Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[collegeboy16]

Will Armata MBT have 6 or 7 wheels?

 

[Damian]

Will Armata MBT have 6 or 7 wheels?

Not known yet, we need to wait for presentation of first prototype... however recent news says that Russia begins to have economic problems again and budget for military will be downsized which can have a direct impact on research and development program.

 

[collegeboy16]

Not known yet, we need to wait for presentation of first prototype... however recent news says that Russia begins to have economic problems again and budget for military will be downsized which can have a direct impact on research and development program.

Really? What news?
Also, what is hull height of Abrams?

Is it true that GLATGMs are sh*t when used in Europe?

 

[Damian]

Really? What news?

As far as I know, Russian Ministry of Finances is currently consulting reduction of budget, Minister of Finances Anton Siluanov informed this some time ago. They said that economy will slow from 3,6% to 2,4%, which definetely means MoD budget reductions.

Also, what is hull height of Abrams?

I think such data is not provided, but it is definetely lower than standing adult human male of avarage size. This is typical for all tanks... maybe besides these from WWII which had very tall hulls due to superstructure on them.

Is it true that GLATGMs are sh*t when used in Europe?

Preaty much yeah, using them is problematic, classical GLATGM is because range is too low. It is far more rational to use conventional ammunition that is faster. This is also problematic for ATGM's.

For example I live in Poland, in lowlands. Normally Poland or Germany is considered as very flat countries with good visilibity but, I know only one place in my region when visibility exceedes 4,000m. And terrain is not really flat, also there is a lot of rather big bush emplacements and forests.

This is why for example our army use Spike ATGM which can be fired above obstacles and guided via cable and it's sighting system to a target.

 

[hest]

Will Armata MBT have 6 or 7 wheels?

Armata will have 7 as shown in recent presentations, also due to requirement of supporting a load of 35 tons.

 

[hest]

"no exist"
"none has proven"
"has not yet been completly defined"
"no means are currently avaible"
"can not be directly assessed"
"there where considered inconsequential"

Ha ha, it only shows your poor understanding of english. What is said is that determining after armour effect is not an exact science, and that their method and theories are insufficient

a blast overpressure is generated in the crew space, Previously, these ancillary effects were not figured into survivability because they were
considered inconsequential compared to the considerable threat of burns and fragment
wounds. However, progress in armored system design has resulted in significant limitations
of the direct damage done by threat penetration. Fragment damage has been reduced by
the decreased penetrability of the armor, the wearing of personal body armor and the use
of spall suppression linings. The threat of crew space fires has been markedly reduced by
the proper stowage and compartmentalization of ammunition and other flammables and by
the use of an automatic fire extinguishing system (AFES). This increases the importance of accurately evaluating the
ancillary effects described above as possible causes of crew injury or incapacitation. Evaluating hazards from blast overpressure and
toxic gas exposure required investigation through medical research specifically designed to
characterize the hazards in these environments. Predicting injuries and fractional
incapacitation in these environments is not an exact science and will require refinement as
addition data is presented.

Primary blast injury is limited to the air containing structures of the body, i.e. the
lungs, gastrointestinal tract and ears. Blast injury occurs as a result of an incident pressure
wave directly loading the body (7-13). The resultant loading is distributed over the entire
body surface and depends on the body's orientation to the incident wave (14-16). The
exposure conditions which result in primary blast injury have been roughly determined;
however, the precise injury mechanisms are not clearly understood (13).
A complex pressure wave occurs inside an armored vehicle defeated by an antitank
round (Figure 1). There is an initial fast-rising wave emanating from the point of
penetration. Other shocks are superimposed, emanating from the jet transversing the
vehicle's interior, the exit site penetration and multiple internal reflections....

What is said is clear, there is serious blast effect, howewer it is not easy to determine with their method.

And you had given link to article when is clearly written:
"there where considered inconsequential"
genius

Laught at your understanding , it means effect cannot be exactly predicted, howewer it well exists.

this "bullshit" is based on:

[1] См. «Курс артиллерии, книга 5. Боеприпасы» // М.: Воениздат, 1949, Стр. 37.

