Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

Ant Soviet/Russian army was able in Chechenia first war? No. In second war? No. In Georgia war? Again no.

In theory Soviets forces trained sucht action. In reality they where unable. Cooperation whit air assult, artilery, etc was posible only to FEBA area, after that - impossible. And serious problems in 1994-1995, 1999, 2008 agains really weak enemy (and whit full air domination, unlimited artilery support, etc) only cleraly shown this what was obvious erlyier.
Possible support was able only when Soviet/Russian army had attacked previous well known position after weeks of prepering, or on micro-level - tank platoon. It's looks not wery good acually.

None of your examples is valid. The Soviet army emphasized cooperation with artillery, aviation and regimental air defense, it is very ignorant statement, and situation is completely different in operation in urban zone, where indirect support could not be provided (Chechnia) due to collateral damage, difference between first, and second war is notable.

BTW, your argument about NATO support is completely laughauble, it could work against weak enemy with no defense means as Iraq, or in Serbia, but relying on artillery and aviation against Soviet counter battery fire and extensive air defense ? In urban zone ? It is a fail.

And M1 had 17 rounds, and? 12 Sabots and 5x HEAT
Both: Leo-2 and M1 don't carry HE-FRAG only AT munition couse act as anti-armour weapon in highly maneuver but defensive action.
It was not neccery in opinion M1 and Leo-2 developers. And both have simmilar first use load of the ammo (15 and 17 rounds).

It was not possible due to:

1 Low capacity of ready ammunition

2 Requirement of anti-tank mission, sabot, further limiting 1, and defensive doctrine

3 Lack of HE-FRAG.

As support, in assault, or in irregular warfare it is not suitable at all.

And in fact carry of AT munition was notable higher then typical carry of autoloader in T-72.

It was about the same, difference is that T-72 and T-80 were both superior in number, had greater capacity of 22 and 29 rounds respectively, and also provided support with fragmentary ammunition. It's capacity allowed better optimisation.

Give me ONE evidence that 15 round is not enought in irregular warfare.

Requirement in Leopard 2 to carry additional ammunition in hull, dangerous for crew, and experience with T-72 and T-80.

Still Leo-2 takes notable more AT munition then caroussel in T-72 So in T-72 it will be ended faster.
And fater use sucht rounds T-72 is defenceless couse 20-25min neede time to reload autoloader.
In Leo-2 it's takes <3min (under 3minutes).

It does not, it is poorer compared with T-72 and T-80, cannot provide support and cannot reload bustle in combat due to turret rotation, and has to perform it more frequently.

And that "statsment" is based on what acually?

say that to yourself, how ERA and precursor works. How single element on turret side initiated by precursor will do more than shit against tandem RPG. You understand the purpose of it ?

 

[hest]

In 1968 there were at least several different configurations, and there was further development, talking only about a single variant as upgrade for Chieftain is not reasonable to say it gently.

We are discussing the conclusions which can be made on the test of this configuration in particular.

 

[Damian]

As far as I can see, you are just forcing on us, your beliefs that 125mm calliber shaped charge warhead is better than 152mm or 170mm and that it can perforate armor, that is not perforated by bigger, more powerfull warheads.

This proves what I said earlier, you are not discussing, your are performing agressive promotion of Russian made weapon system, which are not the best, have their flaws whic you try to hide and present them as best avaiable on market.

 

[hest]

As far as I can see, you are just forcing on us, your beliefs that 125mm calliber shaped charge warhead is better than 152mm or 170mm and that it can perforate armor, that is not perforated by bigger, more powerfull warheads.

It is a response to the claim "this protects against .., then it will protect against this". I only point at the flaw of such thinking. The point is that it does not has to share the same characteristics, so there is no assurance that it will be as effective against it. The same, it is not certain if it will defeat the armour either.

This proves what I said earlier, you are not discussing, your are performing agressive promotion of Russian made weapon system, which are not the best, have their flaws whic you try to hide and present them as best avaiable on market.

Everybody should question the claims made without argument. Those who know will judge.

