Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[CCTV]

Yes, socialist regime we had back then, just loved propaganda of success. I find interesting to watch video archives from these times, and grim reality, to be honest, despite all problems of today, I definetely preffer to live today than back then.

Besides this, there are also stories from family members that lived back then, and how they describe reality, this gives a lot of thinking when you look at propaganda videos.



Oh really? Well design a tank gun then, and see if barrel will not blow up during firing because it can withstand pressure of propelant charge initiation.



When I read translation of that Chinese text it is... it is pathethic propaganda, written probably by some idiot.

Ok , I can understand you now.

 

[farhan_9909]

Oh really? Well design a tank gun then, and see if barrel will not blow up during firing because it can withstand pressure of propelant charge initiation.

Already done.in mass production as well

When I read translation of that Chinese text it is... it is pathethic propaganda, written probably by some idiot.

than there is no other possible way to get insight of chinese weapons.since there media only report it in chinese.so does there military related sources

 

[Damian]

Already done.in mass production as well

The point is, that designing a tank gun properly, or any type of firearm, is not that simple as one might think.

than there is no other possible way to get insight of chinese weapons.since there media only report it in chinese.so does there military related sources

This is why Chinese claims are very unreliable and uncredible, as everything is in reality controlled by state propaganda.

 

[farhan_9909]

The point is, that designing a tank gun properly, or any type of firearm, is not that simple as one might think.



This is why Chinese claims are very unreliable and uncredible, as everything is in reality controlled by state propaganda.

i really doubt this.i mean they dont need to spread propaganda anymore.even if they had done in the past

 

[Damian]

i really doubt this.i mean they dont need to spread propaganda anymore.even if they had done in the past

And why they do not need to do so? Because all the sudden their goverment is so nice that it will say the truth? Oh naive you are.

 

[militarysta]

On german developement trials suposedly DM53 (segmented) after interaction with double reactive armour (two flying plates in opposite direction, Relikt design) suffered loss in performance of 15-20%.

Circa 15% from xx to circa 620-640mm RHA at 2000m. More or less

Problem is that there is no accurate representation of armour thickness, that drawing which you used was not meant to.

? About what drawning are You talking?
About T-80U I have 3 factory draw -on whit LOS thickness for cast-inser cavity-cast perpendicular to the surface, and two wiht armour composition. Of course in late 1990s it was changed, but it shoud be pretty accurate.

DM53 defeated composite armour and ERA belonging to 1985 year after more than decade, it also disproved the myth of defeating ERA without initiation.

For some resons German choose for DM53 trials in their opinnion best armoured Soviet tank - T-80U, they tested it in sevral trials, what is more important -they just biuld T-80U armour modell whit Kontakt-5 on it. Apart that there where other DM53 tests whit two ERA casette separated by 5mm RHA plate (ERA/ 5mm RHA plate/ ERA /main armour), and on several types of the double-reactive armour.
BTW: in times where DM53 where tested there was no in service T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) whit welded turret but only T-90 whit cast turret (Ob.188). Those T-90 whit cast turret was in all aspects inferior in compare to the T-80UD or T-84.
Germans of course had idea about new welded turret for Ukrainian and Russian tanks - those turret was developed in 1983(!) so it was not suprise -only question was about armour composition inisde "new" turret.
But choosing T-80U for test in middle 1990s was the best option -T-90 whit cast turret was whorse armoured.

how it should defeat more modern target as T-90A rather than 80s design.

The way of working DM53 and DM63 are diffrent. DM53 is enought aginst K-5 (without doubt) and producer calims that is enought agianst "double reactive armour" -more or less it shoud be abouit Relikt. DM63 is more potent against ERA ant multilayered targets cause it's fully segmented.

 

[farhan_9909]

And why they do not need to do so? Because all the sudden their goverment is so nice that it will say the truth? Oh naive you are.

No because they dont need anyone certificate now.
they are now a big military power,

 

[Damian]

No because they dont need anyone certificate now.
they are now a big military power,

Propaganda have a different purpose than only show "how superb we are" for the outsiders. It is also meant to show exactly the same lie for it's own population, to boost morale etc.

And do not expect that Chinese help your country and nation, because they like you, they have good reason to use you, you give them money, you make a fuss with India, and other possible reasons. If this will be in China interest, they will abandone Pakistan, or even nuke it you, if this only give them enough profits.

 

[militarysta]

Idea of penetrator able to overcome ERA consist whit on or two segment before "main" penetrator:


my draw, and my misty idea how DM63 fully segmented penetrator may work:

 

[Andrei_bt]

Becouse most PT-91 was redy before CAWA-2 was ended, and placing CAWA-2 module inser armour (between plates) need rebuild whole armour - it was to expensive for polish army in 1990s., what was whorse - during test it's seems that it's almoust imposible to replace typical T-72M1 turret insert by CAWA-2 module case technology problem :-/

And what about new built? Why this ancient armor ? It is 60-s era level. So it is different to invent something and field it.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Idea of penetrator able to overcome ERA consist whit on or two segment before "main" penetrator:


my draw, and my misty idea how DM63 fully segmented penetrator may work:

1-st drawing - old idea with a lot of drawbacks...
2 -nd - ide that will reduce APFSDS pergormace...
All this is not new.

