of that era had, and many more modern design also had such exposed ammunition.

Actually by comparing a known photos and video materials of Chieftains in combat, and T-72's, we can see, that Chieftain seems slightly more survivable when it comes to crew.

 

[Damian]

Nicholas Moran making a walkaround of British heavy tank Conqueror.