Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

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.

You agains don't understand. It's start to be boring.

1. Draw from side -as more accurate then photos, draw is used only for known ratio between fume exstractor lenght and lengt rest of the barrel between fume extractor and front gun mantled plate.
2. Konwing those ratio (3:16 to 1) is easly to find point when gun mantled have front plate - on photo this time. And prespective in included on that photo. What more - even if I had circa 10% error then still element marked on green is twice thick as real Arjun gun mantled mask! You are wrong again.

 

[ersakthivel]

You agains don't understand. It's start to be boring.

1. Draw from side -as more accurate then photos, draw is used only for known ratio between fume exstractor lenght and lengt rest of the barrel between fume extractor and front gun mantled plate.
2. Konwing those ratio (3:16 to 1) is easly to find point when gun mantled have front plate - on photo this time. And prespective in included on that photo. What more - even if I had circa 10% error then still element marked on green is twice thick as real Arjun gun mantled mask! You are wrong again.

The KG lesson in dimensions and drawings is comparison must be made between two views of the same object that are at the same angle from the observer.

One of your friends is getting very disturbed at the prospect of this discussion continuing here. SO post in ARJUN MBT mk-1 thread , if you have any views.

 

[ersakthivel]

Arjun is wider because it has wider(and heavier) tracks. leopard tracks are 635mm wide arjun ~685mm. the hull center is about the same width.

LOL, no the TC sits directly behind the gunner, just like in a western tank:

you can see the gunners seat on the bottom right and TC seat bottom left. you can also see TC's arm guard in folded position,
in the previous picture he's resting his arm on it. gunners arm guard is slightly in front, and is hidden by the gun breech in the previous picture.

Then are you saying that the above schematic diagram in the link is wrong?
Asian Defense: India's Arjun Mk.2 Tank Revealed

It is the Tc who sits right behind the main sight. The gunner sits between the gun mantel plate and main sight.

So your 3D model was wrong.

Look where the gunner is and where the main sight is.Then why should there be an armor block before gunner?

he sits behind more than 1400 mm LOS armor.

It is the Tc who sits behind Main sight. And there are no photographs to show where the armor wall starts infront of TC.

There is a huge amount of vacant space in front of him , so that whatever LOS armor can be had there, since he sits 2500 mm back from the front mantel plate.Even if you deduct 700 mm for the main sight an amount of 1800 mm (till the back of his seat) is available for having the desired LOS armor.

main sight is located at the top close to the roof. SO any armor block there won't cramp him at all.

That was why many members here were saying from the begining that ARJUN is shorter and wider than LEO.Even Kunal who was a memeber of IA said that, STGN after a lot of argument accepted that ARJUN turret has a width of about 3100 mm.

Only you and your group of friends are oblivious to this simple fact.

What level of protection is there can not be determined without any photographic evidence.

So your dimensions on your 3D models are just wild guesses without understanding such a simple thing.

This was what I have been saying from the start that your model has some very wrong assumptions.

 

[ersakthivel]

SO the seating arrangement is not like this 3D model .

It is like the one below.

 

[ersakthivel]

So all the assuptions behind your 3d Model were wrong. You assumed that the turret has a width of 2.475 meters,

So you assumed that there is not enough space for the gunner besides Tc,

And seeing no armor block in front of the gunner you assumed lower LOS there.

STGN already posted as per even his pixel meausrements ARJUN turret has a width of 3100 mm, you are assuming 2500 mm , far less.

So if we add the missing 600 mm width you can as well se ARJUN will have a decent side turret protectino as well

 

[militarysta]

Something about Arena APS working mehanism against SC:

This experimental condition shown impossible situation when only one pellet hit SC warhed, and disturb forming SC jet.
For first variant SC have 40% smaller penetration.
For second variant more then 90% smaller penetration.
For third and fourth variants - more then 70-80% penetration

In reality alway sevral pellets from Arena casette will hit SC warhed and disturb formin SC jet, so global effect is mucht better - circa more then 95%.
Thats reson why in Arena II interceptor where not changed.

 

[Damian]

Something less technical, but more historical.