 

[Damian]

It is a response to the claim "this protects against .., then it will protect against this". I only point at the flaw of such thinking. The point is that it does not has to share the same characteristics, so there is no assurance that it will be as effective against it. The same, it is not certain if it will defeat the armour either.

But the context of your posts is very clear - "Russian is better, not Russian is inferior". This is even more flawed thinking.

Everybody should question the claims made without argument. Those who know will judge.

For example your claims, where there is no either argument or proof?

 

[hest]

But the context of your posts is very clear - "Russian is better, not Russian is inferior". This is even more flawed thinking.

Those are yours, but in opposite way. Who has nothing to add is limited to such emotional nosense.

For example your claims, where there is no either argument or proof?

Ask and may be explained.

 

[Damian]

Those are yours, but in opposite way. Who has nothing to add is limited to such emotional nosense.

So you are still talking about yourself.

Ok I will put it simple, you came here, started to discuss, and you destroyed all constructive and inteesting discussions, this is how it looks like.

Ask and may be explained.

Who ask, you? You are not credible and reliable source of informations, neither you are impartial, you will allways make Russian weapons better or significantly superior, this is your mentality, and this makes you preaty much not a partner to any discussion.

 

[The Last Stand]

@militarysta sir, if there is noise level of over 200 dB for shaped charge penetration, I am sorry to say that everyone inside will have their eardrum torn out and all of them will lose their balance and slowly bleed to death. Nothing else can happen. As for my source, 3 of my relatives are doctors and they tell me that high noise level has killed several people.

In fact, in the dead centre of a tornado or hurricane, noise levels are upto 245 dB and as of now, no one has survived if they were pulled to the centre. It's not rational that people survive the noise level.

:shocked:

 

[militarysta]

It is a representation of engagement, flying path and hit, with different threat levels, but it is by no means a measure to estimate actual penetration or composite armour. The main objective, to train tank crew for manouver and exposure of "safe" front, and for gunner, missile operator to aim at more vulnerable zone when range allows it, programmer made it that way. In view of that, estimating actual protection or missile weapon performance is nosense.

You don't understand. AGDUS have many variant's and moddels, of course they are some simplifiactions, but while AGDUD developers where sure that side hit in ammo rack will blow of tank, side hit in turret bustle will "partial destroyed tank" then frontal hit by HOT-2 and TOW-2 (both 150mm SC) did nothing for turret front. It's based on known for AGDUS developers HOT-2 TOW-2 warhed abilities, and known Leo-2A4 armour protection.

AGDUS developers where sure that frontal turret hit by TOW-2A and HOT-2 will not destroyed tank, or even heavy damage, while in the same time there where sure that hit in ammo rack will blow of tank, and hit in turret bustle will partial destroyed tank, hit in turret sides for some angle will damage tanks, for other will destroyed tank etc

It's not taken from space, or others -it's program in AGDUS based on real perforamces for ATGMS warhed and Leo-2A4 armour. I haven't acces to never version, or even blue on red programs. But even this small part cleraly shown that for AGDUS developers was sure that 150mm SC will not destroyed (or heavy damage) Leo-2A4 in front hit. It's notable.

Even with that, I do not see any strong protection of main armour with that hull vulnerability.

Exept fact that posibility to hit turret is 74% and hull is 26%.

You are the "quack" with such claims .

No, as AT it can be used only ONE Hellfire version in 1991.

There are different versions of Hellfire warhead

- Basic Hellfire
- Interim Hellfire, improved warhead, small precursor
- Optimised Hellfire, or Hellfire II, improved tandem warhead design.

The first two had innefective performance against latter armour. In Desert Storm only basic Hellfire was available http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/215705.pdf
This was plain monoblock design which started production in 1982 and was seen as innefective against latter armour

First:
Yes, I was talking about basic hellfire.
Second:
Lindsky, can you really read what you had posted in yours "sources"? it's start to be anoing to correct simple misunderstand.
From Yours sources:

The Army fielded the basic Hellfire missile system in 1985. In 1990, the Army began procuring an improved version of the missile-called the "interim improved Hellfire missile" -which is designed to defeat more formidable tanks than the basic missile. During Operation Desert Storm, the Army used basic Hellfire(...)

