Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Akim]

"Varta" installed, it is a Ukrainian version of Russian Shtora-1.

"Varta" not analogue Shtora-1. It is the same as to say, "Zaslon" - an analogue of the Soviet complex "Dozhd" "Varta" - this development is complex optical-electronic suppression. He has a greater spectral range.

 

[methos]

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?

Soft kill active protection systems work only against guided ammunition like ATGMs. They use jammers, decoys, multi-spectral smoke etc. to make the projectile miss. Soft kill APS don't damage the incoming threats in any way. Tank rounds like HEAT or APFSDS are not guided and cannot be stopped by soft kill APS.
Hard kill APS are destroying or damaging the incoming threat; how they do it depends on the exact type of APS - there small missiles (Drozd, Quick Kill), unguided grenades (AVePS, Iron Fist, LEDS-150, etc.), linear shaped charges (EFA), DIME systems (AMAP-ADS?) etc.

 

[ersakthivel]

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?

Armor Basics

The link has armor estimates for many MBTs, including that of leo.

A = Lower hull
B = Glacis
C = Front 1/3 side hull -------------------------------D = Front side turret Side Turret
E = Upper front turret ---------------------------- F =Rear Turret
G = Rear Hull ----------------------- H = side hull
J =Mantlet ------------------------- K = Weakened Zone
L = Front turret corners ------------------------- M = Side Turret


1.5.13.1 Leopard 2A1—A3 detailed armor estimation
A = 350mm KE & 520mm HEAT----------------------------------B = 350mm KE & 520mm HEAT
C =90–100mm KE & 500mm HEAT------------------------------D = 210mm KE & 290mm HEAT
E = N/AF = 70–90mm KE & 400mm HEAT-------------------G = 70mm KE & 400mm HEAT
H = 60–70mm KE & 370mm HEAT------------------------------J = 590mm KE & 810mm HEAT
K = 670mm KE & 1080mm HEAT--------------------------------*L = 570mm KE & 830mm HEAT
M = 210mm KE & 290mm HEAT*)

gun sight area is 610mm KE. & 890mm HEAT If leo has a Los thickness behind the main sigh as 890 mm. How come ARJUN which was modeled on Leo will have a LOS thickness behind main sight of 350 mm as claimed by some posters he



5.4.1 T-80U
A = 210mm KE & HEAT
B = 520mm KE & 570mm HEAT
C = 70–120mm KE & 210 – 260mm HEAT
D = 400mm KE & 510mm HEAT
E = 280–290mm KE & 370–410mm HEAT
F =110–140mm KE & 180–270mm HEAT
G = 60mm KE & 300–400mm HEAT
H = 70–120mm KE &~ 210 – 260mm HEAT
J =470mm KE & 730mm HEAT
K = 490mm KE & 520mm HEAT
L = 480mm KE & 640mm HEAT
M = 260mm KE & 340mm HEAT


1.5.4.2 T–80UM–1 with K–5


A = 240mm KE & 380mm HEAT
B =680–720mm KE & 960–1040mm HEAT
C = 90–140mm KE & 510 – 560mm HEAT
D = 420–640mm KE & 680–850mm HEAT
E = 350–390mm KE & 560–940mm HEAT
F =110–140mm KE & 180–270mm HEAT
G = 60mm KE & 300–400mm HEAT
H = 70–120mm KE &~ 210 – 260mm HEAT
J =560–580mm KE & 940–1060mm HEAT
K = 640–660mm KE & 1080–1120mm HEAT
L = 660–680mm KE & 1100–1140mm HEAT
M = 280mm KE & 340mm HEATK-5 coverage seems to be about 60%, the T-80 without K-5 looks a lot like the T-72BVwith K-1

1.5.5 General armor description: T-84

The T-84 uses the same hull as the T-80U, but features a new welded turret.The maximum armor thickness of this turret is probably similar to the T-80Ufront turret armor, which is reported to be 815mm thick and the insert isprobably similar to the T-90 with ~380mm LOS insert thickness suggested.The turret is welded and probably similar to the T-80UM with an insert of TE0.71 & 0.9. Based on the assumption of welded RHA plates,The angles on the T-84 seems close to the T-80 and therefore the 'T-80UM'K-5 numbers apply.