[2] См. «Reactive Armor», Travis Hagan // Explosives Engineering MNGN 498; March 18, 2002.

[3] Широкое практическое применение кумулятивные боеприпасы получили в годы Второй мировой войны и в послевоенный период, вплоть до настоящего времени.

In your desperation you rely on article from forum site written personally by author who selected information along with his creativity, and was discredited. You pretend as you show sources or information, howewer you do not so far. This compilation of titles is nothing for example, I am open to discuss their content.

is uncertain"
"probable incidence of between 1 and 20%"
The newest is M. Held research when exatly those problem (SC behind armour effect including blast and overpressure), and what?

Again, lol at your english

Primary blast injury (PBI) is common in fatalities (16). The effect of a blast wave is exaggerated by the "confined" nature of vehicles compared with 'open-air' explosions (17). The exact incidence of primary blast injury in survivors is uncertain.
Ripple and Phillips (15) quote closed source US Army Medical Research and Developmental Command (USA MRDC) studies indicating a probable incidence of between 1 and 20 percent PBI in survivors from a large warhead penetrating an armoured vehicle (in addition to their other injuries).

First, stupid or manipulator, it is damage effect on 1-20% from survivors, the effects, also blast, are local, and those who survive are still in good degree affected by consequences. )) It also confirms blast effect is serious and real.

Also

Paradoxically, as the threat of fragment and burn injuries lessens, effect of blast and other ancillary effects of armor penetration becomes more significant.
Many Israeli armor casualties in the 1967 War were inside armored vehicles that were penetrated by antitank guided missiles (ATGMs) equipped with shaped-charge warheads (see Chapter One). These soldiers suffered from respiratory failure and extensive (but superficial) burns, a combination of symptoms that became known as the ATGM Syndrome.
The pulmonary component was attributed to a combination of PBI and toxic-fume inhalation.
Neither British nor American casualty data from armored conflicts during World War II are particularly useful in determining the role, if any, of blast injury in that era.

Popular science, GCV

Part of logic behind the new tank's massive size is that soldiers inside a vehicle are more likely to survive an explosion if there's adequate space for them to wear armor while seated. The extra space also helps distribute pressure from the blast and thus lessens its impact. The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof [Updated] | Popular Science

And NII Stali

You even lack reading comprehension.

After armour effect, blast pressure

And from university, also confirms blast pressure danger

etc etc..

 

[militarysta]

Is it true that GLATGMs are sh*t when used in Europe?

Yes and No

In decade when they was developed (circa 1976) it was really danger weapons - long range, gided, powerfull SC warhed able to perforated M60 or Leo-1 or Cheftian, etc.
But since developed M1 and Leo-2 (1979//1980) 125mm caliber SC was definetly not enought. Tested burlinghton armour was able to windstand test 152mm caliber SC warhed in erly 1970s. Mutation this armour was ued on M1, CR1 and Leo-2. So first problem is not powerfull enought warhed against western III gen. Second problem is about distance in central and western Europe. In Poland max fire range is limited to 1500m in 96% cases. In Germany - to 1300m for 96%. More then 70% tank firefight is done on circa 800m distance. On so short range using GLATGM have no advantage in compare to the APFSDS. What more - expensive sophisticated western FCS where hight accurate and give possibility to hit moving target by first round whit really big posibility. Decade erlyier that was posible for GLATGM, but in 1980s here was no advantage.
In theory GLATGM can give advantage on flat field whit visiblity range up to 5000m. Grate. Maybe on desert, but not in central/western Europe.

Resume: GLATGM in theory was good solutions for 1970s: powerfull warhed able to perforate frontally any western tank, and beeing guided so quite accurate and whit grate posibility to hit moving target. But since III western MBT gen. appers GLATGM lost their advantages:
125mm cal SC was not enought (tested Burlinghton was able to survive 152mm SC whit more then 710mm RHA penetration)
western sophisticated FCS where able to achive grate posibility to hit moving target by first round

 

[hest]

As far as I know, Russian Ministry of Finances is currently consulting reduction of budget, Minister of Finances Anton Siluanov informed this some time ago. They said that economy will slow from 3,6% to 2,4%, which definetely means MoD budget reductions.