DOI in 1985.
those yours "started production" means first developmend phase in 1975 and start tests and propduction in 1982 and DOI in 1985. No talks about warhed. DOI was in 1985 and it's obvious that there is no warhed from before 1980, what more - it's not sure what exatly warhed was used.
cone angle in basic Hellfire warhed was
and as I said - one version - basic hellfire

from your source:

The Army began developing the Hellfire missile in 1972; production of the missile began in 1982; and the missile was first fielded in 1985. However, because of changes in the capability of Soviet tanks, the Army recognized that the basic Hellfire missile needed improvement. Therefore, it has developed or is developing three improved versions of the Hellfire.(...)
In our January 1991 report on the status of improvements to the Hellfire missile system, we concluded that the interim improved missile had
performance shortfalls. Although Army tests have shown that the missile will penetrate more formidable tanks than the basic Hellfire missile,
intelligence analysts believe that it may not defeat the most recently deployed Soviet armor.

It was about FST II vel Ob.195 and Ob.477 -so IV genertaion tanks. And again sucht thread those interim Hellfire was not enought.
But the same interim Hellfire was enought agains FST I so T-80UD.
basic Hellfire was describe as enought agains older soviet tanks.

was seen as innefective against latter armour, no talk about any "1000 mm" because that value is for the third, tandem design produced in 1992.

Oh really?
Basic hellfire warhed:

~175mm diameter, and 40 degree cone - those two factors give CD diameter bigger then any Soviet SC warhed in those time adn cone 40 degree is like in Refleks, or other modern soviet ATGMs in those times.

It's true that for Hellfire II it's give "over 1000mm of steel" so MORE THEN -but it's not means that older version where under 1000mm value.
The biggest advantage was in case "Defeats reactive armor" so ERA.

And about penetration values -we can just compare whit known Soviet warhed performance for simmilar (middle 1980s).
The result:
9M119M «Инвар» (1992?) 125mm CD; 700-750mm RHA penetration; penetration equal to 5.6-6 cone diameter.
9М128 (1985) 125mm CD; circa 650mm RHA penetration, penetration equal to 5.2 cone diameter.
9М111М (1983) 120mm CD, 600mm RHA penetration, penetration equal to 5 cone diameter.
9М120 (1985) 130mm CD; given penetration at least 800mm RHA; penetration equal to 6.1 cone diameter.
Penetration circa 6 CD for newest then 60 degree cone diameter, and circa 5.2 for older constructions.
In Basic Hellfire we have ~175mm CD warhed and 40 deggree cone. So it shoud be better then 9M111M, 9M128, and simmilar to 9M120.
More or less from circa 5.5 to 6 CD diameter. The result is between 960-1050mm RHA for basic Hellfire warhed penetration.

And those value at least ( 960-1050mm RHA) windtsand M1A1HA hit during ODS by Basic Hellfire.
It's still more then any soviet GLATGM in 1980s and most ATGMs.

 

[militarysta]

You ignore howewer, the fact that relation in penetration to caliber of that 152 mm warhead, to Kobra, is worse, reflects less effective design, and different stream elongation and velocity characteristics which reflect in interaction with semi-active armour.

152mm SC -711mm penetration (4,7 CD)
125mm Kobra (1976) - 550-600mm penetartion (4.4-4.8 CD)
The same.
125mm Kobra (1985) -650mm penetration (5.2 CD)

Look - 1.1 better. Or in diffrent way: 10% better. 1/10 etc.
It's seems to be not so big difrence?

Nobody says Kobra is "super design", what is being said, is that that 152 mm warhead stream characteristics, do not have to correspond to Kobra, neither does it's interaction with Burlington

But is's bovous that tested in 1970 and 1975 152mm SC must be just better then 125mm 1976 warhed (kobra), and have simmiler CD to penetration ratio. And if Burlinghton sucesfully achive protection agains sucht thread then it's really posible that in 1980s whas the same.

Burlington design was not anything special or uknown for it's time, being thin bulging plate mechanism now well described. In fact what did I describe is more advanced construction with better understanding (of decades later, and was tested against the real 125 mm warheads Burlington tried to protect against).