1.5.5.1 T-84 detailed armor estimation

A = 240mm KE & 380mm HEAT
B =680–720mm KE & 960–1040mm HEAT
C = 90–140mm KE & 510 – 560mm HEAT
D = 420mm KE & 680mm HEAT
E = 500–670mm KE & 740–1160mm HEAT
F =110–130mm KE & 270–350mm HEAT
G = 60mm KE & 300–400mm HEAT
H = 70–120mm KE &~ 210 – 260mm HEAT
J =620–640mm KE & 940–1060mm HEAT
K = 740–760mm KE & 1080–1120mm HEAT
L = 720–740mm KE & 1040–1080mm HEAT
M = 280mm KE & 340mm HEAT

 

[methos]

Armor Basics

The link has armor estimates for many MBTs, including that of leo.

These are outdated. The author has made much newer estimates which are not available for public. He used wrong estimates for armour thickness, which leads to faulty density, which then leafs to wrong armour protection values.
Also it is known that most armour arrays aren't made of the armour materials he suggested.

 

[ersakthivel]

These are outdated. The author has made much newer estimates which are not available for public. He used wrong estimates for armour thickness, which leads to faulty density, which then leafs to wrong armour protection values.
Also it is known that most armour arrays aren't made of the armour materials he suggested.

LEO 2A5 has gun sight area is 900–920mm KE. & 1380mm HEAT according to armor basic . Do you agree or not?

Leo 2A1 has behind gun sight area is 610mm KE. & 890mm HEAT as per the website.

If leo has a Los thickness behind the main sigh as 890 mm. How come ARJUN which was modeled on Leo will have a LOS thickness behind main sight of 350 mm as claimed by some posters here?

 

[ersakthivel]

The Kanchan Armor - Frontier India

In 1980's the Kanchan composite had a composition of ceramic, alumina, fiber glass and some other such materials mixed. The RHA tried out had two thicknesses, i.e. a 350 mm plate and a 315 m plate. However these two plates had the same weight as a 120mm RHA. Hence it is said that Kanchan armor is more volume at same weight. The anti-tank munitions have problems in penetrating denser mass.
This is the time when the Russian Tank T-72 imported by Indian Army could not penetrate the Kanchan Armor protected Arjun Tank , with APFDS at point blank range. Subsequently, the debate took place if the Russians had supplied us with training rounds rather than the actual ammunition. As a side note, in January 2000 at Proof & Experimental Establishment (PXE), Balasore, Arjun tank armor defeated all available HESH and FSAPDS rounds including Israeli FSAPDS rounds.
Back to 1980's, after the T-72 incident, a 106 mm RCL gun was tried on the Arjun Tank. 106 RCL's were effective anti-tank weapons those days. It played havoc on enemy tanks in 1971 war. The Kanchan armor defeated that too.
Kanchan armor composition has undergone massive changes since 1980's. The volume of the RHA has been reduced to lesser mass because of better metallurgy. The composite has evolved too and it does not use the 1980's technology anymore

 

[militarysta]

If leo has a Los thickness behind the main sigh as 890 mm.

650mm LOS behind main sight.

 

[ersakthivel]

650mm LOS behind main sight.

ofcourse I corrected it 610 mm RHA protection against KE and 890 mm RHA against HEAT rounds as stated in the site
I mistakenly quoted the protection against HEAT value of 890 mm as LOS.

 

[methos]

LEO 2A5 has gun sight area is 900–920mm KE. & 1380mm HEAT according to armor basic . Do you agree or not?

I do not agree. It might have a similar effective protection value, but the way his armour estimates were done are wrong.
The general idea of determining the density of an armour array is good, but he suggested back then that the armour is completely made of layers of ceramic tiles, which is known to be wrong.

Leo 2A1 has behind gun sight area is 610mm KE. & 890mm HEAT as per the website.

Based on his wrong values maybe. Given that the armour cavity is much smaller, achieving such a protection level against KE and CE seems to be rather hard to achieve.

