Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

First:
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.

It is not any indicative, you would actually need to have a biased mind to believe that lower density add on element on vulnerable base would bring to frontal protection level (thickness... has nothing to do as argument) not to mention even more vulnerable hull, obviously claim of all around protection against all warheads is weak.

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.

This is another understanding of protection, for example there can be different kinds of neutralisation, A, B, C... related to mobility, operability, crew etc, and ways to achieve with screening of secondary elements. In Puma it is likely that due to this, effect can be reduced but it is completely different case, at cost of mobility or system kill, than to argue about penetration or no penetration.

 

[hest]

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.

Yes, talk started with US document and force comparison in 70s, when M60 Leopard Chieftain T-62 and T-64 and T-72 were contemporary.

 

[militarysta]

I found thoe article about SPz Puma:
Thomas MEUTER, Puma -niemiecka platforma bojowa przyszości, RAPORT-wto 4/2004,s.48
.......-//-................, Puma germa's future combat platform, .............-//-..................-//-.........

In this article there is only given armour protection for level "A" (airportable):
IED up to 10kg under hull
all around: 14,5mm
for +/-30:
middle caliber APFSDS (up to 60mm) and against modern RPG-7/18 granades and SPG-9 granades
But there is part in article when is written that real SPz Puma protecton is bigger then anybody are tkinking.

in second article about SPz Puma:
Wojciech Łuczak, Puma się ujawnia, RAPORT-wto 01/2006, s.44
...........-//-..........,Puma's comingout, .....................-//-..............
we have slighty more about Puma. - in level "C" Puma is protected (+/- 90.) agaisnt middle caliber APFSDS (up to 60mm) and "modern RPG granades" and for top attack subamunition (bomblets),
So...who knows...

 

[Damian]

Yes, talk started with US document and force comparison in 70s, when M60 Leopard Chieftain T-62 and T-64 and T-72 were contemporary.

No, and seriously do not try to force on us your imaginations.

 

[militarysta]

It is not any indicative, you would actually need to have a biased mind to believe that lower density add on element on vulnerable base would bring to frontal protection level (thickness... has nothing to do as argument) not to mention even more vulnerable hull, obviously claim of all around protection against all warheads is weak.

Not to "frontal protection" becouse it's bullshit. Modern M1A2 and Leo-2A5-A7 are able to windstand for front turret (+/-30.) Kornet and Chrizantimea whit bigger then 1300mm RHA perforation, and we are talking only about circa 1000mm RHA for 90. and about 730mm LOS. It's first -second - we don't know on what is based those KMW and IBD armour. But for Oplot-M is possible to protect aginst RPG-29 whit even "lower density" ERA casette inisde hull modules. Impossibe? Possible. So where is problem? Those module can based on SLERA, or CLARA ERA or other solution inside those modules. And protection was possible for ARAT-2 on M1A2 TUSK, for Street Fighter CR-2 and for Oplot-M, so it's possible to achive that protection.
For me only one questionable think is hull protection.

 

[militarysta]

BTW: germans developers achive that future soviet IFV will have 100mm smothobore low-pressure gun and 47-57mm autocanon and in the begining of the Puma program that protection level was suspected. So ~40-57mm APFSDS whit circa 200-220mm RHA and at least 100mm SC warhed whit circa 750mm RHA perforation, on late developmend phase there was needed by BW incarese protection agaist anti-RPG protection (bigger then 100mm SC can achive). So propably against 105 or even 125mm SC RPG granades, but its only IMHO and I haven't "hard" sources here.

 

[hest]

Not to "frontal protection" becouse it's bullshit. Modern M1A2 and Leo-2A5-A7 are able to windstand for front turret (+/-30.) Kornet and Chrizantimea whit bigger then 1300mm RHA perforation, and we are talking only about circa 1000mm RHA for 90. and about 730mm LOS. It's first

The point is that everybody can bring such bullshit with no proofs, the other side of the coin is to claim that RPG, Khrizantema can penetrate any armour, both are silly without proof or atleast explanation.

-second - we don't know on what is based those KMW and IBD armour. But for Oplot-M is possible to protect aginst RPG-29 whit even "lower density" ERA casette inisde hull modules. Impossibe? Possible. So where is problem? Those module can based on SLERA, or CLARA ERA or other solution inside those modules. And protection was possible for ARAT-2 on M1A2 TUSK, for Street Fighter CR-2 and for Oplot-M, so it's possible to achive that protection.
For me only one questionable think is hull protection.