 

[Damian]

And what about new built? Why this ancient armor ? It is 60-s era level. So it is different to invent something and field it.

What new builds? New build PT-91's were below 100, AFAIK there were only 92 new builded PT-91's, rest were modernized T-72M1's, there is even separate designatione for T-72M1 upgraded to PT-91, it is T-72M1Z (Z - Zmodernizowany or Modernized), this designation is interchangable with PT-91.

Besides this, in my opinion, further development of CAWA armors was cancelled, due to costs, and in fact stupidity of politicians, that liked few years ago to underfund military and waste money on different social projects or other foolishnes.

As for PT-91 variants Polish Army use, there are such variants:

PT-91 - original 92 new builds.
PT-91A/T-72M1Z - most of fielded by the Army, modernized T-72M1's.
PT-91M - do not confuse with Malaysian PT-91M export variant, however I do not know details about this one.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Chinese text it is... it is pathethic propaganda

We may exactly say which "Chinese text is pathethic propaganda"
If it is an official data, or some non official journalist study and idea.

 

[Andrei_bt]

What new builds? New build PT-91's were below 100, rest were modernized T-72M1's, there is even separate designatione for T-72M1 upgraded to PT-91, it is T-72M1Z (Z - Zmodernizowany or Modernized), this designation is interchangable with PT-91.

I say abut photos of PT-91E at a factory - it is like a time mashine. Why did not thay change an old STB armor and "sand" turret inserts.

stupidity of politicians

everyone blame them...

 

[Damian]

I say abut photos of PT-91E at a factory - it is like a time mashine. Why did not thay change an old STB armor and "sand" turret inserts.

PT-91E was never exported, photos at factory shows PT-91M for Malaysia. Why armor was not changed? I will wrote from memory now. If I remember correctly, there were rumors that these tanks would be manufactured with CAWA-2, however for some reason were not. Why I do not know, one of the great mysteries of arms industry. However I have suspicion that this was a costs concern. Remember that Poland agreed to accept payment in barter (natural oil) so there were problems with actually financing production, there were delays etc. Perhaps in the end restarting CAWA-2 was too expensive? Especially that besides manufacturing armor inserts, we would need to estabilish and open new welded turrets production line.

We are not poor, but we are not Germany either, some things especially back then were too expensive.

I can only speculate right now as any source material I have, do not specify all details, perhaps if I would dig more and search for older issues of NTW or Raport magazines.

everyone blame them...

They are the ones making decisions and giving or taking money from the military and arms industry.

 

[Andrei_bt]

----PT-91E was never exported, photos at factory shows PT-91M for Malaysia. Why armor was not changed? I will wrote from memory now

I was mentioning new built tanks for export. And I see on photos - it is same as on T-72M1 - same "STB" and turret...
There are a lot of things in history not realized and which can impress memory even today.

that this was a costs concern.

They are the ones making decisions and giving or taking money from the military and arms industry.

It is common to blame somebody else. But another face of this "coin" is that designers did not created cost - effective solution available for manufacture.
And it is not politicians who are to blame, at least not solely.

 

[Damian]

I was mentioning new built tanks for export. And I see on photos - it is same as on T-72M1 - same "STB" and turret...
There are a lot of things in history not realized and which can impress memory even today.

1) Yes it is same STB as CAWA-2 was never fielded, how many times it should be repeated?
2) I agree, this is why I also digging through avaiable materials but, as for now, no success, there is however possibility that in future, more source material will be published.

It is common to blame somebody else. But another face of this "coin" is that designers did not created cost - effective solution available for manufacture.
And it is not politicians who are to blame, at least not solely.

You should consider several aspects.

Economic situation back then.
Politicians.
What we could design.

When it comes to performance, CAWA family most likely fullfilled requirements (at least partially). Yes it was expensive for us, but this is how it was. In the end compromise was made, resign from CAWA but induct ERAWA, however it should be remembered that CAWA and ERAWA were not designed as separate projects, but were closely connected, and intended to work together. This is however as far as I can tell from avaiable source materials. Probably more informations can be found in CAW, but I doubt that any civilian will have access to such materials. Maybe some light on this subject could give interview with chief engineer, but I do not know if he is still in active military service, or he is retired at this time, I think few years ago he released some PDF's on different protection solutions developments.

Perhaps @militarysta have more informations.

From my end I can only add that CAWA-2 shown growth potential, although from the chief engineer words in his book, I understand that in case of T-72/PT-91 it would not have a sense to improve it, but rather try to design new tank and use CAWA-2 in thicker and heavier modules.

 

[Damian]

As a side note. It seems that after CAWA-2, there was and most probably still is, some development effort on vehicles protection. On photo we can see some types of armor modules, although no details are known to me. I also searched through avaiable WITU PDF's and nothing about this subject.

Perhaps general lack of sources avaiable for public, is because R&D on heavier armor protection is classified.

 

[Andrei_bt]

As a side note. It seems that after CAWA-2, there was and most probably still is

As I remember from this exebition such add-onn armor provided protection vs 30 mm class rounds. Not 500 mm against APFSDS...

 

[Damian]

As I remember from this exebition such add-onn armor provided protection vs 30 mm class rounds. Not 500 mm against APFSDS...

But which one? That installed on vehicle or these modules presented on the ground?