Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

it's why the Ceramics are arranged in a honeycomb shape bolted between steel plates.

Khem...khem...
Leopard-2 -in known layers no any single " honeycomb"
Merkava Mk.IV in lebanon - no honeycomb
Orgins of the Burlinghton - no honeycomb
...
So where it's placed? o.o In which tank? ;-)

 

[militarysta]

Andriej - what is wxatly history of that draw? When it was firstly posted (exept Your blog).
Chlopotow claims that this is just lie and misinformation.

And why in code name of the picture is "alternathistory.org" ?!
What You exatly know about this draw. ?

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@militarysta @Damian @methos, Please comment on the Arjun keeping in mind our potential adversaries - the Type 85-II, 90-II, and 96. All three are incapable of penetrating more than 600 mm. Type 99 may be capable of 700+ (Chinese propaganda states 950 - absurd unless Chinese have found new element).

On Your place I will be really afraid about Al Chalid armour. It's not so weak. Ukraina sold to pakistan T-80UD whit pretty good armour -even if pakistani indsutry just copy it - then Al Chalid (Khalid) have very good armour.

They are several known composition of T-80U and UD armour. I known only two of them -used in late 1980s.:

First (the older ones):

Never -I will not post photos/draw, just I will decribe it:
For turret at 35. degree from longitudal axis (550mm LOS):

98mm cas steel whit HB circa 270 + 30mm air (and holders for first layer) + 25mm SHS, potem 40mm ceramics (what type??) + 25mm SHS + 40mm ceramics (what type??)+ 50mm SHS + 50mm HHS + 190mm cast.

This configuration is for late T-80U -propably this composition went in export T-80UD for Pakistan. How good is that?
Using Dejawolf page values:

HHS – 1,3 TE vs KE/1,3 TE vs CE
SHS – 1,2 TE vs KE/1,2 TE vs CE
AD-97 – 0,97 TE vs KE/1,5 TE vs CE
DU – 1,3 TE vs KE/1,5 TE vs CE
RHA – 1 TE vs KE/1 TE vs CE
Air – 0 TE vs KE/0,26 TE vs CE
Rubber - ? TE vs KE/? TE vs CE


98mm cast x 0,85 = ~83mm vs KE/CE
30mm air
25mm SHS = 30mm vs KE/CE
40mm ceramics = 38mm vs KE / 60mm vs CE
25mm SHS = 30mm vs KE/CE
40mm cermika = 38mm vs KE / 60mm vs CE
50mm SHS = 60mm vs KE/CE
50mm HHS = 65mm vs KE/CE
190mm cast. = ~160mm vs KE/CE

This give us for 550mm LOS:
circa 500mm vs APFSDS(!)
circa 550mm vsHEAT

For LOS equal to circa 700mm (at 0. degree) we have:
circa 630mm vs APFSDS, vs HEAT circa 700mm.

And for this we can added Kontakt-5 ERA:
For LOS 550mm including Kontakt-5 ERA:
620mm vs APFSDS
1050-1150mm vs HEAT
For LOS 700mm including Kontakt-5 ERA:
750mm vs APFSDS
1200-1300mm vs HEAT.

 

[Andrei_bt]

It is not a lie and misinformation - it is their official data. And it was posted by him 1-st )))
it shows that t-90 with K-5 is penetrated by M829A2 if theoretically fired from 6 k, (including velocity loss)
And with "relic" - at 1 km it can be penetrated - it is bad result, old round and not 100 m, but 1 km...
" code name of the picture" - just what i find by google first... had no time for search.

 

[hest]

No such data availible.
Relict has it's name "relic" whish translates as something old and antient, and it's completely corespondes tio this non effective ERA.

It is statement from developer NII Stali. It is a scientific entity and as such it gives publications explaining working method and justifying stated performance against APFSDS or tandem ATGM, there are several publications, patents about Kontakt, Relikt, but what is available about Nozh ?

How is achieved effect

against APFSDS

against tandem warhead

etc.. Only silly advertisement without any explanation.

So what data about Nozh ?

kontact 5 is outdated - 6 km penetration from M829A2
relict does not protect against old M829A2 !!!
It is official developer's data. But there are no single official photo from testing conmtakt-5 and relict.
It is outdated non effective "relic" and it's nothing to discuss.

It does protect against M829A2, and this was asked to them, it is just some advertisement taken out of context which is not serious as argument.