This is a very famous tank, named "Cobra King" this M4A3E2 participated in battle for Bastogne (part of bigger battle of the boulge) during World War II, currently "Cobra King" is restorated to it's original condition in Fort Benning AFV's museum, but recently in South Korea was made a very interesting photo:

It seems that history of "Cobra King" is known to the crew of this M1A2SEP v2, and they decided to name their tank "Cobra King II" to honor the crew and old tank.

And another photo of "Cobra King II".

 

[The Last Stand]

Something less technical, but more historical.

This is a very famous tank, named "Cobra King" this M4A3E2 participated in battle for Bastogne (part of bigger battle of the boulge) during World War II, currently "Cobra King" is restorated to it's original condition in Fort Benning AFV's museum, but recently in South Korea was made a very interesting photo:

It seems that history of "Cobra King" is known to the crew of this M1A2SEP v2, and they decided to name their tank "Cobra King II" to honor the crew and old tank.

And another photo of "Cobra King II".

Cobra King II is an insult to Cobra King - It is a dominator when CK was just a player.

Just compare both - M4A3E2 - poor 75 mm armament, easily penetrated by Panzer IV, high profile.
M1A2SEP - L/44 M256, impenetrable from the front, low profile(when compared to tall guys like M3 Lee,
M3 Stuart and M4 Sherman)

 

[Damian]

Cobra King II is an insult to Cobra King - It is a dominator when CK was just a player.

Just compare both - M4A3E2 - poor 75 mm armament, easily penetrated by Panzer IV, high profile.
M1A2SEP - L/44 M256, impenetrable from the front, low profile(when compared to tall guys like M3 Lee,
M3 Stuart and M4 Sherman)

It seems that your knowledge about WWII tanks is poor.

M4A3E2 was better protected than PzKpfw VI Ausf E Tiger over front hull and turret.

Also M4A3E2's after initial experiences were rearmed from 75mm M3 gun, with long barrel 76mm M1 gun.

PzKpfw IV was obsolete design compared to M4 Sherman.

Besides this, it is all about history and to honor crew mainly, Cobra King is probably also the most famous M4 tank, which survived war, and is currently repaired at Fort Benning tank museum, so future generations can learn about history of this tank and it's crew.

 

[The Last Stand]

It seems that your knowledge about WWII tanks is poor.

M4A3E2 was better protected than PzKpfw VI Ausf E Tiger over front hull and turret.

Also M4A3E2's after initial experiences were rearmed from 75mm M3 gun, with long barrel 76mm M1 gun.

PzKpfw IV was obsolete design compared to M4 Sherman.

Besides this, it is all about history and to honor crew mainly, Cobra King is probably also the most famous M4 tank, which survived war, and is currently repaired at Fort Benning tank museum, so future generations can learn about history of this tank and it's crew.

Goddarn it. I confused the Easy Eight with the Jumbo. AGAIN. I did it on a German tank history forum.



But I'd take a Panzer IV equipped army over a M4 equipped army anyday.

And I'd take a single M1 Abrams over 40 Panzerkampfwagen VIII MAUS.

 

[Damian]

Goddarn it. I confused the Easy Eight with the Jumbo. AGAIN. I did it on a German tank history forum.



But I'd take a Panzer IV equipped army over a M4 equipped army anyday.

And I'd take a single M1 Abrams over 40 Panzerkampfwagen VIII MAUS.

You know that "Jumbo" is incorrect name? US Army adopted names after WWII, because someone fought it will be nicer for a public, normally it was allways alfanumeric designation.

As for M4 vs PzIV, I preffer M4, it was overall better tank.

 

[The Last Stand]

You know that "Jumbo" is incorrect name? US Army adopted names after WWII, because someone fought it will be nicer for a public, normally it was allways alfanumeric designation.

As for M4 vs PzIV, I preffer M4, it was overall better tank.

I knew they weren't official designations. Some sources claim that Jumbo was name given by soldiers.

But I prefer German tanks over Allied tanks. And Achtung panzer is a very good source!