What? When?

The factor for whole array, including back plate, is velocity gradient in relation to the energy which causes deformation, as was shown in graphic. If you have worse relation between diameter and velocity gradient but similar penetration, as could be a less effective, but greater caliber warhead, it will reflect in bigger effectiveness of composite armour. You do not see the consequence, of having lower warhead efficiency, but making it up with caliber as was done in 1968.

Firtsly - not only 1968 but also 1970 and 1975.
Second: the reserches results as I describe - "dedly for Burlinghton jet velocity from Cobra warhed theory" is inconsistent whit known NERA/NxRA/Bulging armour tests

a) Relation between diameter and penetration is better in Kobra and worse in that 152 mm,

Sure:
152mm SC -711mm penetration (4,7 CD)
125mm Kobra (1976) - 550-600mm penetartion (4.4-4.8 CD)
The same for known 1976 Kobra warhed and those test SC.

125mm Kobra (1985) -650mm penetration (5.2 CD)
Look - 1.1 better. Or in diffrent way: 10% better. 1/10 etc.
It's seems to be not so big difrence?

hus relation between velocity gradient and diameter is different, this, as explained with armour working mechanism, has it's consequence.

And you comletly ignore fact that velocity tested SC jet vs NERA/NxRa shown something diffrent. Even whit elastomer interleyer.

1 It is more efficient, because of already shown calliber effectiveness.

Not true. Fro 152mm SC and for 1976 Kobra is the same or simmilar: 152mm SC 4.7CD, 125mm Kobra between 4.4 - 4.8CD (depend on sources)

2 Kobra warhead was also improved in different versions with material and explosive

Yes, and 1985 Kobra warhed have 5.2 CD perforation so was circa 10% better.

 

[Damian]

Ok, I know @Kunal Biswas is interested in development of modular, multipurpose platforms, so I have some very interesting news.

Polish and Ukrainian MoD recently hold a meeting that is a basis for possible memorandum of understanding to develop new modular platforms.

Wiceminister Skrzypczak zachęca Ukraińców do udziału w programie pancernym | Defence24 | Wojsko Polskie | Bezpieczeństwo | Przemysł zbrojeniowy | Wojska lądowe | Marynarka Wojenna | Siły Powietrzne | Wojska Specjalne | Geopolityka | Targi Kie
Ukraińsko-polskie forum współpracy zbrojeniowej - Altair Agencja Lotnicza

Our MoD asked Ukrainians to participate in our national armored vehicles development program, and this is not all.

Poland and Ukraine can cooperate in more different programs, like parts of AA defence.

I must admitt, situation starts to be very interesting.

 

[militarysta]

This are the main effects which overlap the rest, there is no contradiction. In the other document it was specifically stated, that as penetration power is reduced, so does the main effect, the fragments, and additional consequences, including overpressure blast, gain importance.

No, it's not. Its pure manipulation and misinforamtion. In newest and most acurrate research and articles blast is describe as existing but not relevant and minnor effect of the SC behind armour effect.
it's so less important factor that: "Lessons Learned from OEF and OIF Combat Casualty Care Published by the
Office of the Surgeon General Department of the Army, United States of America" not even mentioned about blast overpressure as factor:

If the charge is able to defeat the armor of the vehicle, injury to the occupants occurs via two methods. The initial potentially catastrophic injuries (including burns) are caused by the jet of the shaped-charge after it penetrates the vehicle's armor. Next, as the weapon strikes the armor, small pieces of irregularly shaped debris (spall) break away from the interior of the vehicle and are propelled into the occupants.
It's consist whit series of the M.Held research.

This is about IED and not cumulative stream.

Yes, in IED and EFP the blast is mentioned, the same in case bomb attack. Only in case SC (HEAT) attac it's not mentioned. Think why.

There is no contradiction. The effect is increased with open hatch, howewer the damage, as describe, "serious or nothing" is because the effect is local, in proximity of the stream, from it, danger is reduced, and due to this it is also more diffcult to detect general pressure increase in all volume of vehicle:

And agin -no, don't do not enter manipulation. Blast effect and overpressure after it is danger only in case when hatches are open. In case when hatches are closed blast exist but as minnor factor for crew.