Mostly I agree whit those in Your post about Knife, but here I can't agree - Knife was tested in 3 countries against more or less three diffrent rounds (OLF F1, M332, KWA in USA?) and those rounds are mucht modern then 3BM42, or even Sniviets (3BM46) - rather on the same level like 3BM42M "Lekalo". More or less ammo from middle 1990s.

Where is data on all these tests ? Also in words Relikt according with developer was tested against Svinets-1 (R&D initiated in 1994). On video howewer they show only Mango.

False. Segmented penetrator where developed when was clearly that special tip to overcome ERA is not enought against multilayered ERA (in sense many reflecting plates). DM53 test where made on ERA whit sucht abilities (two reflecting plates) and those DM53 slighty go trought. You can belive me or not, I cant post some material here but DM53 have abilities to slighty overcome sucht ERA.
DM53 is build from three part (IMHO two shorter and one longer) -it's perforation after ERA whit circa two reflected plates is like DM43 normally so about 620mm RHA. It's enought to perforate T-90A turret on typical distanse.

You misunderstood, I was not talking about tip. Purpose of leading segments (from patents..) is to separate to avoid destabilisation and they are designed having in account projection (plate surface). Back in 80s segmentation was a problem when elements did not follow trajectory and worsened penetration ability, after ERA, segmented structure implies inevitable loss of penetrator lenght though justified as it avoids much greater loss.

Important is combination with composite armour, against modern this loss is significant. DM43 value is for 60 degrees, for normal sources give 570 mm, protection of composite armour is not steel, it has different coefficient depending on round, so sorry.

Eny sources? Even small one? That what I can see shown smth very diffrent. DM63 is consist from 5 sgments -eacht the same lengh. It's slight diffrent then in DM53 mechanism.

It was strongly advertised against double reactive armour, and it's developement was realised apparently due to insufficient performance of DM53 against such protection. Howewer, to claim inneficiency of this armour is not serious.

Rather not:
a) Burlak and Kaktus where developed when nobody heard about fully segmented rounds - becouse there where no technology posibilities to made sucht round between half of the 1990s.
b) size of the elements have nothing to done here -it's rather problem between how fast is intereaction of first and second plate whit penetrator.
And about thickness - in theory plate shoud be thick as first segment lenght - hard to achive when we take circe 660mm long rod /5 segments = circa 130mm long segment even if we consider slopped heavy plate in ERA that it doubled it's real thickenss then we have
at least ~60mm (6cm!) thick plate to really stopped sucht segment. Good bless whit sucht thick plate in ERA...

No, it is wrong understanding. Most of Burlak developement was carried out on 2000s and reactive armour design is recent, after rejection of Kaktus, multilayer structure and double plate mechanism. Kaktus or "Black Eagle" ERA is unrelated and regarded as innefective. It was intended to have perspective well into future.

I am not sure what are you trying to say. Look at Burlak elements and penetrator, after reaction it will project totally on it and cause destabilisation no matter the segments, this is not the situation with more conventional Kontakt or Relikt. It also can achieve effect againts tandem warhead as plate will either interact with main jet after detonation or destroy the warhead.

 

[Andrei_bt]

there are several publications, patents about Kontakt, Relikt, but what is available about Nozh ?

Why don't you try to search?

it gives publications explaining

can you name some?

Look at Burlak elements and penetrator

who published articles on this topic, can you name some?

 

[hest]

Andriej - what is wxatly history of that draw? When it was firstly posted (exept Your blog).
Chlopotow claims that this is just lie and misinformation.

And why in code name of the picture is "alternathistory.org" ?!
What You exatly know about this draw. ?

This is what they answered, translate:

Здравствуйте !

на этом плакате указано что М829А1 пробивает Т-90 с 6км ?! или этот плакат каким то неудачным способом показывает эффективность "Реликта" по отношению к "Контакт-5", и плакат при этом не показывает уровень защиты самого Т-90 ?

http://ib1.keep4u.ru/b/2011/07/30/17/17aeb3a5160d15704a1d0253937cebd0.jpg

_______________________________________________________________________

Во-первых на плакате указан не М829А1, а М829А2, во-вторых, нельзя так упрощенно трактовать приведенные данные, в третьих - обратитесь за комментариями к тем, кто публиковал эту информацию

There is not to take very seriously.

 

[Andrei_bt]

There is not to take very seriously.

You say the NII STALI is not to be taken very seriously?
Of course thay may not, as Russia sonn to buy armor tecnology from Israel...

 

[hest]

Why don't you try to search?

I did, and found only doubts. Such performance cannot be provided only by linear shaped charges as explained, and among other reasons as stated by research institute, what was your argument ?

can you name some?

