Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

And a walkaround M103, a comparable vehicle to Conqueror, with Nicholas Moran and Kenneth Estes.

 

[313230]

The Leopard 2A7 has more than 15 cm armour at the sides. The original heavy side skirts are 15 cm thick, the newer skirts on the Leopard 2A7 seem to be twice as thick.
Important is also that the whole array (composite armour and base armour) works as spaced armour thanks to the 635 mm wide tracks.

More important thing is that, the company produces Leo2a7 is a market leader. Just look at their ads, if it can protect against rpg29 caliber, there is no reason they didn't speak a single word about it. Remember, advertisement is very important in free market

It is just like AMD produces an IC faster than Intel and they *cough* keep it a secret, lol, even just in testing phase, they will advertise like hell. And suddenly some internet members claim it protected aganist rpg29

 

[313230]

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.

This

I would rather swimming in mud if it saves my life than sitting in a comfort seat. People complain about comfortables in war, what the hell is that? Soldiers crawl in dirt, running in hot weather without food or water, and then we talk about comfortable tank, lmao

 

[313230]

Lower weight of armor is achieved by new technology solutions, like ceramics made with nanotechnology, that are lighter yet stronger than older types of ceramics. Same applies to steel and other materials. You should read more about progress in materials made in western countries, these that are used, and new materials with incredible potential, yet to be known.

Perhaps he said you should read more advertisements, lmao, I want to ask you a basic question: what is the difference between strength and hardness of a material? Or are they the same?

Show some basic understandings before talking about newest techs

 

[methos]

More important thing is that, the company produces Leo2a7 is a market leader. Just look at their ads, if it can protect against rpg29 caliber, there is no reason they didn't speak a single word about it. Remember, advertisement is very important in free market

It is just like AMD produces an IC faster than Intel and they *cough* keep it a secret, lol, even just in testing phase, they will advertise like hell. And suddenly some internet members claim it protected aganist rpg29

Just look at the KMW brochures and website. They never state anything about the threats their tanks are protected against. The only case when they do it (in the brochures of their joint ventures with Rheinmetall, i.e. Boxer and Puma) they only state very vague things like "Highest protection level in its class - in terms of heavy machine guns, automatic medium calibre machine cannons, bomblets and artillery fragments" or "The ballistic armour is designed to provide protection against hand-held anti-tank weapons, medium calibre weapons, artillery fragments and bomblets.".

The RPG-29 is not some magic weapon capable of penetrating more armour than other weapons. It is an outdated weapon system already 24 years old. Newer and much more capable RPG systems already exist like the RPG-28 or the PzFst-3 T and IT. But most importantly you can give a RPG-7 the same level of armour penetration by using the PG-7VR ammunition of the same caliber. So if a tank is not proof against a 24 years old RPG-29, then it also can be defeated by all RPGs which are newer than 24 years...

 

[Damian]

Perhaps he said you should read more advertisements, lmao,

?

I want to ask you a basic question: what is the difference between strength and hardness of a material? Or are they the same?

Term strenght used alone, without any specification, can be understanded as improvement in overall characteristics, this is simple to understand, at least for human beings.

Show some basic understandings before talking about newest techs

Look who says this.

 

[Damian]

@methos is right, not to mention that RPG-29 penetration levels were greatly overestimated.

I think @militarysta had somewhere official data about it's penetration capabilities from the manufacturer company "Bazalt".

 

[Damian]

I would rather swimming in mud if it saves my life than sitting in a comfort seat. People complain about comfortables in war, what the hell is that? Soldiers crawl in dirt, running in hot weather without food or water, and then we talk about comfortable tank, lmao

It was proven during many tests as well as on battlefields, that more comfortable vehicle, with better ergonomics, increases efficency of it's crew. Less tired crew have higher situational awareness, can react faster, all of this ends in their higher combat efficency and higher survivability on the battlefield. Same for better all around visibility from vehicle, it also increases combat efficency and survivability.

