Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

BTW: In Polish "New Military Technology" time 0-32km/h for Al Chalid whit ukrainian 1200HP power-pack is <9s.

 

[farhan_9909]

Polish military press give answer as Andriej said: no ESM just final drives integrated with two gearbox for Al Chalid.

ONLY the first few prototypes..since AL khalid was suppose to enter service by 1996,but due to major delays and modification in entered into service by 2001 nov..

Basic Al khalid is based off prototype 3

while the latest upgraded al khalid I has yet another transmission.

 

[farhan_9909]

@militarysta

Design and Control of Auto-Loader Control Unit of T-80 UD Tank what does this mean?

this is just recently developed for t-80 by the nust research lab

 

[Andrei_bt]

ONLY the first few prototypes..since AL khalid was suppose to enter service by 1996,but due to major delays and modification in entered into service by 2001 nov..

Basic Al khalid is based off prototype 3

while the latest upgraded al khalid I has yet another transmission.

Dear friend... you are from Pakistan as I may assume, but you don't have any Idea on your tank industry....
it is not good...

Make some respect to people who made this tank (bouth Pakisatni, Ukrainian and Chiniese).

also notice - remote control was initialy considered -

(jule 2006)

 

[farhan_9909]

Dear friend... you are from Pakistan as I may assume, but you don't have any Idea on your tank industry....
it is not good...

Make some respect to people who made this tank (bouth Pakisatni, Ukrainian and Chiniese).

also notice - remote control was initialy considered -

(jule 2006)

ok i dont know.

I agree Pak tank industry is not at the level of germany or the related countries.but it is good enough for pakistan

leaving aside the engine we are capable of developing any other subsystem for Al khalid.such as the FCS in al khalid I is now locally developed.in the basic AK it had French,

so you work for heavy industry taxila?since you are refusing there claim even though they are the manfuacturer of the tank

 

[Andrei_bt]

ok i dont know.

I agree Pak tank industry is not at the level of germany or the related countries.but it is good enough for pakistan

I do not mention this .


Pakistan tank industry is at least producing a tank of a world lewel (AL Khalid).
But don't forget - it is not Pakistani, it is joint China, Ukrainian and Pakistan project.

leaving aside the engine we are capable of developing any other subsystem for Al khalid.such as the FCS in al khalid I is now locally developed.in the basic AK it had French,

Subsystems for Al khalid, such as the FCS were developed with 90% China and foreign assistnce.

so you work for heavy industry taxila?since you are refusing there claim even though they are the manfuacturer of the tank

they are the manfuacturer of the tank, but not they who developed it ....
Remember thouse, who did, not invent .

 

[farhan_9909]

I do not mention this .


Pakistan tank industry is at least producing a tank of a world lewel (AL Khalid).
But don't forget - it is not Pakistani, it is joint China, Ukrainian and Pakistan project.

Lol,Al khalid is as good as the tanks of its class be it the t-80ud or t-90.it might not be a match for the heavy western tanks in armour but for that purpose we already are developing a further variant of al khalid as al khalid 2 with 55ton weight

A jv between china and pakistan.ukranine initially only provided the engine.

though right now china doesnt have more than 5% of components in Al khalid.
ukraine helped paksitan with armour tech,ERA,license production of engine for al zarar,helped us in main gun development as well

Subsystems for Al khalid, such as the FCS were developed with 90% China and foreign assistnce.

please name 5% of components of chinese origin in al khalid

they are the manfuacturer of the tank, but not they who developed it ....
Remember thouse, who did, not invent .

i hope you do know what does a jv mean.if it wasnt a jv the development would have not took more than 1 DECADE

Under license production

*One cant export the tank.(pakistan is promoting AK for export)
*doesnt take a further development of 1 decade
*must have majority of the original manufacturer components while in Al khalid chinese components doesnt ever represent 5%

So we opted for JV in the mean time to fasten the induction process
and you know now we have already pushed upgraded ak1 into production and within few years a complte different tank of leclerc class to be out

 

[Andrei_bt]

please name 5% of components of chinese origin in al khalid

No discussion.
You are from another reality.

you know now we have already

who are you? What are the "we" from the name of them YOU speak?

And, as you may be aware Pakistan has another contract with Ukraine... )

 

[farhan_9909]

No discussion.
You are from another reality.

thanks in advance

and dont spread wrong information because these days it is very easy to get caught

 

[The Last Stand]

Thanks Farhan and Damian.
@Damian
I don't remember where I read the following text; can someone help me find the source?

Anyway, regarding the penetration of the ARDE gun, The Arjun fired an APFSDS round at a soon-to-be decommissioned and upgraded T-55. The round penetrated the frontal arc, perforated the rear armour (punched through the whole tank) and then hit another T-55, punched through the side turret armour and then hit the desert sand with enough heat/friction to create crystals. :cool2:

The estimate of the T-55's frontal and rear armour along with some upgrades (I think ERA was there) should be around 500 mm RHAe, right? (around 400 for the frontal armour, 25 for the empty space and around 100 for the rear)

The side turret armour estimate of T-series tanks according to this forum states around 80 mm for the T-72, so assuming that the T-55 has around 10 mm lesser we should get around 140 mm for the whole side turret armour.