It is possible there could be some recession unfortunately. About defense budget, the one for next 3 years is fixed quantity, will not be altered, howewer it is not adjusted to inflation thus there can be variation, but limited.

It is better to leave economy to proper topic.

152mm caliber SC

Calliber does not have direct relation with penetration ability, much less in 70s.

 

[militarysta]

Ha ha, it only shows your poor understanding of english. What is said is that determining after armour effect is not an exact science, and that their method and theories are insufficient

In all pdfs BEFORE 1997 is clery written:
1) there is blast as another factor in behind after effect
2) there is no developed method to clerly mesured it's influence on crews
3) used method are based on frefield tests.

What is said is clear, there is serious blast effect, howewer it is not easy to determine with their method.

False, sinse 1997 blast effect is clamed as minnor, or inconsequential.

it means effect cannot be exactly predicted, howewer it well exists.

No, they clerly decribe that blast is less important then other factors. In all pdfs it's clearly written.

In your desperation you rely on article from forum site written personally by author who selected information along with his creativity, and was discredited. You pretend as you show sources or information, howewer you do not so far. This compilation of titles is nothing for example, I am open to discuss their content.

Those article is based on sevral research for example M. Held when exatly was tested SC Behind armour effect including blast and pressure.

More or less in all sources after 1997 -when finally method good enought to tested blast influence on crew -give blast effect minor effect and beeing inconsequential. The discusion ended M. Held test (first 2000 and second 2003 and third in 2008) when was fired 100 SC warhed whit 115mm diameter, and after that dozens 98mm cal SC. and others. When blast and overpressure where mesured.
The conlusion whas clearly enought: blast have minor effect.
Before circa 1997-2000 method to tested and known blast and pressure effect was not good enought - there where suspected some influence but unable to quantificated in research -and this is clarly written in most research before 1997-2000:
"no exist"
"none has proven"
"has not yet been completly defined"
"no means are currently avaible"
"can not be directly assessed"
"there where considered inconsequential"
"is uncertain"
"probable incidence of between 1 and 20%"
No method to sure mesurment influence, no good enought techniqe - just theories and assumptions about blast effect.
Those problem where solved by M.Held team during 3 diffrent research studies:
2000
2003
2008
When blast and overpressure theory where rejected.
Final conclusion from sucht huge research studies where simple: tank crew will safely survives after SC perforation if the jet stream and armor pieces do not affect people and equipment (ammo and flamable factors in tank).

All your hopeless writing about "serious/huge/danger blast effect" is based on outaded sources when influence was not clear enought and when method to mesure it where not avaible.

 

[Regular]

Ok, probably it was discusses to death, but what about GLATGMs usage in then potential Cold War conflict, like in places like Fulda gap? Wasn't all Russian designs based on almost same scenario? Still ability to shoot ATGM is nice addition in my opinion, LAHAT looks very potential.
I served in a country where there are loads of forests and engagement distances would probably lower than 800 meters in some places.

 

[collegeboy16]

Well, IMO HEAT GLATGMS may be useless against the frontal armor, but still, there is a huge chance in case of hit that some sensors are damage, tracks destroyed, weakspots hit or in case of M1 Abrams' turret bustle, a mission kill inflicted. Also, I dont think there are that much GLATGMS at that time, the ones who have it are the elite who will face NATO tanks in Fulda gap, am I right? Also, why is it taht NATO tanks are considered to have better FCS when Soviet tanks can guide beam riders for an extended period of time from 3-5 km? Also, wouldnt it be a disadvantage for NATO tanks wo have supposedly better FCS if the engaement is about 1500m 96% of the time?

As for the Russian Economy, I hope they alleviate this recession, IMO it would be best if they could do better than 3.6%, I think they can manage it. Why am I saying this, well, not really a Russophile, but I'm a fan of military hardware, and it would be best if they can make Armata the best they can, as soon as they can and as efficient as they can and hit the target number before the deadline. It would make a hell of an impetus for the development of tanks across the world, imagine that!

 

[militarysta]

Calliber does not have direct relation with penetration ability, much less in 70s.

