Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[asianobserve]

(withdrawn)

 

[The Last Stand]

@asianobserve you need to remember that these guns are not even slightly comparable in performance with modern smoothbores, also these in 140mm and 150+mm calliber.
.

True. The 128 mm Pak 44 is bigger than most modern Anti-tank guns and had a bigger charge. But the ammunition has such an old design that it is incapable of penetrating any MBT made after 1955 or so. But if modern APDS or APFSDS rounds are provided and barrels are strengthened, the old high caliber designs should be capable of ~550 mm RHA easily. Ammunition matters more than the size of the round.
@Damian

Still does not change a fact that penetration of 1,200mm RHA for a 120mm HEAT round is most probably not achievable. And even 1,200mm RHA does not guarantee you a successfull perforation, there was a friendly fire incident in the gulf war in 1991 when M1A1HA was struck by AGM-114 Hellfire missile in turret front, and it didn't perforate it's armor. AGM-114 penetrates ~1,200mm of RHA.

AGM-114 is Hollow charge right? Since composites reduce HEAT penetration and also the fact that the M1A1HA had depleted uranium justify the non-penetrating hit.
But even if the penetration from the CL-20 HEAT tandem warhead is not so high, it should be sufficient for tackling the tanks of India's immediate adversaries shouldn't it?

Regards,
Keshav

 

[militarysta]

(...)

Regards,
Keshav

Topic about tank gun and amunition is here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition-30.html
and please continous topic there.

 

[The Last Stand]

Thanks militarysta. Damian, please quote my post and give your opinion on that thread.

 

[pmaitra]

Thanks.

I have had a big, big doubt for many days. In modern tanks, the guns almost always have Kinetic energy penetrators as primary rounds and High Explosive multi-purpose rounds as secondary. Hollow charge warheads are rarely found today and they are even more rarely used on tanks. Why? Is composite armour extremely effective against HEAT rounds?

AFAIK, HEAT-FS can be just as accurate(compared to APFSDS) and almost always has better penetration. Also I heard that HEAT is becoming nearly useless since most tanks are beginning to field ERA. I also heard that Tandem HEAT warheads are impossible to design for Tank guns and only one such projectile has been designed.

Why not use HEAT rounds instead of APFSDS? HEAT will be 2 or 3 times cheaper, will have lower EFC value and will not require complicated production methods.

Give me your respected opinions on this.

Regards,
Keshav

You asked me quite a lot of questions, and I won't be able to comprehensibly answer all of them.

Anyway, this is what I feel:

In modern tanks, the guns almost always have Kinetic Energy penetrators as primary rounds and High Explosive multi-purpose rounds as secondary.
If you look at some modern conflicts, like say Syria, where the opponent rarely has tanks, what do you think is the primary round for the Syrian T-72s? So, I do not see one round as primary and another as secondary. It all depends upon the kind of targets you are likely to use them against.

Moreover, in many tank battles, you have infantry soldiers accompanying approaching tanks. Usage of Sabot rounds exposes these infantry soldiers to injuries from the Sabot petals flying off in all directions. In such cases, the infantry soldiers have to stay slightly behind the tanks. This is not always beneficial, because infantry and armour both complement each other. If you have seen the video footage of the Sri Lankan war, you'd have seen how infanry were ahead of he tanks, making sure there are no dangers, and then the tanks proceeding after being signaled by the infantry soldier.

I also heard that Tandem HEAT warheads are impossible to design for Tank guns and only one such projectile has been designed.
I like to say this oft repeated cliché, that "nothing is impossible." However, you are right, most of the tandem warheads seem to be self propelled projectiles. No, it is not true that only one such projectile has been designed. There are quite a few, both Western as well as Soviet/Russian. Now, having read your comment again, you are probably talking specifically about the second stage to be a shaped charge? In that case, you are probably right. However, tandem simply means one after the other, so any projectile that causes two explosions one after the other, is tandem. If the secondary charge is a shaped charge, I can think of some problems, but these will be my guesses:

The precursor, that is the first explosive charge, that is used to clear the way (by exploding ERAs), and bits of the deformed armour, themselves might lie in he way of the shaped charge. Now, the shaped charge is effective if the molten jet can directly strike the exposed armour. If the debris on the way causes it to get scattered, you are not able to concentrate energy into one point.