Therefore, the total estimated perforation should be ~650 mm RHAe. Am I right?

Also, I heard that the M829A1 (or was it A2?) used in the Gulf and Iraq Wars punched through the armour of the Asad Babil (degraded T-72M right?) fully and still had energy to destroy something behind it (around ~700 mm RHAe). Did the M829 exist during the Gulf War? :shocked:

Also IIRC the M26 Pershing's round could destroy the entire frontal and rear armour of the T-34-85 at up to 2 km and that the T-34-85 could not penetrate the Pershing unless at a distance of less than 200 metres.

Please point out any mistakes.

Regards and thanks in advance,
Keshav

P.S – Can anybody teach me about Turret geometry or point me towards a reliable source?

 

[The Last Stand]

Noob question again. How do I set a signature? I am ashamed

 

[Yusuf]

Noob question again. How do I set a signature? I am ashamed

Profile settings on the top right corner

 

[methos]

The estimate of the T-55's frontal and rear armour along with some upgrades (I think ERA was there) should be around 500 mm RHAe, right? (around 400 for the frontal armour, 25 for the empty space and around 100 for the rear)

Indian T-55's do not carry ERA; even if they carried ERA, it would be first generation ERA like Kontakt-1 which does not affect the penetration of the T-55. Rear armour of the T-55 is only 45 mm at 17° for the hull (I don't think they would use a tank still fitted with the engine to test the capabilites of their APFSDS rounds) or 50 - 65 mm for the turret.

Also, I heard that the M829A1 (or was it A2?) used in the Gulf and Iraq Wars punched through the armour of the Asad Babil (degraded T-72M right?) fully and still had energy to destroy something behind it (around ~700 mm RHAe). Did the M829 exist during the Gulf War? :shocked:

The M829 and M829A1 were used during the Gulf War. But the APFSDS did not penetrate the frontal armour of the T-72, but the sides:

That's nothing special considering that side armour is 80 mm only.

 

[Damian]

I don't remember where I read the following text; can someone help me find the source?

Anyway, regarding the penetration of the ARDE gun, The Arjun fired an APFSDS round at a soon-to-be decommissioned and upgraded T-55. The round penetrated the frontal arc, perforated the rear armour (punched through the whole tank) and then hit another T-55, punched through the side turret armour and then hit the desert sand with enough heat/friction to create crystals.

The estimate of the T-55's frontal and rear armour along with some upgrades (I think ERA was there) should be around 500 mm RHAe, right? (around 400 for the frontal armour, 25 for the empty space and around 100 for the rear)

The side turret armour estimate of T-series tanks according to this forum states around 80 mm for the T-72, so assuming that the T-55 has around 10 mm lesser we should get around 140 mm for the whole side turret armour.

Therefore, the total estimated perforation should be ~650 mm RHAe. Am I right?

Complete bollocks about T-55, T-55 front armor is ~200mm thick, rolled armor for hull and cast for turret, so nothing special. And currently manufactured APFSDS for ARDE 120mm rifled gun, as per manufacturer claims, is pathethic for XXI century 300mm of RHA.

Also, I heard that the M829A1 (or was it A2?) used in the Gulf and Iraq Wars punched through the armour of the Asad Babil (degraded T-72M right?) fully and still had energy to destroy something behind it (around ~700 mm RHAe). Did the M829 exist during the Gulf War?

In 1991 Gulf war US Army used two APFSDS, M829 fielded in 1985 and M829A1 fielded around 1989-1990. As for this "golden" shot, these two T-72's were both destroyed by one KE penetrator simply because one was hit at the side armor which is max 80mm in this design, it is no obstalce at nearly 90 degrees hit from the hull/turret longitudinal axis.

Also IIRC the M26 Pershing's round could destroy the entire frontal and rear armour of the T-34-85 at up to 2 km and that the T-34-85 could not penetrate the Pershing unless at a distance of less than 200 metres.

It is hard to compare T-34/85 that was obsolete in the 1950's and M26 that was far more modern design, which much greater armor protection, both were however medium tanks, even if initially M26 was classified as heavy tank.

P.S – Can anybody teach me about Turret geometry or point me towards a reliable source?

It is simple, turret geometry is responsible for turret protection within the frontal arc of 60 degrees, there are different ways to improve it.

Soviets because of weight and size limitations, choose to use small turret with specific geometry, thanks to which side armor could be thinner and lighter, and at these 60 degrees was completely hidden behind front armor of the turret.

Many western designs have similiar concept of the turret.