В качестве подопытных животных были использованы кролики. (...) зоны повышенного давления на передней кромке крыла реактивного самолета;

Ant this is based on what year reserch? Before 1990.

Again -the point is that blast and overpressure will not kill crew in case SC behind armour effect, it's important in discusion about ammo and crew placment in tank. This what is important is residual jet and debrits. And tank crew survive is depend on relation between place of the hit, ammo placment in the tank and how strong will be residual jet and debrits effect.
And from that point is far better to have isolated ammo in turret bustle (Leo-2) and some ammo put in ONE place in hull, then ammo placed in any possible place in the tank (T-72/90). Propability to hit ammo by residual jet in T-72/90 hull is mucht bigger then in Leo-2 case when ammo i put in ONE place, not in whole hull.

 

[militarysta]

None of your examples is valid.

Yeah sure.
1994-1995
1999
2008
3 example of theribly poor cooperation betwen tanks, artilery, infanty, and air support.
And it's some mirracle here that in before 1991 and 1993 Soviet Army was (in you opinnion) able to do multi task force and cooperation, but sudently 4 yers layter it was unable.
We have some mirracle here

and situation is completely different in operation in urban zone, where indirect support could not be provided (Chechnia)

Yes, and near Gudermes and Terek river where "urban zone"?
More - from what place you had been taking bullsih about that in " in urban zone, where indirect support could not be provided"?
Of course it can't by provided but in Russian army - so those 11 HE-FRAG in caroussel will be realluy nececery in that way.
Iraq:

Possible? Posible. It can be done.

due to collateral damage

Since when sov...uuu russian army cares about collateral damage? Don't be funny.
And in care about those "collateral damage" they used artilery to mass assule in second war? Or maybe put down 24x FAB-500 on some village? Sentecne about "collateral damage" is not even funny.

It was about the same, difference is that T-72 and T-80 were both superior in number, had greater capacity of 22 and 29 rounds respectively, and also provided support with fragmentary ammunition. It's capacity allowed better optimisation.

And both care less stricte AT munition then Leo-2 and M1 when all munition was de facto AT munition in western tanks.
15 in leo-2, 17 in M1, and....circa 11 in T-72.

It does not, it is poorer compared with T-72 and T-80, cannot provide support and cannot reload bustle in combat due to turret rotation, and has to perform it more frequently.

In case AT munition frequently is the same or even rare in western tanks due to bigger AT rounds number in first use, then in caroussel.
And reload in Leo-2 takes under 3min, when T-72 are unable to do this without 20-25 minutes on somhwere without eny enemy. In fact Leo-2 can do this in combat (after any hull cover, or 2 series of the smoke granades) while T-72 is unable to do that.

how ERA and precursor works. How single element on turret side initiated by precursor will do more than shit against tandem RPG

What precursor and what warhed.
In your next manipulation (or lack of data) you of course don't mentioned that they are diffrent types of the precursors.
One of them (PzF-3) are small but placed linear before main SC and developed only to ignit or destroy ERA, and they can incarase penetartion in some way.
Second are placed non linear (Hellfire II) and they are developed only for overpass advanced ERA
Thir are quite big and linear, and they can help in case ERA and external armour layers - for example:
RPG-29
PG-7VR
Metis-M warhed
Kornet warhed
etc.
In case RPG-29 precursor have between 50 and 60mm SC and it can perfoare itself circa 150-250mm RHA or some external armour layers. After that we have main warhed (105mm CD) able to perforate circa 600mm RHA. Precursor in that way can "open" extarnal armour plate on sevral layers inside armour for main SC jet. So abilities to minimalise precursor are velocme in case turret armour.

btw: if you are claming that "single element on turret side initiated by precursor will do more than shit against tandem RPG" then the same is about russian tank and ERA.