Yes M4 was newer platform and had better upgrade potential. Panzer IV design stage was supposed to have started in 1935! And it was in service in '39. Nothing new about it. Just that it could be marginally upgraded. But the suspension was not good enough to support further up-armouring.

But Panzer IV was best German pre-war designed tank.

Panther II should have been put into service.

 

[Damian]

I knew they weren't official designations. Some sources claim that Jumbo was name given by soldiers.

Nah, the truth is that "Jumbo" was just a slang word mean bigger, better etc. So soldiers instead of using alfanumeric designation codes in reports, used such words to describe vehicles.

It was not only American manner, for example the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was never officialy named Hetzer, nobody really knows from where the name comes, it is just name maked by someone somewhere, but the official name was Jagdpanzer 38(t).

What is however important about American armored fighting vehicles, is that using a honorable names like Sherman, Pershing, Abrams or Bradley, is not very popular in US Army. Popular are official US Army alfanumeric designation codes, and in fact, as designation codes might be confusing for newcomers, in fact, alfanumeric codes are very precisely describing all specific subvariants of each vehicle. This is why if you keepl up with my post, you will notice why I avoid these honorable names and use only alfanumeric designation codes, because it is easier for me to talk about each specific variant.

But I prefer German tanks over Allied tanks. And Achtung panzer is a very good source!

If you mean internet site, then this is useless source, if you mean book written by Hanz Guderian, this is even more useless source. Guderian was great tactician, but he had no technical knowledge about tanks, he even confused KV-1 with T-34/76.

You should look after Richard Hunnicutt books about American AFV's development, this is source worth any kind of money.
@Keshav Murali I want to send you more private messages, can you clear your inbox?

 

[Damian]

As a side note, there is also one other thing about WWII tanks misconception repeated all over again. For example, the M4 had a bad reputation because it was inferior in armor protection and firepower to heavy tanks, but... of course it was, because it was a medium tank, inferior in firepower and protection to heavy tanks was also T-34, and any other medium tank.

So the repeated all over information that M4 was inferior is just false misconception, created by people without any real knowledge about the subject.

This is also because in most of WWII reports, any German tank was labeled Tiger or Panther, while in reality there was really small quantity of Tigers and Panthers, it was just their reputation, however the problem with this reputation is, that these tanks were not without faults in their designs.

And today the problem is, that nobody really wants to clear out these myths in history books, the same is with T-34, which have a patch of "the best medium tank of the world war II" but if it was really the best? Of course not, this was a soviet propaganda which made it "the best", while in reality it was a medicore design plenty of faults, which are understandable.

I think that Alexander Morozov was not very pleased with T-34, as we know, it was Mikhail Koshkin as chief engineer responsible for T-34 design, and Morozov back then was his protege responsible for automotive systems of T-34. But I think Morozov had much better understanding of tank designing than Koshkin, and tried to perfect T-34, after Koshkin's death he become chief engineer. But it was difficult to make T-34 a really good design without completely redesigning it, or making it a new design. This is why Morozov in the end created T-44, I think a first sign of new era, era of main battle tanks.

Somewhat similiar problems we can encounter in USA or Germany.

For example in USA during WWII, there were plans to improve M4, with sloped armor over sides and rear, etc. lowe silhoette etc. but the priority was mass production, so M4 did not receive any major improvements at all, which were transferred to T20 program, which involved autoloader system, lower hull, new suspension, ultimately program ended with simplified T26 later standarized as M26 Pershing.

In Germany there were also a lot of good ideas, but I think the biggest problem was overall concept of a tank, as big, relatively heavy vehicle, instead of more affordable, compact vehicle, this was the most important conceptual mistake in my opinion.

 

[The Last Stand]

If you mean internet site, then this is useless source, if you mean book written by Hanz Guderian, this is even more useless source. Guderian was great tactician, but he had no technical knowledge about tanks, he even confused KV-1 with T-34/76.

I mean the internet site. It has good information on the PROTOTYPES. But it seems to be poor source for the tanks which entered service

I will clear inbox now.