1 If don't know, last thing to do is make assertions, and less if you are unable to find any evidence.
2 To express an opinion, explain it.

IBD armour has nothing to do with Oplot, so I do not see your point. For that there was also evidence from tests and explanation also from entityes different from producer, if you cannot bring the same, or atleast explain, then claim is baseless. Neither I understand the origin of such claim (what made you think so) other than bias.

SLERA... ERA explain how should they achieve then.

What protection was possible ? ARAT-2 or Challenger did not proved anything close to protection against tandem RPG for all sides, which is your claim, so again, what is the point ?

 

[methos]

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

It is a question of the composition and efficiency of the armour. Between the hull and the incomming threat will always be ~300 mm composite armour, 635 mm empty space (and/or roadwheels) and the base armour (should be ~80 - 100 mm at the crew comparment). It should be possible to obtain protection against a RPG-29 with such an array.

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.

This depends on exact timeframe and projectile. The earliest 115 mm APFSDS had very poor accuracy during the conflicts in the Near East, because there were problems with the sabot separation. As a result on later models holes (at an angle of 40°) were made into the sabot petals - this increased the accuracy but reduced the velocity slightly.
The penetration was superior, but that didn't matter much. In the expected engagement ranges all tanks could be defeated with 105 mm APDS at 1,500 m distance, only the Chieftain was partially protected against it - but at 1,000 - 1,200 m it also could be penetrated. The early 115 mm APFSDS had problems with ricocheting, which was later corrected with the BM-6V.

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.

The low rate of fire was however a drawback and is much lower than that of a NATO tank from the same era with 105 mm rifled gun.

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.

The Leopard 1A4 used a hybrid design with analog fire control computer. The rangefinder was completely new (the EMES-12A1) but still a stereoscopic rangefinder which required manual ranging.
The late export tanks for Canada and Australia used a laser rangefinder instead, which was located in the same place as the former EMES-12A1

__________

Ps:
AMAP-SC has a mass efficiency of 8 to 10 according to the claims of IBD. That means it offers performance similar to ERA.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Syrian tankman gives his opinion on the T-72AV (both pro and con)

 

[hest]

It is a question of the composition and efficiency of the armour. Between the hull and the incomming threat will always be ~300 mm composite armour, 635 mm empty space (and/or roadwheels) and the base armour (should be ~80 - 100 mm at the crew comparment). It should be possible to obtain protection against a RPG-29 with such an array.

Just with such overlooking, there isn't anything in the composition, if we note that RPG warhead was designed to perform against more complex arrays than this one, nothing that would tell not that protection could be achieved under some circumstance, but in all cases. Moreover should, could is not strong argument...

This depends on exact timeframe and projectile. The earliest 115 mm APFSDS had very poor accuracy during the conflicts in the Near East, because there were problems with the sabot separation. As a result on later models holes (at an angle of 40°) were made into the sabot petals - this increased the accuracy but reduced the velocity slightly.
The penetration was superior, but that didn't matter much. In the expected engagement ranges all tanks could be defeated with 105 mm APDS at 1,500 m distance, only the Chieftain was partially protected against it - but at 1,000 - 1,200 m it also could be penetrated. The early 115 mm APFSDS had problems with ricocheting, which was later corrected with the BM-6V.

Exact timeframe, is almost all 60 to start of 80s, excluding very initial period on which issues are normal, but were solved with no delay, even at start there were different models, bm4,5,6... On most of T-62 deployment time, there were not problems which seriously affected it's paramethers.

Penetration didn't matter ? APFSDS exceeded to about 1.3 times, even against M60A1 it had more than 70% chance of neutralisation while to neutralise T-62 it was 50-50. Chieftain in combat would not fare any better.

The low rate of fire was however a drawback and is much lower than that of a NATO tank from the same era with 105 mm rifled gun.

True, there were drawbacks as well as many advantages, also T-62 was not the only nor the best of Soviet deployment later on.

 

[methos]

Just with such overlooking, there isn't anything in the composition, if we note that RPG warhead was designed to perform against more complex arrays than this one, nothing that would tell not that protection could be achieved under some circumstance, but in all cases. Moreover should, could is not strong argument...

The armour is however optimized for dealing with man-held anti-tank weapons like RPGs. Unless the tank designers are dumb, they will know that a RPG-7 with the right ammunition penetrates about the same amount of armour than a RPG-29. So designing tank armour to withstand a RPG-7 with the original PG-7V ammunition doesn't make sense at all.
The T-72 even with ERA does perform terrible against RPG-29s, but that doesn't mean that other tanks with much more side armour does also perform so bad.