In principle, this is the same logic used while introducing the Depleted Uranium penetrators in certain Sabots. Uranium, on striking the armour, generates a lot of heat energy, but helps keep it localized (adiabatic), and thus makes it easier to punch a hole.

Moreover, it is not too difficult to stop a tandem warhead. Tandem screens (metal nets) are used to cause the precursor to explode early. Here, this might explain it better:

The bottom line? If there is a direct RPG hit and the shaped charge forms its molten jet, anyone in an RG-31 (or worse, a Hummer) is probably in for a very bad day. While the jet is far less stable in air than it is when going through a dense and homogeneous medium like steel, several feet of stand-off detonation distance would be needed to stop it from penetrating lightly armored vehicles. Absent a lot of armor, very clever composite sandwich designs, and/or a lucky deflection of the jet away from key vehicle parts, the vehicle's occupants are in real trouble.

In general, one can expect cage armor or RPG screens to turn only some incoming rounds into duds, or otherwise prevent the explosive from forming a proper shaped-charge jet. If that works, even an RPG full of technically "detonated" explosives that splatter against the vehicle in glops and bang/burn, probably isn't going to do much damage. Preventing a properly formed shaped charge jet involves a lot of specific science, math, and engineering; suffice to say that there are a number of approaches, and that this is a popular field for additional research.

Source: BAE's L-ROD Cage Armor

Why not use HEAT rounds instead of APFSDS?
Yes, that is my view as well. In any conflict with Pakistan, we will have a lot of tank battles in the Rajasthan and Punjab sector. There is ample scope of using our helicopter gunships/combos or planes to take out Pakistani tanks. With BVR capability, we really should not treat tank-vs-tank battles as a salamander-measuring contest. Even the US first bombed the Iraqis before the real tank battles started, despite the fact that the US had better armour. I really do not see investing in expensive rounds as a prudent step in this particular case. Again, our doctrine should support our hardware choices.

 

[Damian]

As I said, there were several tandem and even triple warhead HEAT rounds for tanks, developed in former Soviet Union, so it is possible, but nobody really bothers because primary anti tank ammunition is APFSDS.

Triple warhead in 125mm HEAT round.

There are several reasons why, among them also a fact that firing a HEAT round accurately is difficult even with fire control system, I don't know, perhaps both of you should purchase some good modern tank simulator like SB Pro PE and check out how fire control system work, what are ballistic characteristics of different types of ammunition.

I had old SB Gold (awfull graphics, still very realistic, though not even close to SB Pro PE) and firing accuretely HEAT rounds is a b(i)tch, actually it is best to fire them from stationay position to stationary targets, APFSDS is on the other hand easy to hit stationary and moving targets from both stationary position and moving tank. It is because of it's speed and flat trajectory.

Oh and by the way, shaped charge jet is not molten metal, but deformed by explosion metal that is also proppeled by this explosion to extreme velocity.

And different screens are designed to disturb jet by foring early detonation and increasing distance to armor so jet will at least partially erode going through air, however such screens are not very effective against modern shaped charge warheads, and especially tandem ones and these of huge calliber.

 

[methos]

For the German 120 mm DM12 HEAT-FS-T ammunition the effective range was considered to be only 2.300 m.

 

[methos]

Qatar bought 62 Leopard 2 tanks and 24 PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers from KMW to replace old AMX-30 tanks and G5 howitzers.

 

[militarysta]

Oh,interestying news.
New Leo-2 or old??

 

[pmaitra]

As I said, there were several tandem and even triple warhead HEAT rounds for tanks, developed in former Soviet Union, so it is possible, but nobody really bothers because primary anti tank ammunition is APFSDS.

Triple warhead in 125mm HEAT round.

There are several reasons why, among them also a fact that firing a HEAT round accurately is difficult even with fire control system, I don't know, perhaps both of you should purchase some good modern tank simulator like SB Pro PE and check out how fire control system work, what are ballistic characteristics of different types of ammunition.

I had old SB Gold (awfull graphics, still very realistic, though not even close to SB Pro PE) and firing accuretely HEAT rounds is a b(i)tch, actually it is best to fire them from stationay position to stationary targets, APFSDS is on the other hand easy to hit stationary and moving targets from both stationary position and moving tank. It is because of it's speed and flat trajectory.