Quality and penetartion values both SC used in Burlinghton test in 1968 is given in document -the penetration into RHA is 28 inches (711 mm) for the 152 mm charge and 23 inches (584 mm) for the 127 mm charge.

9К112 "Кобра" - Бронепробиваемость, мм: 600-700 but it's as alwayes overestimated. Wasilij Fowanow calims that achive 600mm by Cobra warhed was sucess,

 

[The Last Stand]

9К112 "Кобра" - Бронепробиваемость, мм: 600-700 but it's as alwayes overestimated. Wasilij Fowanow calims that achive 600mm by Cobra warhed was sucess,

Vasily Fofanov?

 

[methos]

Is it true that GLATGMs are sh*t when used in Europe?

There are a lot places in Middle Europe where someone can theoretically make full use of the long range of GLATGMs. In case of Germany, the battlefield of any hypothetical "Cold War turns hot" scenario, the North German Plain is such an area. It is a flat landscape, with a lot of the area used for farming. The rest of Germany is less suited for GLATGMs, because their is the Harz (a secondary mountain ridge) in the center of Germany and the Alps in South Germany. There are still a lot of places where view ranges of four to five kilometers are possible, but they are much less common than in the flat north.

The main problem of GLATGMs during the Cold War in Europe wasn't the lack of area suited for them, but the low probability to actually spot targets at long ranges. A West-German study about the MBT-70 concluded, that 75% of all targets would be spotted in the range from 0 to 2,000 m. 19 % of the targets would be spotted in the range from 2,000 to 3,000 m.
The MBT-70 had some very high quality sights with up to 14 x magnification. Soviet tanks at the same time had up to 7 to 9 x times magnification, so the propability to spot targets is very low at long ranges.

The West-German army did use dedicated missile-carrying tank destroyers. These had better optics than MBTs:

 

[hest]

In all pdfs BEFORE 1997 is clery written:
1) there is blast as another factor in behind after effect
2) there is no developed method to clerly mesured it's influence on crews
3) used method are based on frefield tests.

There is extensive data on death and injury cases related with overpressure, in all those sources there are conclusions:

- Blast effect is local, in proximity of penetration
- There are confirmed death and damage cases, and 1-20 % of survivors (less direct damage) suffer consequences.
- Avalilable theory and estimation method did not allow to determine the effect with certainity.

False, sinse 1997 blast effect is clamed as minnor, or inconsequential.

No, you show you cannot read. What was said is with powerfull penetration main effect are fragments, howewer when it is reduced additional damage effects, including blast, gain more importance. And it is said, what you do not understand, is that there is no accurate method to predict it, not that effect is not present, at the contrary.

Again

a blast overpressure is generated in the crew space, Previously, these ancillary effects were not figured into survivability because they were
considered inconsequential compared to the considerable threat of burns and fragment
wounds. However, progress in armored system design has resulted in significant limitations
of the direct damage done by threat penetration. Fragment damage has been reduced by
the decreased penetrability of the armor, the wearing of personal body armor and the use
of spall suppression linings. The threat of crew space fires has been markedly reduced by
the proper stowage and compartmentalization of ammunition and other flammables and by
the use of an automatic fire extinguishing system (AFES). This increases the importance of accurately evaluating the
ancillary effects described above as possible causes of crew injury or incapacitation. Evaluating hazards from blast overpressure and
toxic gas exposure required investigation through medical research specifically designed to
characterize the hazards in these environments. Predicting injuries and fractional
incapacitation in these environments is not an exact science and will require refinement as
addition data is presented.

Primary blast injury is limited to the air containing structures of the body, i.e. the
lungs, gastrointestinal tract and ears. Blast injury occurs as a result of an incident pressure
wave directly loading the body (7-13). The resultant loading is distributed over the entire
body surface and depends on the body's orientation to the incident wave (14-16). The
exposure conditions which result in primary blast injury have been roughly determined;
however, the precise injury mechanisms are not clearly understood (13).
A complex pressure wave occurs inside an armored vehicle defeated by an antitank
round (Figure 1). There is an initial fast-rising wave emanating from the point of
penetration. Other shocks are superimposed, emanating from the jet transversing the
vehicle's interior, the exit site penetration and multiple internal reflections....