If leo has a Los thickness behind the main sigh as 890 mm. How come ARJUN which was modeled on Leo will have a LOS thickness behind main sight of 350 mm as claimed by some posters here?

Can you just try to read what everybody is posting?
Here is the gun sight area on the Leopard 2A4:

It is only 650 mm thick, not 890 mm. That's why on the Leopard 2A5 and later versions the main sight was raised, the armour cavity extended and a further armour module was added to the front.

The Arjun has different armour thickness, because it is a different tank. It has nothing to do with the Leopard 2. On the Arjun, the gunner's seat is much further placed in the frontal turret area, while on the Leopard 2 the internal volume is smaller and the crew sits closer together. Dejawolf, STGN, militarysta and I have commented on this numerous times in the topics about it. Please leave that discussion in these topics instead of flooding another one with your troll posts.

 

[ersakthivel]

I do not agree. It might have a similar effective protection value, but the way his armour estimates were done are wrong.
The general idea of determining the density of an armour array is good, but he suggested back then that the armour is completely made of layers of ceramic tiles, which is known to be wrong.




Based on his wrong values maybe. Given that the armour cavity is much smaller, achieving such a protection level against KE and CE seems to be rather hard to achieve.




Can you just try to read what everybody is posting?
Here is the gun sight area on the Leopard 2A4:

It is only 650 mm thick, not 890 mm. That's why on the Leopard 2A5 and later versions the main sight was raised, the armour cavity extended and a further armour module was added to the front.

The Arjun has different armour thickness, because it is a different tank. It has nothing to do with the Leopard 2. On the Arjun, the gunner's seat is much further placed in the frontal turret area, while on the Leopard 2 the internal volume is smaller and the crew sits closer together. Dejawolf, STGN, militarysta and I have commented on this numerous times in the topics about it. Please leave that discussion in these topics instead of flooding another one with your troll posts.

this photo is a proof that your refutation is wrong.

Simply there is no way there can be a gap of 400 mm between the vertical hatch cover base and Tc's seat.

For your information the entire dia of the crew hole is just 450 mm. SO it is a laughable assertion to suggest that there is a gap of 400 mm between the base of vertical hatch cover and Tc's seat.

if the Tc stretches his hand he can touch the yellow box above the the gunner's head.

Do you think it is impossible for TC to just stretch his hand without leaning forward and touch the black eyepiece into which the gunner is looking?

No, He can easily do that.

That means the distance between the Tc's seat and the yellow box with red lines on it is just under a meter.

SO 2500mm(The distance of Tc sea from front )-(1000mm(distance between Tc's seat and the yellow box)+700 mm(mainsight)

gives around 800 mm as the LOS behind main sight for ARJUN composite armor.

No need for pixel measurement the whole arjun line drawing with dimensions on scale is there in the above post.
.

Just compare the distance between the front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks same as mantel plate) in the photo and the 3D model.that is why you are getting such wrong measurements.

There is more than a meter of space in the original photo and not even 200 mm in his model.That is why all the wrong LOS thickness.

Measuring LOS thickness with such a patently wrong model is simply not technical at all.

This discussion is done to death in ARJUN MAIN BATTLE TANK -Mk-1 thread from page-312 to 314. No point in starting all over again.

 

[militarysta]

(double post)

 

[militarysta]

Just compare the distance between the front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks same as mantel plate) in the photo and the 3D model.that is why you are getting such wrong measurements.

HOW MANY TIMES I SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT YOU COMPLETLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU POSTED? THIS PICTURE WHIT GUN SHOWN GUN MANTLED MASK BACKPLATE WHIT MOUNTING POINTS (REAR PLATE) AND THERE IS NO GUN MANTLED MASK ARMOUR ITSELF ON PHOTO.
WHAT MORE - THERE IS HOLDER FOR STATIC EXPOSIOTION (marked on green):

THIS PART IS NOT EXISTIN ON NORMAL ARJUN TANK!
YOU COMPLETLY MISTAKE MANTEL PLATE (REAR ON PHOTO!) WHIT HOLDING PLATE (MARKT ON GREEN)

You whole mesurment is worth shit becouse you can't understand very simple fact - you mistake holder whit mantel plate, and non existin on photo gun mantled mask module. You swap both elements in your imagination about how it shoud look.