About Relikt working method ? Questions are boarded in accesible publications, patents for example detailing necessary interaction lenght to correspond with tandem warhead detonation interval (400 microseconds) or about interaction of reflected plates against penetrator in articles from NII Stali. What there is about Nozh ? Lack of theorethical explanation.

who published articles on this topic, can you name some?

It is not yet open topic, what I know is from unnoficial contact and from some leaked material on web. You can howewer dig on reports, patents..

 

[militarysta]

Where is data on all these tests ?

M332 and OLF F1 on Ukraine in last decade. both APFSDS had faild
OLF F1 again in Emirates in last 8yers APFSDS faild.
Test in USA after 2005 asI know -no data about used ammo. And no data about result.

You misunderstood, I was not talking about tip. Purpose of leading segments (from patents..) is to separate to avoid destabilisation and they are designed having in account projection (plate surface). Back in 80s segmentation was a problem when elements did not follow trajectory and worsened penetration ability, after ERA, segmented structure implies inevitable loss of penetrator lenght though justified as it avoids much greater loss.

Rather segments work in other way now - they just open hole for rest of the penetrator bigger then posibility to move plate in some time. Segment is taken some angle and whit those angle is making hole aimmilar to it's lenght.

DM43 value is for 60 degrees, for normal sources give 570 mm, protection of composite armour is not steel, it has different coefficient depending on round, so sorry.

Methos explain this dozen times. DM43 just must have penetration better then M829A1 but slighty worse then M829A2.

It was strongly advertised against double reactive armour, and it's developement was realised apparently due to insufficient performance of DM53 against such protection. Howewer, to claim inneficiency of this armour is not serious.

Not, in any Rheinmettal waffen&munition team ads DM53 is strongly advertised against double reactive armour, not DM63! It was posted sevral times in old Rhm. page! DM63 is added as better agains future thread.

 

[hest]

You say the NII STALI is not to be taken very seriously?
Of course thay may not, as Russia sonn to buy armor tecnology from Israel...

No, I say contextual advertisement is not to be taken seriously as they say, especially in view of broad available information. Neither Nozh claims are serious.

And what do you know about current developements ? I guess not much, and cannot know.

 

[hest]

M332 and OLF F1 on Ukraine in last decade. both APFSDS had faild
OLF F1 again in Emirates in last 8yers APFSDS faild.
Test in USA after 2005 asI know -no data about used ammo. And no data about result.

These are only reports, same as anti-tandem NII Stali ERA test in US, etc but no details.

Rather segments work in other way now - they just open hole for rest of the penetrator bigger then posibility to move plate in some time. Segment is taken some angle and whit those angle is making hole aimmilar to it's lenght.

It is more complicated than that in view of structure, and still implies loss of penetrator lenght and inherent loss. And conditions (ERA) changed significantly as I have shown, not much for perspective.

Methos explain this dozen times. DM43 just must have penetration better then M829A1 but slighty worse then M829A2.

Given the confusion with normal and 60 degrees, I see no contradiction. Sources give 570 mm.

Not, in any Rheinmettal waffen&munition team ads DM53 is strongly advertised against double reactive armour, not DM63! It was posted sevral times in old Rhm. page! DM63 is added as better agains future thread.

Have a look at official advertisement from ATK and Rheinmetall.

 

[Andrei_bt]

I did, and found only doubts. Such performance cannot be provided only by linear shaped charges as explained, and among other reasons as stated by research institute, what was your argument ?

So they doubt about what they published - it is a joke.

About Relikt working method ?

can you name some?

Lack of theorethical explanation.

try google.com

It is not yet open topic, what I know is from unnoficial contact and from some leaked material on web. You can howewer dig on reports, patents..

Can you name some articles about Relict, Omsk ERA, Noz ?

 

[Andrei_bt]

These are only reports, same as anti-tandem NII Stali ERA test in US, etc but no details.

NO reports on anti-tandem NII Stali ERA test in US. It was tested in UAE and it was not anti tandem.
Tests in Russia and offers for M1 tank also have no anti-tandem claims.

 

[militarysta]

Have a look at official advertisement from ATK and Rheinmetall.

ATK have nothing common whit Dm53 and DM63
Rheinmettal pages now don;t give single shot about Dm53/63 previous version of the web page giv ewhat I posted about Dm53.