 

[The Last Stand]

As a side note, there is also one other thing about WWII tanks misconception repeated all over again. For example, the M4 had a bad reputation because it was inferior in armor protection and firepower to heavy tanks, but... of course it was, because it was a medium tank, inferior in firepower and protection to heavy tanks was also T-34, and any other medium tank.

So the repeated all over information that M4 was inferior is just false misconception, created by people without any real knowledge about the subject.

Yes, some of them go comparing M4 with Hitler's pet dream, the Maus. M4 was definitely superior to T-34.

This is also because in most of WWII reports, any German tank was labeled Tiger or Panther, while in reality there was really small quantity of Tigers and Panthers, it was just their reputation, however the problem with this reputation is, that these tanks were not without faults in their designs.

The fear factor, the fear factor, always. Both were faulty designs. But Panther II was better than Panther, it tried to improve final drive with better materials and had extra side and rear armour. Pity it didn't enter service.

And today the problem is, that nobody really wants to clear out these myths in history books, the same is with T-34, which have a patch of "the best medium tank of the world war II" but if it was really the best? Of course not, this was a soviet propaganda which made it "the best", while in reality it was a medicore design plenty of faults, which are understandable.

I think that Alexander Morozov was not very pleased with T-34, as we know, it was Mikhail Koshkin as chief engineer responsible for T-34 design, and Morozov back then was his protege responsible for automotive systems of T-34. But I think Morozov had much better understanding of tank designing than Koshkin, and tried to perfect T-34, after Koshkin's death he become chief engineer. But it was difficult to make T-34 a really good design without completely redesigning it, or making it a new design. This is why Morozov in the end created T-44, I think a first sign of new era, era of main battle tanks.

True, half of all World War 2 history books now are of the "best medium tank T-34" and these poorly written books which don't show its faults are circulated freely.

And Morozov was a visionary - T-34M,T-43 anyone? Koshkin dismissed it and continued production of T-34 since focus was on mass production. But T-34 was good design basically. Just bad components and half-baked ideas.

For example in USA during WWII, there were plans to improve M4, with sloped armor over sides and rear, etc. lowe silhoette etc. but the priority was mass production, so M4 did not receive any major improvements at all, which were transferred to T20 program, which involved autoloader system, lower hull, new suspension, ultimately program ended with simplified T26 later standarized as M26 Pershing.

In Germany there were also a lot of good ideas, but I think the biggest problem was overall concept of a tank, as big, relatively heavy vehicle, instead of more affordable, compact vehicle, this was the most important conceptual mistake in my opinion.

Yes, M4 had lot of potential, it could have evolved into a tank that could take a Tiger head on and still win.

T26 was good design but underpowered, it would have been better if American generals who wanted light tinderboxes like M10 instead of heavier well armoured tanks like Pershing actually went out into the battlefield and saw the truth.

As for Germany, Hitler and his devious imagination thought of a world ruled by 1500 tonne monsters that couldn't even roll of the factory

Good thing Albert Speer cancelled Maus, Ratte and Monster before they were completed. Good man. Tried to get Hitler to concentrate on practical tanks like Panther II, E-50 and the like but failed. Hitler always thought too big.

Well, we'll discuss this via Private messages.

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Cobra King II is an insult to Cobra King - It is a dominator when CK was just a player.

Just compare both - M4A3E2 - poor 75 mm armament, easily penetrated by Panzer IV, high profile.
M1A2SEP - L/44 M256,impenetrable from the front[, low profile(when compared to tall guys like M3 Lee,
M3 Stuart and M4 Sherman)

.

I do not think even an "mighty "M1A2 SEP v2 is impenetrable from the front. There are weak zones (such as the large gap between the turret and the hull) that would give an Abrams a bad time if it were hit in that area by any of the latest generation APFSDS projectiles. I wondered why they never redesigned that area.

 

[Damian]

.

I do not think even an "mighty "M1A2 SEP v2 is impenetrable from the front. There are weak zones (such as the large gap between the turret and the hull) that would give an Abrams a bad time if it were hit in that area by any of the latest generation APFSDS projectiles. I wondered why they never redesigned that area.