If we compare for example World War II experiences, German tanks that had better ergonomics, were more cofmortable, and provided crew with better visibility, were far more efficent on the battlefield, than their Soviet analogues, for example PzKpfw III or IV vs T-34/76, even if on paper T-34 was a better tank.

If you ask for some more modern examples, for example US vs Iraq, despite the fact that in theory, T-72 should not be worser (let's put aside for a while fact that these were downgraded export variants), at least in terms of overall firepower, and should have some success fighting from behind prepared fortifications, in defense, however in fact, even when wheater was good, Iraqis were tired, their situational awareness were low, thus they were less efficent and less survivable. And take a note that Iraqi Republican Guard units, should be better than Americans, because Republican Guard was well trained, well equipped and had real combat experiences, contrary to Americans which most of them were reservists and soldiers from conscription.

 

[methos]

Both the T-62 and the Chieftain weren't ideal tanks of it's time.

The Chieftain does look like a good tank because of it's "brute force" - thick armour and large caliber gun. But it suffers in comparision with other tanks from a rather high number of odd design decisions.
The Leyland L60 engine is simply not powerful enough - even after the reliability issues were fixed, the tank was still the least mobile tank of it's era. The mantletless design improved the protection compared to a conventional gun mantlet, but increased the amount of time required for exchanging the barrel several times. The driver's semi-reclining seat didn't reduce the hull height compared to the other tank's of it's generation. The armour was thicker than the armour of all other tanks, but still could be penetrated by all types HEAT ammunition and at closer ranges by KE rounds.
But what in my opinion is the most questionable design decision is the fire control system. While the Chieftain had a very powerful gun, the Brittons were not willing to adopt an optical rangefinder. Instead they used a ranging machine gun, which drastically limited the effective firing range. The earliest machine gun rounds used for ranging allowed engaging targets up to only 1,100 m distance. Later an improved type of ammunition and newer sights allowed to engage targets up to 2,000 m distance. So while the Chieftain had a better gun than most other tanks, it couldn't engage targets effectively at a greater range.

Like other tanks the Chieftain was improved during it's lifetime, receiving a laser rangefinder in the early 1970s, the Improved Fire Control System (IFCS) beginning in 1975, APFSDS ammunition in 1984 (as last tank building NATO country). the TOGS thermal sight equipment in 1985 and Stillbrew armour in 1986. But at this time the Chieftain was already outperfromed in all aspects (armour, accuracy, firepower, mobility) by much newer NATO and Soviet tanks.

The T-62 is in some aspects better than the Chieftain, but overall it stays the same. The combination of stadiametric rangefinder and high velocity APFSDS ammunition performed quite well, but only at close ranges (up to 1,500 - 1,700 m). After this range, the stereoscopic coincidence rangefinders used on most NATO tanks with spin-stabilized APDS rounds managed to outperform the T-62.
The gun was good, but suffered from the poor ammunition used by the Soviet forces leading to a rather limited penetration performance: in the 1960s the gun clearly outperformed the L7 tank gun, but later during the 1970s better ammunition lead to a better performance of the L7 tank gun despite the 115 mm smopothbore gun being the better tank gun.
The ergonomics were very poor. The U.S. document show the result of that pretty clear: a rate of fire of only 4 rounds per minute! The T-62 was more mobile than the Chieftain, but much less mobile than all other NATO tanks of this era. It's small size made it hard to hit, but for fighting in terrain it often had to expose itself for firing.

 

[Damian]

IMHO lack of coincidence range finder in Chieftain and T-62 was most likely due to size of this device, I think that M60 turret for example, could be slightly lower is there won't be any rangefinder. However Leopard 1 had such device and was rather compact vehicle. Perhaps issue was concept of where rangefinder of such type should be placed, in M60 it was placed between TC and gunner, and TC was responsible for using it, we can assume it was a concept inherited from some heavy tanks. In Leopard 1 if I am correct, rangefinder was used by gunner not TC, thus it could be placed lower and in front of vehicle turret.