Oh and by the way, shaped charge jet is not molten metal, but deformed by explosion metal that is also proppeled by this explosion to extreme velocity.

And different screens are designed to disturb jet by foring early detonation and increasing distance to armor so jet will at least partially erode going through air, however such screens are not very effective against modern shaped charge warheads, and especially tandem ones and these of huge calliber.

What is SB? Can you post some screenshots while you were playing the game?

 

[Damian]

What is SB?

Short for Steel Beasts.

Can you post some screenshots while you were playing the game?

This is not a game technically, more properly it is software for traning of vehicle crews. There are two versions : Steel Beasts Professional for military, and civilian version Steel Beasts Proffesional Personal Edition which do not have some content that military version have.

Well, screenshots or even videos do not give you idea how it is really to feel it. And I do not have it, SB Gold is very old and is not compatibile with Windows 7, while SB Pro PE is very expensive.

Here videos.


Note that this is version 2.6, version 3.0 with better graphics, more content and realism improvements, will be released this summer.

 

[Shirman]

@ Damian, @ militarysta Hi folks, recently one Iraqi tank commander whom i met told me that in Arab armies only Saudi Arabian M1 Abrams have the best package / desired config... on their tanks which was recently showcased in Idex-13....Their Iraqi M1A1s are nothing but gas guzzling elephants which and when exposed to rpg- 28,29 and above can "stop" in their tracks with proper tactics and strategy....recently they tested its armour against an Iranian made/smuggled/copied Kornet Atgm and were unsatisfied with its results now i know that m1a2 tusk is available out there but my question to you is are Egyptian, Kuwaiti, Moroccan and other export Abrams really "monkey models" downgraded versions of the original product a la T-72 M1 of soviet fame..............

Thanks in Advance

 

[Damian]

@ Damian, @ militarysta Hi folks, recently one Iraqi tank commander whom i met told me that in Arab armies only Saudi Arabian M1 Abrams have the best package / desired config... on their tanks which was recently showcased in Idex-13....Their Iraqi M1A1s are nothing but gas guzzling elephants which and when exposed to rpg- 28,29 and above can "stop" in their tracks with proper tactics and strategy....recently they tested its armour against an Iranian made/smuggled/copied Kornet Atgm and were unsatisfied with its results now i know that m1a2 tusk is available out there but my question to you is are Egyptian, Kuwaiti, Moroccan and other export Abrams really "monkey models" downgraded versions of the original product a la T-72 M1 of soviet fame..............

Thanks in Advance

Americans do not export their Heavy Armor Package (HAP), but the so called Export Armor Package (EAP), that can be customized per customer requirements. Altough you will probably never have as good protection as Heavy Armor Package (especially 3rd generation of HAP) offers.

However Saudis for their M1A2S modernization, designed their own armor package and get permission to install it in their M1A2S in place of EAP.

As for that Iraqi commander, are you sure he is Iraqi commander?

As far as I know, no such test had been made, not to mention that Iraqis have only 146 M1A1's, and not even single of them had been lost, these tanks are not even used for counter insurgency operations, but are prepared to defend borders and operate only at proving grounds of units that use them.

Also the TUSK kit is modular, it means that it can be installed on M1A1 and M1A2 and their subvariants, so there is no technical problem for Iraqis, Saudis or Egyptians to order TUSK kits and install them on their tanks.

However there can be political and OPSEC problem, Americans do not believe them, this is why they do not sold them HAP armor, and neither probably will sell them TUSK kits, so insurgents or enemy countries in the region, could figure out design and exact working mechanism of ARAT ERA and additional belly armor plate to counter IED's.

So yeah in terms of armor protection, export M1's are downgraded, in terms of firepower it is a bit more complex, because all types of ammunition are exported besides the DU M829 APFSDS series, instead, exported are slightly worse (especially compared to M829A2 and M829A3 as well as future M829A4) KEW APFSDS series with WHA penetrators instead of DU.

Electronics are not changed tough, and customer can purchase additional components like different APU's, A/C system, newer FCS and thermal sights are installed etc.

Americans also seems to offer their new fully stabilized weapon mounts for commander cupola both for M1A1 and M1A2 series.