Maybe because it is a wrong conclusion repeated all the time? This weak zone is not that dangerous, because there is also armor in form of protecting armor collar which have two parts, upper at the bottom of turret, and lower protecting hull mounted, turret trverse ring, so in fact the joining between hull and turret is placed deeper, behind armor protection. Of course not as good as over front hull "beak" or front turret, but good enough. Also other tanks have similiar weak zone, and there is also probability of hit.

To hit such area you need to be very close, so trajectory of projectile is perfectly flat, however at typical engagement range, trajectory of projectile is not prefectly flat, so probability of hit there is very close to 0. It is far more probable that enemy projectile will hit gun mantlet than this small weak zone.

Of course redesigning this is more than possible, but it means redesigning not only of turret, but also hull, and there are other far more needed improvements, especially that all tanks have weak zones, some of them even more problematic, like Leclerc with this ridicoulously huge gun mantlet that have no protection against anything bigger than IFV's automatic cannons, and this gun mantlet is far more easy to hit.

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Maybe because it is a wrong conclusion repeated all the time? This weak zone is not that dangerous, because there is also armor in form of protecting armor collar which have two parts, upper at the bottom of turret, and lower protecting hull mounted, turret trverse ring, so in fact the joining between hull and turret is placed deeper, behind armor protection. Of course not as good as over front hull "beak" or front turret, but good enough. Also other tanks have similiar weak zone, and there is also probability of hit.

To hit such area you need to be very close, so trajectory of projectile is perfectly flat, however at typical engagement range, trajectory of projectile is not prefectly flat, so probability of hit there is very close to 0. It is far more probable that enemy projectile will hit gun mantlet than this small weak zone.

Of course redesigning this is more than possible, but it means redesigning not only of turret, but also hull, and there are other far more needed improvements, especially that all tanks have weak zones, some of them even more problematic, like Leclerc with this ridicoulously huge gun mantlet that have no protection against anything bigger than IFV's automatic cannons, and this gun mantlet is far more easy to hit.

For some reason in Steel Beasts Pro PE, my M1A1HA and M1 get hit in that area relatively often from up to 3000 m away. I guess the Esim model is not that accurate.


Concerning the Leclerc, are you sure that the mantlet does not include any composite blocks/modules ? I wonder how the Leopard 2a1-4, Arjun and Japanses Type 90 are dealing with this wide mantlet ballistic situtation.

 

[Damian]

For some reason in Steel Beasts Pro PE, my M1A1HA and M1 get hit in that area relatively often from up to 3000 m away. I guess the Esim model is not that accurate.

I am surprised that you even consider a software used for training as even close to reality in terms of vehicle armor protection.

And now show me in real world, even a single document, or photograph of M1, hit by other tank in this area. I will make your work easier, there is none of such evidence in a real world, that you can hit it from a distance smaller than 3,000m, I did not even seen such hit from a distance smaller than 1,000m.

You sould know, that no matter how good, software never will be capable to represent reality as it is, there are allways some simplifications or problems. One of problems is AI, AI can be a real sniper that hit a target of a size of coca-cola can, where in reality, human would probably didn't even notice such target of such size at a distance of 3,000m.

You used SB Pro PE, and as a human, you perfectly know that target in most tanks optics, at such distance is just a blob, you aims at it's center mass and prays that projectile will hit anything, not any kind of specific spot.

AI have a much easier job, because it does not have human limitations in this, and is part of the whole software structure, so AI have actuall advantage over human user.

And we could talk about such things whole week.

Concerning the Leclerc, are you sure that the mantlet does not include any composite blocks/modules ? I wonder how the Leopard 2a1-4, Arjun and Japanses Type 90 are dealing with this wide mantlet ballistic situtation.

I am more than sure that Leclerc do not have in this place, protection comparable to Leopard 2 series, Arjun or Japanese Type 90.

And there is simple reason for that, Leclerc do not have there thick composite armor module, as above mentioned vehicles.

As far as I understand you are from France? I perfectly understand the national pride, Leclerc is very good tank, but should not be overestimated as well.