But the questions is, if Chieftain and T-62, could not had such device, IMHO they could but British MoD is known from lack of logic in their decisions, while T-62 was not really a long term solution, it was just enlarged T-55, designed as a stop gap untill T-64 was not ready for mass production.

 

[militarysta]

@methos is right, not to mention that RPG-29 penetration levels were greatly overestimated.

I think @militarysta had somewhere official data about it's penetration capabilities from the manufacturer company "Bazalt".

Yes, I have:

offcial BAZALT ads:


For compare PzF-3:

To be onest -both are overestiamted. Previous RPG-29 armour perforation values where taken from space (those funny 750mm RHA after ERA, or others). PzF-3IT is ussaly overestimeted - test in Poland (including tests vs ERAWA-2) shown mucht lower value - not 1100mm RHA but circa 800-900mm RHA. The same is about RPG-29. In fact those "750mm" was overstimeted and in BAZALT we have only "over 600mm" in fact it's circa 600-650mm RHA.

 

[methos]

The placement of an stereoscopic rangefinder is problematic, because it requires a considerable base length (1.55 m on Swiss tanks, 1.72 m on the original Leopard 1 and 2 m on the M60A1), which stands in conflict to the desire of having a well-sloped front. Putting the rangefinder in the rear or middle of the turret is possible, but not very practical.

In the Leopard 1 the rangefinder was used by the gunner and served at the same time as the gunner's primary sight. It has been claimed that this decreases the time required to acquire and range a target considerably in comparision with older tanks like the M48 or M60, while the commander can focus on the surroundings and tactical tasks.
In case of the Conqueror the commander's cupola included a stereoscopic rangefinder. I don't really know why the British tank designers didn't incorporate such a cupola in the Chieftain, but there might have been trouble in operating it. In the Chieftain the RMG is operated by the gunner afair.
In my opinion there wasn't T-62 enough space inside the T-62 to adopt a stereoscopic rangefinder.

 

[hest]

Just look at the KMW brochures and website. They never state anything about the threats their tanks are protected against. The only case when they do it (in the brochures of their joint ventures with Rheinmetall, i.e. Boxer and Puma) they only state very vague things like "Highest protection level in its class - in terms of heavy machine guns, automatic medium calibre machine cannons, bomblets and artillery fragments" or "The ballistic armour is designed to provide protection against hand-held anti-tank weapons, medium calibre weapons, artillery fragments and bomblets.".

The RPG-29 is not some magic weapon capable of penetrating more armour than other weapons. It is an outdated weapon system already 24 years old. Newer and much more capable RPG systems already exist like the RPG-28 or the PzFst-3 T and IT. But most importantly you can give a RPG-7 the same level of armour penetration by using the PG-7VR ammunition of the same caliber. So if a tank is not proof against a 24 years old RPG-29, then it also can be defeated by all RPGs which are newer than 24 years...

Most or all leading producers make such advertisements, "protection against RPG". It can be protected against the most widely available weapons. Of course for frontal arc protection can be provided, as well as on sides against common RPG but from this to claim protection against everything from all angles would be baseless.

For Leopard 2, judging the composition, without proofs or explanations there is nothing to say.

The Chieftain does look like a good tank because of it's "brute force" - thick armour and large caliber gun. But it suffers in comparision with other tanks from a rather high number of odd design decisions.
The Leyland L60 engine is simply not powerful enough - even after the reliability issues were fixed, the tank was still the least mobile tank of it's era. The mantletless design improved the protection compared to a conventional gun mantlet, but increased the amount of time required for exchanging the barrel several times. The driver's semi-reclining seat didn't reduce the hull height compared to the other tank's of it's generation. The armour was thicker than the armour of all other tanks, but still could be penetrated by all types HEAT ammunition and at closer ranges by KE rounds.
But what in my opinion is the most questionable design decision is the fire control system. While the Chieftain had a very powerful gun, the Brittons were not willing to adopt an optical rangefinder. Instead they used a ranging machine gun, which drastically limited the effective firing range. The earliest machine gun rounds used for ranging allowed engaging targets up to only 1,100 m distance. Later an improved type of ammunition and newer sights allowed to engage targets up to 2,000 m distance. So while the Chieftain had a better gun than most other tanks, it couldn't engage targets effectively at a greater range.