 

[ersakthivel]

(double post)

The gun was not proportionately placed in the 3d model was my argument.Nothing more.

Not just mine alone, many other members too pointed it out.

 

[militarysta]

What more, I had mesured based on 81mm smoke granade whole turret LOS:
81mm internal diameter smoke granades --> 85/86mm external diameter smoke luncher tubes ----> 153/156mm periscope width ---> mesureon photo---> results:

And this above is sixt or seventh version of Arjun mesurment but this time based on completly diffrent first diameter (not on turret width, or others).
And all of them shown simmilar values:
a) LOS behind main sight is <400mm LOS
b) typical turret LOS is between 800 and 900mm LOS
c) turret for 30. shoud be around 500mm LOS

 

[ersakthivel]

HOW MANY TIMES I SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT YOU COMPLETLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU POSTED? THIS PICTURE WHIT GUN SHOWN GUN MANTLED MASK BACKPLATE WHIT MOUNTING POINTS (REAR PLATE) AND THERE IS NO GUN MANTLED MASK ARMOUR ITSELF ON PHOTO.
WHAT MORE - THERE IS HOLDER FOR STATIC EXPOSIOTION (marked on green):

THIS PART IS NOT EXISTIN ON NORMAL ARJUN TANK!
YOU COMPLETLY MISTAKE MANTEL PLATE (REAR ON PHOTO!) WHIT HOLDING PLATE (MARKT ON GREEN)

You whole mesurment is worth shit becouse you can't understand very simple fact - you mistake holder whit mantel plate, and non existin on photo gun mantled mask module. You swap both elements in your imagination about how it shoud look.

Where the shit is mantle plate supposed to be there any idea?

I thought mantle plate must be in the plce where the dia of the gun doubles as per the production drawing above.So the static position holder you paint in green actually is the place the gun mantel plate is supposed to go.

See the yellow line on the small photo.

That line marks the distance between the mantel plate(static holding plate as per your view ) and back plate is my view.
It was this distance that was conveniently missing in the 3D model as pointed out by SAYRE and Kunal as well.

Whether it is a holding plate or mantel plate does not matter. this distance is missing in the 3D model. And that is why we are getting different measurement for LOS thickness behind the main sight is my view.

 

[ersakthivel]

What more, I had mesured based on 81mm smoke granade whole turret LOS:
81mm internal diameter smoke granades --> 85/86mm external diameter smoke luncher tubes ----> 153/156mm periscope width ---> mesureon photo---> results:

You need measure no shit on it as the side view has very clearly legible scale below it.

 

[Damian]

Seriously? You need to spam and destroy another interesting thread?

I report this to administration, we do not need another endless spam from you ersakthivel.

 

[ersakthivel]

Seriously? You need to spam and destroy another interesting thread?

I report this to administration, we do not need another endless spam from you ersakthivel.

You can report it to your grandfather as well.

What I post in response to some other guy's post is none of your business.

 

[militarysta]

Where the shit is mantle plate supposed to be there any idea?

I thought mantle plate must be in the plce where the dia of the gun doubles as per the production drawing above.So the static position holder you paint in green actually is the place the gun mantel plate is supposed to go.


See the yellow line on the small photo.

That line marks the distance between the mantel plate(static holding plate as per your view ) and back plate is my view.
It was this distance that was conveniently missing in the 3D model as pointed out by SAYRE and Kunal as well.

Sure:

Here is marked real gun mantled mask on Arjun
And if you want to discuss just destroy this values and estimatous.

 

[ersakthivel]

Sure:

Here is marked real gun mantled mask on Arjun
And if you want to discuss just destroy this values and estimatous.

It only shows your real ignorance in marking measurement.

The photo is a perspective drawing with the gun at an angle and the line drawing is a production side view with the gun normal(90 deg )to the eye. It is patently wrong to take measurement from one and post it on another to justify any sort of measurement.

Further discussion on this can be had on ARJUN MBT. It is not the thread for that.

OK leave it.Enough posted already.