No, they clerly decribe that blast is less important then other factors. In all pdfs it's clearly written.

Because as it is said in document main effect are fragments and burns, true, they overlap these additional effect, howewer it is clearly written that it is a danger, especially when penetration is not as powerfull.

Those article is based on sevral research for example M. Held when exatly was tested SC Behind armour effect including blast and pressure.

If you want to argue then show it in depth, and also look at rest of sources. Show condition, penetration, crew placement. Multiple documents show that effects beyond fragments, including blast but not only it, are significant danger.

More or less in all sources after 1997 -when finally method good enought to tested blast influence on crew -give blast effect minor effect and beeing inconsequential. The discusion ended M. Held test (first 2000 and second 2003 and third in 2008) when was fired 100 SC warhed whit 115mm diameter, and after that dozens 98mm cal SC. and others. When blast and overpressure where mesured.
The conlusion whas clearly enought: blast have minor effect.

Nowhere it is said it is minor effect, at the contrary, registrated deaths and injuries show it. Even on that Held document it is confirmed there is such effect, but your interpretation is also without complete context, what is said is that it is less in relation with other effects, mainly fragments, the same as said in army document and others, and should be noted that effect is local, danger is notably reduced in rest of vehicle space.

Before circa 1997-2000 method to tested and known blast and pressure effect was not good enought - there where suspected some influence but unable to quantificated in research -and this is clarly written in most research before 1997-2000:
"no exist"
"none has proven"
"has not yet been completly defined"
"no means are currently avaible"
"can not be directly assessed"
"there where considered inconsequential"
"is uncertain"
"probable incidence of between 1 and 20%"
No method to sure mesurment influence, no good enought techniqe - just theories and assumptions about blast effect.

It is only your manipulation, again, text:

Primary blast injury (PBI) is common in fatalities (16). The effect of a blast wave is exaggerated by the "confined" nature of vehicles compared with 'open-air' explosions (17). The exact incidence of primary blast injury in survivors is uncertain.
Ripple and Phillips (15) quote closed source US Army Medical Research and Developmental Command (USA MRDC) studies indicating a probable incidence of between 1 and 20 percent PBI in survivors from a large warhead penetrating an armoured vehicle (in addition to their other injuries).

Paradoxically, as the threat of fragment and burn injuries lessens, effect of blast and other ancillary effects of armor penetration becomes more significant. Many Israeli armor casualties in the 1967 War were inside armored vehicles that were penetrated by antitank guided missiles (ATGMs) equipped with shaped-charge warheads (see Chapter One). These soldiers suffered from respiratory failure and extensive (but superficial) burns, a combination of symptoms that became known as the ATGM Syndrome.
The pulmonary component was attributed to a combination of PBI and toxic-fume inhalation.
Neither British nor American casualty data from armored conflicts during World War II are particularly useful in determining the role, if any, of blast injury in that era.

a blast overpressure is generated in the crew space, Previously, these ancillary effects were not figured into survivability because they were
considered inconsequential compared to the considerable threat of burns and fragment
wounds. However, progress in armored system design has resulted in significant limitations
of the direct damage done by threat penetration. Fragment damage has been reduced by
the decreased penetrability of the armor, the wearing of personal body armor and the use
of spall suppression linings. The threat of crew space fires has been markedly reduced by
the proper stowage and compartmentalization of ammunition and other flammables and by
the use of an automatic fire extinguishing system (AFES). This increases the importance of accurately evaluating the
ancillary effects described above as possible causes of crew injury or incapacitation. Evaluating hazards from blast overpressure and
toxic gas exposure required investigation through medical research specifically designed to
characterize the hazards in these environments. Predicting injuries and fractional
incapacitation in these environments is not an exact science and will require refinement as
addition data is presented.