Chieftain was just big disinformation, claims of which were later refuted both by British and Soviet, and would have nothing to do as M60 or T-62. The weight increase was result of flawed design and not of protection, which was insufficient, and firepower was lagging as other NATO counterparts in 60-70s period (compared to 115 and 125 mm APFSDS), and it was further exacerbated by the fact that this two supposedly "strong" aspects came in sacrifice in mobility and reliability.

So that much more cheap, mobile, reliable and abundant T-62 in that period, (not talking about T-72 and T-64), in expected range had better chance to neutralise Chieftain with KE round, both due to accuracy and penetration, than Chieftain to T-62.

Like other tanks the Chieftain was improved during it's lifetime, receiving a laser rangefinder in the early 1970s, the Improved Fire Control System (IFCS) beginning in 1975, APFSDS ammunition in 1984 (as last tank building NATO country). the TOGS thermal sight equipment in 1985 and Stillbrew armour in 1986. But at this time the Chieftain was already outperfromed in all aspects (armour, accuracy, firepower, mobility) by much newer NATO and Soviet tanks.

Also true.

The T-62 is in some aspects better than the Chieftain, but overall it stays the same. The combination of stadiametric rangefinder and high velocity APFSDS ammunition performed quite well, but only at close ranges (up to 1,500 - 1,700 m). After this range, the stereoscopic coincidence rangefinders used on most NATO tanks with spin-stabilized APDS rounds managed to outperform the T-62.
The gun was good, but suffered from the poor ammunition used by the Soviet forces leading to a rather limited penetration performance: in the 1960s the gun clearly outperformed the L7 tank gun, but later during the 1970s better ammunition lead to a better performance of the L7 tank gun despite the 115 mm smopothbore gun being the better tank gun.

The 115 mm gun system outperformed in what were the expected engagement ranges (1500 m...) in accuracy, and was notably superior in penetration. Spin stabilisation did not allow decent L/D ratio and ballistics were inferior, lower velocity reduced accuracy. Regardless if corrections, which were not that better either, somewhat offer better accuracy at longer range, note that not only it was beyond the expected engagement, but accuracy decrease was still very notable and hit probability was poor.

APFSDS ammunition for L7 gun appeared late, not until end of 70s and start of 80s, so situation in 60-70s was unchanged, and it reached, but not surpassed established level of Soviet smoothbores.

The ergonomics were very poor. The U.S. document show the result of that pretty clear: a rate of fire of only 4 rounds per minute! The T-62 was more mobile than the Chieftain, but much less mobile than all other NATO tanks of this era. It's small size made it hard to hit, but for fighting in terrain it often had to expose itself for firing.

Such rate was cause of loading, which under some circumstances made necesary to elevate gun to reload, of course T-72, T-64 were different. About gun depression, it was not really such disadvantage, it was more a matter for defensive positions, and not always, promoted in US doctrine to avoid direct engagement.

 

[Damian]

Well the M48 and M60 definetely inherited rangefinder from the older heavy tank projects. And it seems that Leopard 1 solution was the best. as for Chieftain, when I read about it, I think that design was good, but suffers in details, like engine and poor fire control system, IFCS was not really well thinked design, compared to later M60A1 RISE/Passive, M60A3 or later Leopard 1's.

BTW Methos, FCS in Leopard 1A4, was it a digital system? Because it seems that welded turret have some sort of stereoscopic/coincidence rangefinder windows on both sides of turret.