 

[Andrei_bt]

very funny - http://imageshack.us/a/img713/5475/amunicjaleo2it722.jpg

 

[The Last Stand]

very funny - http://imageshack.us/a/img713/5475/amunicjaleo2it722.jpg

Where have you been sir? We've been waiting for years

 

[The Last Stand]

@Andrei_bt @Lidsky M.D @methos @militarysta @Damian @p2prada @ersakthivel @Kunal Biswas

I was searching for fanboy-ism on wikipedia for tanks in general and I spotted one thing on Al-Khalid - Protection

At the end of the first para, see carefully.

Al-Khalid is also equipped with an Active protection system known as VARTA (guards). HIT is also working on an indigenous APS system for future batches especially for Al-Khalid 2. In tests it has 350mm~450mm vs APFSDS and 450mm~550mm vs HEAT.

Does AK really have Varta - I have seen no official sources but everyone on def.pk (I'm not a member) keeps parroting happily that AK has Varta.

The last sentence is obviously written by a fanboy who thinks APS adds armour to the tank or imagines the frontal armour.

If they do mean the frontal protection of the tank, Arjun should be able to pierce weak spots easily - methos sir estimated at 430?? mm certified penetration and Kunal Biswas had DRDO source stating that penetration was 460 mm. Heck, last generation 115 mm would have no problem.

 

[Damian]

I think I seen Al Khalid photo with "Varta" installed, it is a Ukrainian version of Russian Shtora-1. However I doubt this system is widespread, probably only tests and very small batch fielded.

Here it is, Al Khalid with "Varta" active protection system.

 

[Andrei_bt]

[MENTION=7592]last generation 115 mm would have no problem.

Answer:

written by a fanboy

who thinks APS adds armour to the tank

he guess, some do add anti APFSDS protection, but they are not on AL-Khalid (at least for now).

 

[methos]

If they do mean the frontal protection of the tank, Arjun should be able to pierce weak spots easily - methos sir estimated at 430?? mm certified penetration and Kunal Biswas had DRDO source stating that penetration was 460 mm. Heck, last generation 115 mm would have no problem.

I don't think this is a valid value for frontal protection; it rather seems like the random fanboy who edited the Wikipedia page wanted to claim that the Varta APS increased the protection against APFSDS and ATGMs based on a different working mechanism than in reality. As a soft-kill APS it is not capable to provide actual armour protection.
Regarding the penetration performance of the Arjun's APFSDS: There are two sources from DRDO about it - one poster which was photographed during a DRDO presentation claiming 300 mm RHA penetration at 2,000 m and an interview with some high ranked DRDO personnel who claimed that it could penetrate 460 mm armour steel. There is also a video about Indian Army Officers discussing wether the Arjun or the T-90S is better, they said that the T-90's ammunition is better (and this was/is still the 3BM-42 Mango with 450-500 mm RHA penetration at 2,000 mm depending on penetration critera).
What I said was based on the Lanz-Odermatt equation and I deliberately didn't use the terms "RHA" and "armour steel". I said that based on it, the Arjun's APFSDS should be able to penetrate 430 mm steel with a hardness of 235 HB at 2,000 m and 60° slope of the target array. This steel is softer than the steel used on most tanks (essentially only the castings of early Cold War tanks was so soft; the hardness was later increased following Israeli combat experience against contemporary Soviet tanks) and the angle of impact is nearly optimal - thus it is very unlikely happening anywhere in combat.
For comparision I also provided the penetration data against harder targets (270 HB =~ T-72's cast armour) and against unsloped targets (which is the direct opposite of "optimal angle").
But again: This is a rough estimate only, data for many factors influencing penetration is not available.

Hitting the weakspots will be very hard.

 

[The Last Stand]

I don't think this is a valid value for frontal protection; it rather seems like the random fanboy who edited the Wikipedia page wanted to claim that the Varta APS increased the protection against APFSDS and ATGMs based on a different working mechanism than in reality. As a soft-kill APS it is not capable to provide actual armour protection.

That's why I mentioned that it was written by a fanboy - T-64 has similar armour if that was given for frontal armour values. But thanks for replying.

Also, what's the difference between soft kill and hard kill? I heard hard kill system uses missiles for shooting down incoming projectiles. Is that true?