Primary blast injury is limited to the air containing structures of the body, i.e. the
lungs, gastrointestinal tract and ears. Blast injury occurs as a result of an incident pressure
wave directly loading the body (7-13). The resultant loading is distributed over the entire
body surface and depends on the body's orientation to the incident wave (14-16). The
exposure conditions which result in primary blast injury have been roughly determined;
however, the precise injury mechanisms are not clearly understood (13).
A complex pressure wave occurs inside an armored vehicle defeated by an antitank
round (Figure 1). There is an initial fast-rising wave emanating from the point of
penetration. Other shocks are superimposed, emanating from the jet transversing the
vehicle's interior, the exit site penetration and multiple internal reflections....

Final conclusion from sucht huge research studies where simple: tank crew will safely survives after SC perforation if the jet stream and armor pieces do not affect people and equipment (ammo and flamable factors in tank).

The conclusion is that if penetration is weaker, the main danger are not fragments anymore, and there are registrated cases, another one:

PRIMARY BLAST INJURY AND BASIC RESEARCH: A BRIEF HISTORY".

The second incident involved a rocket attack on an armored vehicle, in which two soldiers were killed outright. One was mutilated as he was blown through an open hatch. The other had only a scratch on his chin but was dead at the scene. Autopsy revealed that he had extensive blast injuries to his internal organs and a fatal pulmonary hemorrhage.

All your hopeless writing about "serious/huge/danger blast effect" is based on outaded sources when influence was not clear enought and when method to mesure it where not avaible.

Most of your "material" is subject to your interpretation. I have given multiple sources confirming the danger, read again.

 

[hest]

Quality and penetartion values both SC used in Burlinghton test in 1968 is given in document -the penetration into RHA is 28 inches (711 mm) for the 152 mm charge and 23 inches (584 mm) for the 127 mm charge.

9К112 "Кобра" - Бронепробиваемость, мм: 600-700 but it's as alwayes overestimated. Wasilij Fowanow calims that achive 600mm by Cobra warhed was sucess,

Nothing to do with ability to penetrate armour, wrong:

It is innefective construction with 60 degree cone angle. Ability to defeat armour depends on focus distance, jet velocity which themselves depend on quality, explosive energy and cone angle.

The stream velocity consequence is not reflected in steel (and here, what standart, and what focus distance, is not said), but it is very important to deal against semi-active armour design as Burlington, on which the jet incidence leads to movement of the plate, if speed of the jet is increased, the part of it which passes throught unnafected is greater, and damage to the rest is notably reduced.

"The smaller the cone angle, the greater is the speed of the cumulative stream. With change of cone angle from 15 to 60 degrees the speed of the leading part of the cumulative stream under the same explosive energy is reduced from 10 km/s to 6.5 km/s. In the aft part it is reduced from 5,2 km/s to 2 km/s." From terminal ballistics publication.

Latter soviet ATGM warhead has nothing to do with this 60 degree angle construction, neither with explosive, focus distance or quality, being much less affected by semi-active Burlington effect.

 

[militarysta]

Nothing to do with ability to penetrate armour, wrong:
Ability to defeat armour depends on focus distance, jet velocity which themselves depend on quality, explosive energy and cone angle.

But still it doesnt change fact that used in 1968 152mm diameter SC used in Burlinghton test had the penetration equal 28 inches 711 mm RHA
There is no one western on russian sources which gives 9К112 "Кобра" better penetration. If sucht source exist - post it here. WHat more: most sources gives 600-650mm RHA for Cobra as max value. And it's seems to be realistic, and comparable whit BK rounds. If Im wrong - proof it.

It is innefective construction with 60 degree cone angle.

So Cobra is " innefective construction with 60 degree cone angle." too:


(Im sorry but argument about 60 degree cone angle is funny now -including the same degree cone angle in Cobra )

Latter soviet ATGM warhead has nothing to do with this 60 degree angle construction,

40 degree:


Penetration 700-750mm RHA for 90.

More or less used in 1968 SC warhed have penetration abilities 711mm RHA what is mucht better then the same 60 degree angle construction in 9К112 "Кобра" whit 600-650mm RHA penetration in most sources.
Acoding to Vasiliy Fofanov achive eve 600mm by Cobra was suces typical it was between 550-600mm RHA. He was writing aboiut this on otvaga sevral times.
Newest 9К119 warhed have simmilar penetration (700-750mm) to those 711mm RHA and propably indeed mucht newer construction. But abilities to overcome RHA is on the same level (simmilar). And Burlinghton armour and it's clones used in middle 1980s have propably not many common whit 1968 solutions. More or less front armour in leo-2A4, M1A1, CR1 was enought to windstand any Soviet GLATGM -only "lucky shoot" in gun mantled mask could be danger.