 

[Damian]

@Allaudin, one more thing, the best way to know what armor package have any M1 you see, is to check it's serial numbers.

Each M1 have two serial numbers, one on turret and the second on hull.

The turret number says us what armor type observed M1 have, and so:

US tanks have such serial numbers:

XXXX - Older variant with "Burlington" armor.
XXXX-U - Newer variant with Heavy Armor Package.
XXXX-M - Newer variant with Heavy Armor Package.

Tanks exported to middle eastern countries like Iraq, Egypt etc. have such serial number:

XXXX-E - Export variant with Export Armor Package.

Note that new Saudi Arabian M1A2S can have different serial number on turret.

Tanks exported to Australia have such serial number.

XXXX-A - Australian M1A1's with customized for Australians Export Armor Package.

And then there are hull serial numbers, these numbers says us where tank was manufactured.

So:

XXXX-D - Manufactured in Detroit Army Tank Plant.
XXXX-L - Manufactured in Lima Army Tank Plant/Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

 

[The Last Stand]

Modern Main Battle Tanks - discussion

Main Battle Tanks

Main Battle tanks are tanks which are designed to perform all battlefield roles such as destroying enemy fortifications, enemy AFV and supporting infantry.
The world's first MBT was the centurion which was designed to have the armour of a heavy tank and the mobility of a medium tank (as per WW2 classifications). The Centurion revolutionised the world.

It's only contemporary was the legendary T-55 MBT.

The Centurion is still used by South Africa albeit with an better gun, armour and Israeli electronics.

Anyway,

Let's discuss about modern Main Battle Tanks

 

[The Last Stand]

@Damian,

What do you think about the Croatian M-95?

Weight 44.5 tonnes without reactive armour, 48.5 tonnes
Length 10.1 m (33 ft 2 in)
Width 3.6 m (11 ft 10 in)
Height: 2.2 m (7 ft 3 in)
Crew: 3 (commander, driver and gunner)
Armor: Composite armour plus Reactive armour
Main
armament: 125 mm smoothbore gun
Secondary
armament: Samson Remote Controlled Weapon Station
Engine: 12-cyl. diesel
1,200 hp (890 kW)
Power/weight: 27 hp/tonne
Transmission: two gear-boxes with side transmission in gear-box axes
Suspension: independent, with torsion bars, 6 hydraulic dampers, 6 road wheels and 3 return rollers per side
Ground clearance: 428 mm (16.9 in)
Operational
range: 700 km (430 mi)
Speed: 70 km/h (43 mph)

Mobility is astounding. Power to weight ratio is 27 hp/ ton, range is 700 km, top speed is 70 km/h.

That's just my opinion Would like yours.

Regards,
Keshav

 

[militarysta]

@Damian,

What do you think about the Croatian M-95?

Whel, it's huge topic about former Yugoslavia tank industry and relation between Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. More or less in middle 80's Yougoslavia had produced on licence T-72M1 which was better in any aspects then T-72M1 for WarPac countries... espacialy in FCS thema.
There whas sevral big articles in polish militray press about Degamn, Vihr and other Croatia/Serbian and previous Yougoslavian tanks.

 

[Damian]

One is sure, M-95 is definetely one of better and more interesting modernizations of T-72M1.

 

[Akim]

M-95 "Degman" - a modernization of M-84. A Yugoslav tank was even better than the Soviet tanks T-72 series.

 

[farhan_9909]

@militarysta @Akim @Damian

Is it possible to jam the enemy tank movement(engine?) with laser technology?
Last year a similar exercise was done by Pak army involving the operation of UAV from within the tank,and one bold statement they made was to mastering the technique of jamming the enemy tank movement.

anything like this done ever?because in the video one electronic device with wierd wires hanging around the t-80ud can be seen in the video i will post below.

So the media has taken the news wrong or this is possible

let me post the source

Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani visited Muzaffargarh Ranges on Tuesday to witness the concluding summer exercises.
The Pakistan armed forces successfully experimented with the technique of jamming movement of tanks and using laser technology in modern warfare. 'Enemy' tanks were tracked and jammed through centrally controlled laser technology via wireless supervision and monitoring.

Muzaffargarh Ranges: Kayani witnesses jamming of tanks – The Express Tribune