Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

If Tanks have to evolve, which path they should follow?

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 25 7.3%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 57 16.7%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 198 58.1%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 61 17.9%

  • Total voters
    341

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
PZA Loara SPAAG is most impressive and it is competing for Indian army future gun-missile system along with others in row which are SKYRANGER, Pantsir-1 , MACHBET ..
Seriously? As far as I know, PZA Loara is currently in freeze, as the old hull is no longer considered as perspective, of course turret system, radar and all electronics are ready to be manufactured but at least Polish Army is waiting for new platform "Rydwan" on which new SPAAG will be based.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
101%, Loara is currently selected with other competitors, Its a different thing if company refuse to compete, the competition is not yet initiated..

Seriously? As far as I know, PZA Loara is currently in freeze, as the old hull is no longer considered as perspective, of course turret system, radar and all electronics are ready to be manufactured but at least Polish Army is waiting for new platform "Rydwan" on which new SPAAG will be based.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
101%, Loara is currently selected with other competitors, Its a different thing if company refuse to compete, the competition is not yet initiated..
This is very interesting information. And give a lot to think.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
PZA Loara SPAAG is most impressive and it is competing for Indian army future gun-missile system along with others in row which are SKYRANGER, Pantsir-1 , MACHBET ..
More or less LOARA-PZA have proven abilities to hit 122mm GRAD MLRS rockets during fly from 1,6km... using FAPTS/APFSD ammo not AHAD (Air Burst)! Propably now is the most accuracy gun sytem on the world. But it's really expensive. Is't big pitty that rocket version Loara-PZR never was ended. More or less future is belong to rocket-gun AA system (like Pantsir-S1) but in case only gun system Loara-PZA haven't even simmilar opposide system. Maybe idea is close to german Gepard, but used components, very advanced FCS, and others give Loara-PZA abilities beyond any other gun system.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
Gur Khan attacks!: Двигатель для "Арматы"

Указанный двигатель имеет три номинала форсировки: 1200л.с., 1350л.с. и 1500л.с. В последнем случае гарантийный ресурс составляет 400 часов (на 1000-сильном В-92С2 - 300 часов),
I don't belive it :shocked::rofl::rofl:
V92S2 have only 300h guaranteed lifetime? ROTFL
1500HP version 12Н360 have 400h guaranteed life time?
It's joke isn't it?

Time to first factory service (lifetime):

V46 - 500-800h
V92S2 - 700h
6TD - 800h
UTD1250 -1000h
AGT-1500 - 700h
AGT-1500 after TIGER -1500h
MB873 - 1500h

In MB873 time to first factory sevice is 1500h. Guaranteed life time is between 1000 and 4500h. Important - lower value (1000h) is given for engine without eny service (changes of oils, filters etc) and using in very bad conditions.So factory warranty is minimum 1000h for engine without bigger human interference and used in very heavy conditions (desert, etc). Value 4500h is given for typical Europe climate and for engine whit periodic replacement of supplies (oils, filters, etc).

So it's looks like a joke.
MB873 form erly 1970s - 1000h guaranteed life time
V92S2 from 1990s - 300h guaranteed life time
new 12Н360 on 1500HP mode ~2012 - 400h guaranteed lifetime

It can't be true :shocked:
 
Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
It is true.
When installed on drilling rig 5TDF has 10000 hours lifetime, so why a new Russian engine can not have 12 000 ?
As fot the tank - it is false, the author misunderstood the info.
More or less V92S2 instaled in tank whit fluent load have only 300h guranteed life? Im really shocked.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202

Interesting T-72 upgrade made in Czech Republic in the 1990's, it use FCS SAVAN-15.
 

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
5tdf had warranty - 500 hours .
It means that if it fails under this perioud it is replaced by the costs of factory. But of course it may work much more.
What is such numbers for german engines?
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
What is such numbers for german engines?
I have data for only polish Leopard-2 whit standard MB873 - in german tanks it's count for used fuel in kg - so engine is repair not after some hour but after some kg values for used fuel. More or less guaranteed life time is 1000h by factory and this is only value given in "h"*but in any manuals for tank crews** is given kg value - so it's depend on fuel counsumption -in theory between 1000 and ~4500h for pick fuel compsumtion (over >650kg per 1h) and for lowest "normal" (during tank moving) compsumtion (circa 280kg per 1h). Of course there is service aspect including in those values too.