 

[militarysta]

Nowhere it is said it is minor effect.

Marked on blue "minor"

The second incident involved a rocket attack on an armored vehicle, in which two soldiers were killed outright. One was mutilated as he was blown through an open hatch. The other had only a scratch on his chin but was dead at the scene. Autopsy revealed that he had extensive blast injuries to his internal organs and a fatal pulmonary hemorrhage.

Open hatches coused exatly this: external blast can come inside tank, it was describe even on Ghur Kchan site. Nothing suprising. And nothing commpon whit case when BLAST is outside tank (warhed explosion) and only pressure can be made by residual jet after penetration - very fast, but wery light and small.

Most of your "material" is subject to your interpretation

It's rather exatly opposide - BLAST EFFECT was rejected as important injury factor in SC behind armour effect. You are desperatly looking any inaccuracies and assumpsion based on lack of research methods in olders pdfs and replicated them sources to make any argument.

I have given multiple sources confirming the danger

Blast is one of the components "behind armour effect" and it coud be danger as flash, fumes, smoke, heat, etc, but graduation of thread give in pdfs conclusion that blast effect is minor component and tank crew will safely survives after SC perforation if the jet stream and armor pieces do not affect people and equipment (ammo and flamable factors in tank).
You are trying to exaggerate minor problem.

It is only your manipulation
(...)
There are confirmed death and damage cases, and 1-20 % of survivors (less direct damage) suffer consequences

Lindsky, dont be funny here. You are unable to read simple tekst.
(USA MRDC) studies indicating a probable incidence of between 1 and 20 percent PBI in survivors from a large warhead penetrating an armoured vehicle (in addition to their other injuries).
Word "probable means: likely, feasible, Possible, eventual, prospective, likely, probable, conceivable

So, transfering for simple tekst:
1. There is some unknown (x) number of survivors from a large warhead penetrating an armoured vehicle. We don't known this number.
2. studies gives unconfirmed, probable, feasible, Possible, eventual, prospective, likely, probable etc in one word probable range of blast effect injures.
3. Thise probable range is between 1% and 20% becouse it's exatly probable or feasible, Possible, eventual, prospective, likely, probable etc Thats why range is so big from non existing to 1/5 unknown population.

More or less - as I said, and at it was written in M Held thesis - blast is MINOR effect.

If you want to argue then show it in depth, and also look at rest of sources. Show condition, penetration, crew placement.

Use google

howewer it is clearly written that it is a danger,

But general conclusion is that blast effect is minor factor and tank crew will safely survives after SC perforation if the jet stream and armor pieces do not affect people and equipment (ammo and flamable factors in tank).
Thats the clou, becouse nobody says that blast is not danger. Of course it is but it's MINOR or irrelevant factor in compare to the other factors.

 

[hest]

But still it doesnt change fact that used in 1968 152mm diameter SC used in Burlinghton test had the penetration equal 28 inches 711 mm RHA
There is no one western on russian sources which gives 9К112 "Кобра" better penetration. If sucht source exist - post it here. WHat more: most sources gives 600-650mm RHA for Cobra as max value. And it's seems to be realistic, and comparable whit BK rounds. If Im wrong - proof it.

Different versions were improved with new warhead, material and explosive, so there are different values.

So Cobra is " innefective construction with 60 degree cone angle." too:


(Im sorry but argument about 60 degree cone angle is funny now -including the same degree cone angle in Cobra )


40 degree:


Penetration 700-750mm RHA for 90.

Yes, it is innefective construction and was later optimised in latter ATGM (9M119 for example), I showed the relation between angle and jet speed. You howewer did not answer the question, what are the factors which affect the penetration of composite armour. What matters is the speed of the cumulative stream among others, the greater, the more are the elements unnafected by the movement of the bulging plate, and works partially against ERA, this is understood by the designers which optimise missile construction, and makes big difference, howewer not reflected against plain steel, so talking about steel penetration is not useful because this is not tank's main armour. Factors are cone angle as well as explosive energy.