Penetration didn't matter ? APFSDS exceeded to about 1.3 times, even against M60A1 it had more than 70% chance of neutralisation while to neutralise T-62 it was 50-50. Chieftain in combat would not fare any better.

It is not stated how the probability of killing a tank after hitting it was calculated.
The higher chance of killing an M60A1 after hitting it is not neccessarily result of the T-62 having higher armour penetration thanks to the use of APFSDS rounds. In the declassified CIA file "U.S. Intelligence and Soviet Armour" the probability of killing a tank after hitting it is calculated from the whole frontal profile - including tracks, the gun barrel and the sloped section of the roof (where rounds simply ricocheted).

 

[militarysta]

Nice example of turret-down position:


BTW: for younger members:
hull-down ---> turret down ---> hide position

 

[militarysta]

The point is that everybody can bring such bullshit with no proofs, the other side of the coin is to claim that RPG, Khrizantema can penetrate any armour, both are silly without proof or atleast explanation.

It was posted here hundret times, so it can be post 101 time again...

Rather all evidence proof that Burlinghton-style armour in M1IP and Leopard-2A4 provide the possibility of obtaining more than 800-1000mm vs HEAT:
a) technical possibilities Burlinghton armour in that dimensions and weight (armour LOS, and known armour weight)
b) soviet ATGMs penetration values and it's very fast grow in erly 1980s.
c) known fact about AGDUS and it's damage models included in Leopard-2A4 and TOW/HOT (creators of the AGDUS where sure that ATGM whit tandem warhed and with perforation between 800-1000mm RHA is not able to kill Leopard-2A4 after frontal hit)
d) "life test" from ex: ODS when M1A1HA take frontal hit by AGM-114 (more then 1000mm RHA penetation) and there was no perforation.
e) complete lack of any ( well known on west) ERA protection on western IIIgen tanks during whole 1980s.
More or less all evidence proof that Burlinghton amour had circa about 1000mm RHA vs HEAT in late 1980s.

And in 1998 we have first Leo-2A5 in service whid added NERA wedges, and new armour. It's almoust sure that 2A5 armour must be better then 2A4. So I can't see any problem here.

 

[hitesh]

Re: Indian Army Armored Vehicles

Russian T-99 Armata Main Battle Tank

 

[Damian]

@hitesh

This is not new MBT based on "Armata" platform, neither that tank received T-xx designation code yet, and that 3d graphis shows some idea how Object 195 might look.

 

[Damian]

@Kunal Biswas, I have some interesting informations. Our vice-MOD, general Waldemar Skrzypczak, recently confirmed that Poland is purchasing two tank battalions of Leopard 2A5 tanks from Germany.

These are great news!

 

[methos]

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Indeed, That is very good..

How about upgrading existing Leo2a4 ?

@Kunal Biswas, I have some interesting informations. Our vice-MOD, general Waldemar Skrzypczak, recently confirmed that Poland is purchasing two tank battalions of Leopard 2A5 tanks from Germany.

These are great news!

 

[Damian]

Indeed, That is very good..

How about upgrading existing Leo2a4 ?

Plans is rather simple.

Currently using Leopard 2A4's, 10th Armored Cavalry Brigade will receive new Leopard 2A5's, and currently using PT-91 tanks 34th Armored Cavalry brigade will switch to Leopard 2A4's, PT-91's will then be transfered to some unit currently using T-72M1's, and T-72M1's will be withdrawn from service and put in to storage untill decision will be made what we will do with them.

Then the Leopard 2A4's we have, will be upgraded to Leopard 2PL standard, and then Leopard 2A5's will also be upgraded to Leopard 2PL standard, this creates a serious question, what form will Leopard 2PL have, I assume it will be some form of improved Leopard 2A5, with attachements for addon armor used for example in Leopard 2A7 or different upgrades we can see, like Rhinemetall Revolution, or Canadian Leopard 2A4M-CAN.

Of course due to possible financial problems, modernization can be done in several stages, however the so called "technical dialog" between army and industry is not finished yet, so we can't say for sure what improvements will be used during modernization.

In the end the plan is to have approx ~250+ Leopard 2PL tanks in two armored cavalry brigades, and also ~230+ PT-91's and some T-72M1's in some other brigades, and after 2020 we will start to withdraw slowly PT-91's and T-72M1's and replace them with new MBT designed within program "Rydwan".

 

[Dazzler]

in the meantime, Chinese modified autoloader from Type-96 mbt, the gunner in picture modified it himself which the company liked and picked for future models..