 

[Damian]

Most or all leading producers make such advertisements, "protection against RPG". It can be protected against the most widely available weapons. Of course for frontal arc protection can be provided, as well as on sides against common RPG but from this to claim protection against everything from all angles would be baseless.

For Leopard 2, judging the composition, without proofs or explanations there is nothing to say.

As we can see, RPG-29 is nothing special, as per official manufacturer claims, so side protection is more than possible.

Chieftain was just big disinformation, claims of which were later refuted both by British and Soviet, and would have nothing to do as M60 or T-62. The weight increase was result of flawed design and not of protection, which was insufficient, and firepower was lagging as other NATO counterparts in 60-70s period (compared to 115 and 125 mm APFSDS), and it was further exacerbated by the fact that this two supposedly "strong" aspects came in sacrifice in mobility and reliability.

So that much more cheap, mobile, reliable and abundant T-62 in that period, (not talking about T-72 and T-64), in expected range had better chance to neutralise Chieftain with KE round, both due to accuracy and penetration, than Chieftain to T-62.

It is funny to call real vehicle a disinformation.

And what design flaws you talk about? Oh wait, of course, you do not understand that weight of vehicle is a sum of weight and size of different components. If Chieftain would use torsion bars suspension instead of bulky and heavy Horstmann suspension system, it would be lighter by several tons, same with ammunition storage, Chieftain have armored bins for propelant charges that also have some weight, if propelant charges would be stored in simple ammo racks, there would be less weight etc.

This is simple, Chieftains weight was a sum of weight of it's components.

Chieftain weighted 55-56 tons, M60A1 weighted approx 50 tons, we can assume that Chieftain with different suspension and lack of armored bins for propelant charges, several tons could be saved.

As for reliability, but T-62 was not reliable either, it was overweighted for it's engine. Not to mention that T-62 was what UKBTM was capable to do, take someones other design and redesign it, nothing special.

And when it comes to protection, but back then British didn't seen APDS or APFSDS as only anti-armor ammunition, 1960's were times when tanks had only steel armor, so HESH back then was preaty effective. We can imagine that British would use HESH long range and APDS short time.

Such rate was cause of loading, which under some circumstances made necesary to elevate gun to reload,

No, such rate was cause by poor ergonomics, other thing is that gun projectile cases ejection system was just idiotic design, with sight slaved to gun, not gun slaved to sight, it was improved later but shows how poor was thikning about ergonomics.

of course T-72, T-64 were different.

But we do not talk about T-64 and T-72, and we know these tanks were different. "Genius".

About gun depression, it was not really such disadvantage, it was more a matter for defensive positions, and not always, promoted in US doctrine to avoid direct engagement.

Gun elevation is important factor, especially when there is no time to prepare defensive positions and you need to use natural obstacles like hill slopes, in such case all Soviet tanks of the cold war period are in disadvantage.

 

[hest]

Yes, I have:

To be onest -both are overestiamted. Previous RPG-29 armour perforation values where taken from space (those funny 750mm RHA after ERA, or others). PzF-3IT is ussaly overestimeted - test in Poland (including tests vs ERAWA-2) shown mucht lower value - not 1100mm RHA but circa 800-900mm RHA. The same is about RPG-29. In fact those "750mm" was overstimeted and in BAZALT we have only "over 600mm" in fact it's circa 600-650mm RHA.

Modern hand held tandem RPG vary from 600 to 900 mm, note, after ERA. In any case there is hardly tank with side armour capable to resist such weapon.

 

[Damian]

RPG-28 is a different kind of RPG, bigger and much more capable than RPG-29. And we were talking about RPG-29 if you didn't noticed. Christ, can't this guy just read with understanding what other people write?

 

[hest]

But we do not talk about T-64 and T-72, and we know these tanks were different. "Genius".