More or less both systems (Soviets- in H and Germans in used kg of fuel) are hard to compare. Only I can post some conclusion for compare PT-91 whit V46 engine and S-1000 and Leo-2A4 whit MB873 - V46 and it's clones (ex W84MS) is piece of shit.


*accoding to Kampfpanzer heute und morgen
** accoding to TDV

btw: http://www.pzl-wola.pl/index.php?page=silnikis&lang=pl&PHPSESSID=81db3c29c7b910ae23b0f7c4d7e7b75b
" Silniki S - produkty wycofane ze sprzedaży " :lol:
And this is end history V46 family in Poland and it's clones. No more S-12U, S-1000 and other - factory production line is closed, and army now will choose new engine developers whit licence for all engines famili -beyween ~400 and 1500HP. More or less the poll position in this trade have MTU.
 
Last edited:

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
It's importnat to notice that in Gerany they had developed very advanced ERA till 1970s and 1980s but for some resons Germans didn't placed ERA on their top tanks (Leopard-2). Then natural is asking "why?".
Probably the common reasons mentioned every time by the Germans when it comes to ERA like:
-ERA hasn't multi-hit capability
-ERA isn't (or at least wasn't) using insensitive explosives
-ERA increases the collateral damage on the vehicle's surroundings
-ERA does only decrease the penetration power of incoming threat and still requires - depending on the threat - considerable base armour


2) Germans have anti-APFSDS ERA since 1973 at leas and in article there is mentined about nex developmend phase -10 yeras. So in at least 1983 ERA whit abilities to defeted long rods where redy.
The test against the Leopard 1 + ERA with 105 mm APFSDS were done in 1977 according to the source. But without knowing the exact location of the ERA, the thickness of the flyer plates and the type of ammunition used (105 mm APFSDS ammunition wasn't fielded in Germany in 1977).


And now we have SPz Puma - anyowne can check it's side protection in "C" level. Angain - puzzling...
It is supposed to be "passive armour" (in the sense that it is not ERA, but possibly composite armour and/or NERA). The pre-series vehicles of the Puma which were delievered to the German Army/BWB used very large armour modules at the flanks - only four or five per side.
Then there was some sort of intermediate version from which pictures were once used on the KMW website. There the side armour modules made of various "brick-shaped" modules of different size.

There also were two different versions of side armour presented on the roduction vehicles (which can be identified on the slat armour below the sideskirts). One does have the "brick/tile shaped" armour modules and the other does have only five armour modules at the side. Both vehicle types were presented shortly after the delievery of the first serial Puma to the BWB.
 

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag


_______________

Americans and British during World War II designed composite armor. One of the first tanks tested with composite armor was M4 Sherman tank for which was designed, probably the first modular armor package codenamed HCR2.
Well "composite armour" is a very wide term. "Composite armour" has been designed and patented in numerous countries already prior the Second World War. Then there are various field modifications - sometimes done following orders from the government/military leaders - using other materials than steel or different type of construction (logs, sand bags, bed-spring armour or mesh armour, spaced armour, armour combining different types of steel) which were actually used in combat.
"Composite armour" is not used to describe any of these early armour arrays, despite probably being a valid term. HCR2 is not any different. It was - like all types of early non-homogenous steel armour - very inefficient regarding weight and space.

In my opinion it was not the first modular armour package. First of all it is a retro-fit package - there wouldn't be any option to mount the armour in any other way than it has been mounted. But the way the armour is mounted - fixed by steel bars to the vehicle - is identical with the way how the spaced skirts were mounted on the Panzerkampfwagen III and IV (around the turret and at the hull sides, which is exactly the same location were HCR2 was used).