It is clear that ATGM Kobra has nothing to do with that 152 mm warhead in efficiency, explosive energy and quality (innefective performance for such 152 mm caliber), having difference in jet speed of km/s does matter to deal against armour, not against steel. Whereas that 152 mm warhead stream from uknown focus distance will be affected in great part by bulging plate, Kobra's stream could well pass throught the Burlington plates with notable amount of elements not affected by the bulge, if it has much greater speed. So the simple comparison you made is useless, ignore of important factors, and of basic principle of composite armour.

And Burlinghton armour and it's clones used in middle 1980s have propably not many common whit 1968 solutions. More or less front armour in leo-2A4, M1A1, CR1 was enought to windstand any Soviet GLATGM -only "lucky shoot" in gun mantled mask could be danger.

So did improve the performance of ATGM, especially to deal with composite armour, you just ignore the means and details which have this objective.

 

[hest]

Marked on blue "minor"

Show conditions, as I explained.

Open hatches coused exatly this: external blast can come inside tank, it was describe even on Ghur Kchan site. Nothing suprising. And nothing commpon whit case when BLAST is outside tank (warhed explosion) and only pressure can be made by residual jet after penetration - very fast, but wery light and small.

There are damage cases described in those documents, different from this, which you ignore, how do you explain, they did not happen because you do not want to ?

It's rather exatly opposide - BLAST EFFECT was rejected as important injury factor in SC behind armour effect. You are desperatly looking any inaccuracies and assumpsion based on lack of research methods in olders pdfs and replicated them sources to make any argument.

Multiple sources which I have shown describe the effect as well as confirmed damage cases, you are limited only to vague, superficial statements, titles, without going in dept.

Blast is one of the components "behind armour effect" and it coud be danger as flash, fumes, smoke, heat, etc, but graduation of thread give in pdfs conclusion that blast effect is minor component and tank crew will safely survives after SC perforation if the jet stream and armor pieces do not affect people and equipment (ammo and flamable factors in tank).
You are trying to exaggerate minor problem.

You do not understand that in all document minor is relative term, minor is also fragment effect is penetration is weak, it is also equivalent to local damage. It is true that it is limited, but those within that localised effect suffer serious damage, and survivors can still be affected in lower degree.

Lindsky, dont be funny here. You are unable to read simple tekst.
(USA MRDC) studies indicating a probable incidence of between 1 and 20 percent PBI in survivors from a large warhead penetrating an armoured vehicle (in addition to their other injuries).
Word "probable means: likely, feasible, Possible, eventual, prospective, likely, probable, conceivable

So, transfering for simple tekst:
1. There is some unknown (x) number of survivors from a large warhead penetrating an armoured vehicle. We don't known this number.
2. studies gives unconfirmed, probable, feasible, Possible, eventual, prospective, likely, probable etc in one word probable range of blast effect injures.
3. Thise probable range is between 1% and 20% becouse it's exatly probable or feasible, Possible, eventual, prospective, likely, probable etc Thats why range is so big from non existing to 1/5 unknown population.

It says among survivors. If you care to understand:

- Effect is local
- Survivors are normally not within main effect zone.
- Those who survive (^) suffer consequences, probable from 1-20 %.

More or less - as I said, and at it was written in M Held thesis - blast is MINOR effect.

You did not show me anything in depth or within context. It can be relative, can be local, and you ignore all the sources which show confirmed cases.

But general conclusion is that blast effect is minor factor and tank crew will safely survives after SC perforation if the jet stream and armor pieces do not affect people and equipment (ammo and flamable factors in tank).
Thats the clou, becouse nobody says that blast is not danger. Of course it is but it's MINOR or irrelevant factor in compare to the other factors.

The conclusion is that effect of SC perforation is local, there are confirmed cases with damage due to additional factors to fragments, overpressure being one of them. If crew is not within local effect zone, it is true that it suffers limited damage. It also depends on how powerfull penetration is.