In late 1970's when 3rd generation of NATO MBT's was designed, there was a nececity to isolate ammunition from crew to improve their survivability, the best way was to place it in isolated turret bustle, but this meant no fancy turret geometry. This meant that side armor of the turret needed to be thicker, made from composite armor if possible.

Of course design details varies from design to design, but over all, at least crew compartment is protected by ~300-400mm thick composite armor over the sides, that at angle of 30 degrees should have from projectile point of view, increased thickness to 600-800mm, so slightly less or comparably to turret front armor.

This is of course mostly simplified.

@methos was first to answer some questions.

 

[The Last Stand]

Thanks.

It is hard to compare T-34/85 that was obsolete in the 1950's and M26 that was far more modern design, which much greater armor protection, both were however medium tanks, even if initially M26 was classified as heavy tank.

I know that. It was just an example

Complete bollocks about T-55, T-55 front armor is ~200mm thick, rolled armor for hull and cast for turret, so nothing special. And currently manufactured APFSDS for ARDE 120mm rifled gun, as per manufacturer claims, is pathethic for XXI century 300mm of RHA.

I'm a noob. What did you expect?
But now assuming that frontal and rear together is ~250, the side turret armour is ~140 mm according to wikipedia. that would make total of 250+280 mm which is ~530 mm RHAe. And the new ammunition is supposedly able to penetrate ~650 mm RHAe.
According to the OFB website the gun can defeat all NATO targets at upto 4000 metres. According to the cartridge case supplier the targets are defeated at upto 5 km.

BTW the OFB website also states that the EFC value for the APFSDS round is 1.00 and that the value for the HESH round is 0.33.

Sorry I am not allowed to post links and not able to insert image. Otherwise I would have showed them to you

Regards,
Keshav

P.S - I want to speculate about the round but I don't know what your reaction will be.

 

[The Last Stand]

Here are the links:
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/23.htm - APFSDS
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/22.htm - HESH
http://www.smgroupindia.com/ccc/120mm.htm - Cartridge case suppliers website

The Cartridge case supplier is even more of a noob than I am because he thinks that mortars are spelled as motor. So he has a category - Motor Bomb Ammunition But in the page he correctly states the spelling.

In addition to combustible cartridge cases' manufacturing, S M Group also offers various components used in mortar ammunition.

Regards,
Waiting for your opinion,
Keshav

 

[methos]

Thanks.
But now assuming that frontal and rear together is ~250, the side turret armour is ~140 mm according to wikipedia. that would make total of 250+280 mm which is ~530 mm RHAe. And the new ammunition is supposedly able to penetrate ~650 mm RHAe.

The side turret is 140 mm in the area which is overlapping with the frontal area and only from 90° angle:

According to the OFB website the gun can defeat all NATO targets at upto 4000 metres. According to the cartridge case supplier the targets are defeated at upto 5 km.

Yes, but the NATO targets were standarized somewhere in the 1960/70s. They represent the armour of the T-10 heavy tank at different parts/angles. Modern 105 mm APFSDS can also defeat NATO heavy targets at 5,000 m.

 

[The Last Stand]

Thanks methos, but does this mean that the gun is wholly inadequate and incompetent. Also, what's your opinion on the real penetration. @Damian
You were correct in stating that the EFC of APFSDS is 3 or 4 times more than the other rounds but the OFB site states that the EFC is 500 and EFC of APFSDS is 1.
So the barrel has an actual life of 500x3 (HESHx3) = 1500 EFC? Is the barrel that strong? Also compare this value of 1500 with the Royal Ordnance L7 and L30 guns as I am unable to get data for them.

Regards,
Keshav

 

[Damian]

Thanks methos, but does this mean that the gun is wholly inadequate and incompetent. Also, what's your opinion on the real penetration. @Damian
You were correct in stating that the EFC of APFSDS is 3 or 4 times more than the other rounds but the OFB site states that the EFC is 500 and EFC of APFSDS is 1.
So the barrel has an actual life of 500x3 (HESHx3) = 1500 EFC? Is the barrel that strong? Also compare this value of 1500 with the Royal Ordnance L7 and L30 guns.

Regards,
Keshav

Seems a bit wrong.

APFSDS on avarage is 3-4 EFC, and HE, HEAT and HESH on avarage is 1 EFC, so if gun have a life time of 1500 EFC, you can fire 1500 HE/HEAT/HESH and much less APFSDS.

As for L7, L11 and L30, I do not have data, at least not now.

 

[The Last Stand]

Seems a bit wrong.

APFSDS on avarage is 3-4 EFC, and HE, HEAT and HESH on avarage is 1 EFC, so if gun have a life time of 1500 EFC, you can fire 1500 HE/HEAT/HESH and much less APFSDS.

That's what I am talking about. Indian tank designers don't follow international standards. Maybe they assumed APFSDS to be 1 and calculated HESH accordingly. This way the barrel can fire 1500 HESH or 500 APFSDS.

Waiting for L7 and L30 values on barrel life.

BTW You guys give well thought out answers very quickly.

Regards,
Keshav