Armor was tested, and it was very promising
It was not. It had low multi-hit capability (due to the modules falling of the tank after being hit, the same problem had the German spaced armour) and most importantly weighed multiple tons per tank - weight which wasn't supported by any Allied chassis used during WW2.[/quote]


More or less LOARA-PZA have proven abilities to hit 122mm GRAD MLRS rockets during fly from 1,6km... using FAPTS/APFSD ammo not AHAD (Air Burst)!
More or less means what? How often did that happen? Once, twice or a relevant amount of times to judge it's capabilities?
In Germany the Gerpard SPAAG was praised after some were presented to the Brazilian army - due to the shortage of money, the Brazilian army used commercial remote-controlled aircraft models as targets; the wind was 12 knots which made the model aircraft "move like yo-yos" (according to a report wirtten by one of the Germans who were sent to Brazil). All model aircraft were defeated by direct hits with FAPDS ammunition while the 40 mm Bofors used by the Brazilian army didn't shot down any with time-fuzed HE ammunition.
But in general I don't think that it is some wonder to shot down a 122 mm GRAD missile. In Germany the Geprard used 12 rounds per gun for defeating air-targets and twice the amount if the target was a low-flying fast-moving target. With 48 rounds and a distance of 1.6 km (which means a very low disperson) hitting such a missile shouldn't be something special (at least not if the missile is not engaged frontally). For example the disperson of 25 mm SAPHEI is 0.43 mils at 2,000 m - at 1,600 m it should theoretically be 0.344 mils. Put 48 rounds in a circle with 34 cm diameter and try not to hit a 122 mm wide tube...


Propably now is the most accuracy gun sytem on the world.
I'd be careful with such statements. The weakest part of a system limits it's usefullness - in the case of the Loara the twin 35 mm guns are limiting it's effectiveness. The mount (and configuration) of the guns is essentially the same as used on the Gepard, Type 87 SPAAG, Marksman SPAAG etc.
The Loara has some very nice and modern radar dishes - but it doesn't matter if you can see the target 28 km away or only 15 km away, when the range of the gun is limited to 5 km on both vehicles. Last time Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands upgraded their Gepard SPAAGs (they used the same upgrade) during 1997-2001, they didn't exchange the radars because it wasn't making sense.

The Skyranger is probably better. The 35/1000 gun is replacing the older twin 35 mm Oerlikon gun in several countries and the sensor units are top-notch. However the Skyranger system mounted on a Boxer is even larger (higher) than a PAZ Loara!

 

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
Probably the common reasons mentioned every time by the Germans when it comes to ERA like:
-ERA hasn't multi-hit capability
Only plain steel has some degree of multi-hit capability. Look at known photos of merkava hit for example, do you see any multi-hit capability ?
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
Only plain steel has some degree of multi-hit capability. Look at known photos of merkava hit for example, do you see any multi-hit capability ?
If it's based on some Burlinghton clones then rather Yes.
More or less one of advantage Burlinghton armour is to winstand multi-hit:



Translate part 1:
In the second half of the seventies began to pay more attention to the protection against kinetic munitions. "Biscuits" (Burlinhton-milit.) developed for Chieftain mk 5/2 was able to stop 105 mm APDS shot virtually "with relief" (0m distance) or 120 mm APDS from a distance
1200-1300m. In 1975 in the United States, "Americanized" armor was successfully tested against 152 mm XM578 APFSDS munition and HEAT projectiles (unspecified caliber) which represented the expected level of the warhed in 1980s'. The bigger challenge was more modern sub-caliber (APFSDS) ammunition. During one of the tripartite weapon test (UK, FRG, USA about main gun -milit) one APFSDS fired from a German smoothbore 120mm gun overpass on of he "Cobhan" armour variant whit velocity simulating the hit from 6000m distance. Developed heavier version of the armour was however, pierced only from 200m distance.