They were contemporary, deployed in 70s, so must be considered same as rest.

RPG-28 is a different kind of RPG, bigger and much more capable than RPG-29. And we were talking about RPG-29 if you didn't noticed. Christ, can't this guy just read with understanding what other people write?

So was Panzerfaust ? And we are talking about RPG and tank vulnerability...

 

[militarysta]

Also turret or hull?
Leo2a7 has ~15- 20 cm of add on armor over side hull, let assume total LOS addon + base armor is ~30cm, given that against 700mm RHA of RPG 29, the thickness equivalent is more than 2, too high to be true. M1 arat2, similar, the thickness is too low.

If there is a tank which can withstand rpg29 from side, then they will make marketing about it like. The truth is none, I only seen the Oplot M advertised it.

First:
RPG-29 is circa "over 600mm RHA" for RHA plate, not 700mm it's big difrence.

Second: Tank turret is ussaly developed to achive some protection level for +/-30. for it's longitiudal axis and hull is for circa +/-20.for hull longitiudal axis.
So it's not strange that capturet AT-4 (circa 550-600mm RHA penetration) was able to perforate M1A1 turret sides for 90 degree. It's was posible becouse those turret (380mm LOS for 90.) was deveoped ta achive some protection for double LOS at max 30. degree (740mm LOS) when protection is circa 1000mm RHA+ vs HEAT.
The same story is for Leopard-2:
protection for Leopard2A3 and 2A4 (erly) can be as:
~430-480-540mm vs KE and 850-954-1084mm vs HEAT (turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front at 30. - turret front at 0.)

For Leopard-2A4 since 1986 IMHO it will be slighty bigger:
500-550-630mm vs KE and -1000-1150-1300mm vs CE ((turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front ad 30. - turret front at 0.)

In both cases turret sides have for 30. (330mm LOS for 90. and 660mm LOS for 30.)
erly 2A4 - 850mm RHA at 30.
late 2A4 - 1000mm RHA at 30.
For 90 degree i'ts mucht lower values:
~420-440mm RHA at 90.
~500mm RHA at 90.
So without aditional armour it was impossible in late 1980 to protect against RPG whit modern warhed. But it wasn't target for tank developers in 1980s. Turret sides and hull sides protection had started to be important in lat 1990s. whit hose all COIN operations and others (Irak, A-stan, and other).
Now, for doubled LOS thickness for Leopard-2 turret in Leopard-2A7or Revolution IMHO they really can protect against RPG-29 and others becouse even for 90. degree we have 330mm LOS "old" armour and circa 400mm the same "new" ad-on armour. So whole LOS is more then doubled. So turret side protection for 90. shoud overcome 1000mm RHA vs HEAT for Revolution and 2A7 Leopard-2. And those value (slighty more then 1000mm RHA vs HEAT) is enought to protect turret sides.
How about hull? Now it's start to be funny, becouse we shoud decide if we trust PSM Puma engeener or not In their opinnion (posted in polish translate article about SPz Puma written by german Puma engenieer) SPZz Puma armour protect for sides against "newest RPG granades" but the trick can be hidden is very sophisticated SPz Puma sides constrution when we have heavy balistic skirts and after that side sponsons whit suspensions and fuel inside and after that hull sides and crew coparment. So it's not so easly, and those protection against ""newest RPG granades"" can be achive not for amour only but for whole alyout whit: side skirts module armour + sponsons whit fuel and suspension + thick hull side.

 

[Damian]

They were contemporary, deployed in 70s, so must be considered same as rest.

No, we are talking about M60, Leopard 1, AMX-30, Chieftain and T-62 +eventually T-54/55 as a comparable vehicles, not about tanks of next generation with completely different characteristics.

Is this clear caveman?

So was Panzerfaust ? And we are talking about RPG and tank vulnerability...

Militarysta shown PzF only for comparrision, to show that most estimations are overestimated for such type of weapons.