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Khem...khem...
Leopard-2 -in known layers no any single " honeycomb"
Merkava Mk.IV in lebanon - no honeycomb
Orgins of the Burlinghton - no honeycomb
...
So where it's placed? o.o In which tank? ;-)

well, that's pretty much what i've always heard about burlington.

checked wiki and they referenced: Long, D., Modern Ballistic Armor — Clothing, Bomb Blankets, Shields, Vehicle Protection, Boulder 1986, pp. 82-84

 

[hest]

can you name some?

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/206/2064649.html

Fast example, read about how anti-tandem effect is achieved. I have also publications, books but not now.

try google.com

If you want me to go to your site, it does not provide explanation.

Кумулятивная струя удлиненного заряда, будет влиять на средство поражения, разрушая его на отдельные фрагменты и отклоняя от первоначальной траектории полета.

В зависимости от места попадания удлиненные заряды могут также отрабатывать и последовательно под влиянием дополнительных удлиненных зарядов, при этом кумулятивная струя каждого из зарядов, будет влиять на средство поражения, разрушая его на отдельные фрагменты и отклоняя от первоначальной траектории.

Howewer

.. слишком малое расстояние, на котором у линейных кумулятивных зарядов проявляется эффект кумулятивного ножа. Это расстояние не превышает половины размера кумулятивной выемки, т.е. нескольких сантиметров. На больших расстояниях кумулятивный нож «расплывается» и его эффективность резко падает

Другое дело, что реальная конструкция ДЗ «Нож», отличается от той, что рисуют авторы в открытых публикациях и кроме эффекта «ножа» в ней присутствуют и другие составляющие, которые, по нашему мнению, и обеспечивают заданную эффективность комплексу.

But... how ?

Для защиты от тандемных ПТС при любых углах встречи, включая нормаль разработан комплекс «Дуплет» установленный на танк «Оплот».

Again, how, explanation ?
-------

NO reports on anti-tandem NII Stali ERA test in US. It was tested in UAE and it was not anti tandem.
Tests in Russia and offers for M1 tank also have no anti-tandem claims.

Test of anti-tandem ERA was performed and shown for US (but not in US).
Средства защиты - НИИ Стали - Форум

Niistali: Эта ДЗ 2 года назад демонстрировалась американцам для защиты бортов их М1А2. Было сделано 2 опыта и оба удачные.НО контракт с американцами не состоялся

Противоречий здесь нет. Американцам мы предлагали противотандемную ДЗ, которая разрабатывалась для ЛБМ, в частности для БМП-3. С этой ДЗ наша БМП (а, естествено, не танк) теряет плавучесть. Ну а на сайте информации по тандемной ДЗ пока нет.

ATK have nothing common whit Dm53 and DM63
Rheinmettal pages now don;t give single shot about Dm53/63 previous version of the web page giv ewhat I posted about Dm53

My mistake, here Defense Munitions International - 120MM KE DM63 Tank Ammunition

 

[Dejawolf]

Anti-tandem should be simple, armour the ERA blocks sufficiently to withstand the precursor warhead, and there you go.

 

[The Last Stand]

@methos, @Damian

I am doubtful about Al-Khalid armour quality (You said that they could have copied T-80UD armour) Did Ukraine give armour ToT? If so Al-Khalid might have
T-80UD armour. Also since Al-Khalid is a variant of Norinco Type 90-II, the composites are MOST LIKELY Chinese. What's the information about Chinese composites, how good are they?

Also Al-Khalid has massive weakspots like Arjun does (AFAIK Al-Khalid has weak side skirts and poor turret design with no storage boxes when Arjun has blow off panels and pressurized storage boxes- which aren't that effective but are armoured nevertheless)

An old picture shows side skirts coming off during demonstration to foreign armed forces. (Mega for Pakistan) More armour could have been added but still it won't be enough if weight is not increased (Pak def says that weight was not increased in Al-Khalid I or II - Composite still increase weight if added in normal measure - say 3 inches)

Anyone remember the applique armour added to frontal aspect of M4A3 before D-Day? Still couldn't stop penetration from the moderate 7,5 cm L/43 Kwk 40 of it's direct contemporary - Pz IV.

Regards,
Keshav

 

[farhan_9909]

pakistan took ukrainian help in armour(pre 2000) and in era in 2006

Though yet another project was taken by zafar khan in 2003.which took 3 years to complete.anyway i will post about this later


The Side skirts issue of Al khalid is already solved in Al khalid I

Notice the thickened side skirts on Ak1 prototype,pic from 2008

Mass produced AK1,pic from feb 2010.

All the Basic AK will be upgraded to AK1 standard in future