Translate part 2:

Later, the designers were able to increase the resistance of the modules. At the beginning of 1970, reported: "All technical problems attaching armor so that it have the ability to repel (windstand) many attacks have been overcome. For example, the first module of the front of the hull withstood (survive?): 9 SC warhed attack, including 5 SC whit 152mm caliber (diameter) and 4 whit 127 mm caliber (diameter). Second (Buringhton module -milit) stopped 120mm HESH round, which was followed by many 127mm diameter SC warhed hits. The other (Burlinghton armour module -milit) survive 3 APDS cal.105mm and after that hits (more then two? milit) by 127mm diameter SC." In July 1970 the "biscuit" No. 4 (Burlinghton version -milit) mounted whit some kind of amortisation on 50mm thick RHA plate (front hull) survive multiple hits by: 105mm round from "0m distance", 152mm diameter "žShillelagh" warhed, two SC 152mm dimater test warhed and finnaly 120mm APDS whit velocity like on 1300m distance hit. Ability to protect against multiple attacks has become an important asset, of the "Burlington" armour.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Well "composite armour" is a very wide term. "Composite armour" has been designed and patented in numerous countries already prior the Second World War. Then there are various field modifications - sometimes done following orders from the government/military leaders - using other materials than steel or different type of construction (logs, sand bags, bed-spring armour or mesh armour, spaced armour, armour combining different types of steel) which were actually used in combat.
"Composite armour" is not used to describe any of these early armour arrays, despite probably being a valid term. HCR2 is not any different. It was - like all types of early non-homogenous steel armour - very inefficient regarding weight and space.

In my opinion it was not the first modular armour package. First of all it is a retro-fit package - there wouldn't be any option to mount the armour in any other way than it has been mounted. But the way the armour is mounted - fixed by steel bars to the vehicle - is identical with the way how the spaced skirts were mounted on the Panzerkampfwagen III and IV (around the turret and at the hull sides, which is exactly the same location were HCR2 was used).
Well, we agree to disagree.

It was not. It had low multi-hit capability (due to the modules falling of the tank after being hit, the same problem had the German spaced armour) and most importantly weighed multiple tons per tank - weight which wasn't supported by any Allied chassis used during WW2.
It depends on source. My source (Paweł Przeździecki) written that armor was promising against shaped charge warheads, but other projectiles, especially fired from anti tank and tank guns, were mostly above it's protection capabilities.

Only plain steel has some degree of multi-hit capability. Look at known photos of merkava hit for example, do you see any multi-hit capability ?
You mean these two photos of two different Merkava Mk4 tanks? First ask yourself what hit them, it might not had been nececary ATGM or RPG with shaped charge warhead, another thing is how many times their armor modules were hit.

Truth is however that composite armor of Merkava tanks differs from NATO composite armors in it's mechanical strength, NATO composite armors are packed (also as armor in T-xx tanks) in to cavieties made from relatively thick steel plates, thus armor package have lesser chances to be seriously damaged, and can provide multi hit capabilities as British documents says (Militarysta provided them). Merkava armor modules have very thin outerlayers.
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Was stumble upon these old and forgotten pictures...

















Such an Upgrade could have help those poor Syrian tankers..

Slovakia, Photo made in ZTS Martin company, T-72M1-A from ZTS Martin
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Yup, T-72M2 Moderna 2 was definetely very interesting proposal, pity our neigbours Slovaks never had chance to sold it to anyone.

Very interesting is also ERA used by Slovaks and Czechs designated "Dyna", have very interesting internal design.

 
Last edited:

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
Yup, T-72M2 Moderna 2 was definetely very interesting proposal, pity our neigbours Slovaks never had chance to sold it to anyone.

Very interesting is also ERA used by Slovaks and Czechs designated "Dyna", have very interesting internal design.

no, nothing common with Noz or Duplet.
It is initial (1960-s) ideas like - http://btvt.narod.ru/1/zudt/1-1/0_13.jpg
These was amoung the ideas for T-64 in end 60-s.
So called volume shape hydrodynamic layout, described here - ОСНОВНЫЕ НАПРАВЛЕНИЯ РАЗВИТИЯ ЗАЩИТНЫХ УСТРОЙСТВ ДИНАМИЧЕСКОГО ТИПА, ПРОБЛЕМЫ, ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ
 

Articles

Top