Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Andrei_bt]

very interesting. thanks

 

[hest]

Description of M1 Abrams penetrated by old RPG

http://wlstorage.net/file/m1-penetration-iraq-2008.pdf

 

[Damian]

Wow, incredible, you are so excited with old report, known to everyone interested in the subject!

And yeah, this is so incredible that a shaped charge defeated at angle hit close to 90 degrees a simple spaced protection!

Any tank without addon armor would suffer similiar damage, some tanks even worser because of non isolated ammunition.

And something more, the report was made when nobody known what type of weapon hit the tank. Additional confusion added a fact that incident happened at night, only gunner have thermal vision at that time period, TC did not (thermal sight for his M2 HMG was added later), so a TC of second tank could not identify target.

 

[hest]

Maybe it was not posted here. It shows the importance of preventing penetration, even that of weak effect (residual penetration of ... 50 mm) the crew suffered injuries and disorientation, no argument for safety if being out of stream path.

 

[Damian]

Crew survived, tank had minor damage. This what matters.

If someone beliefes that he can prevent penetration all the time, he is just idiot.

In case of tank without isolated ammunition compartment, crew would most likely die if even a single, hot spall fragment, would find his why to even a single round or propelant charge. Simple as that.


And this was discussen on this forum long time ago, before you came here from nowhere.

 

[hest]

About Hellfire

1982 production basic version, penetration of 900 mm RHA with 178 diameter, single warhead, insufficient for late of decade against composite armour and ERA

1990 interim version with small precursor to initiate ERA of first generation Kontakt against modernised T-64B, T-80B, T-72A and alike, penetration up to 1000 mm RHA, howewer as aknowledged by US military, insufficient to deal with contemporary to it armour, the reason:

It was simple modification of preceding version, consisting of small precursor designed to initiate first generation ERA, precursor has weak explosive charge and it's effect is only sufficient to cause initiation, in such design (as well as TOW-2A, HOT-2, Milan-2T, etc) it does not contribute to penetration of main armour. Hellfire had an additional problem, due to close tandem warhead placement it was incapable to deal against ERA of the kind Kontakt-5 with greater surface (late 80s soviet armour) as it fell within the axis of the plate movement, warhead was just destroyed

It later adopted improved design

Hellfire II and missiles of analogous scheme as Kornet, Invar-M, Javelin, employ powerfull precursor at a distance from main warhead, as a measure to defeat ERA as well as to weaken armour of semi-active kind which disturbes jet stream, causing local weakened zone later penetrated by main charge, such design is more serious danger for modern MBT without additional protection on composite armour.

For modern armour, howewer withstanding single warhead HEAT or with weak precursor is not great achievement.

 

[hest]

Crew survived, tank had minor damage. This what matters.

If someone beliefes that he can prevent penetration all the time, he is just idiot.

Yes, because it was just single hit and weak weapon, but what if engagement of greater intensity ? Of course it is important that crew survived, but it caused injury and disorientation, and crew will not be able to respond for a certain time, this can be caused even by abundant weak rpg, thus it is important to prevent penetration (and against old rpg it is surely possible, now realised) or isolating the crew.

In case of tank without isolated ammunition compartment, crew would most likely die if even a single, hot spall fragment, would find his why to even a single round or propelant charge. Simple as that.

Yes, there is such probability, it is important to isolate crew, but also to prevent or minimalise penetration.

And this was discussen on this forum long time ago, before you came here from nowhere.

Like everyone else..

 

[Damian]

Yes, because it was just single hit and weak weapon, but what if engagement of greater intensity ? Of course it is important that crew survived, but it caused injury and disorientation, and crew will not be able to respond for a certain time, this can be caused even by abundant weak rpg, thus it is important to prevent penetration (and against old rpg it is surely possible, now realised) or isolating the crew.

Driver still could respond. There was another similiar incident where RPG hit turret roof, tank commander lost eye, loader was injured in arm, only gunner and driver were ok, and capable to act. And so they did, driver just drive out of danger zone and other vehicles in formation provided support.

What is surprising is that again, even after roof hit, M1 received only minimal damage.

Danger of more intensive enemy fire is only possible when vehicle do not have capability to move, and which is worse, there are no friendly units to provide support. US Army never made that las mistake, and enemy during firefight or died, or was forced to retreat.

Yes, there is such probability, it is important to isolate crew, but also to prevent or minimalise penetration.

We can agree on that.

As for that Hellfire description, you should provide a source.

 

[farhan_9909]

type 85(upgraded) in service with PA.

can they be considered as good as the t-72 in service with indian army?

with extensive upgrade like catherine thermal imagers,BMS,all electric control turret,125mm smoothbore
will such upgrade can we term it as 3rd generation tank than or still will remain a 2nd gen mbt?

 

[Damian]

type 85(upgraded) in service with PA.

can they be considered as good as the t-72 in service with indian army?

with extensive upgrade like catherine thermal imagers,BMS,all electric control turret,125mm smoothbore
will such upgrade can we term it as 3rd generation tank than or still will remain a 2nd gen mbt?

It is still 2nd generation MBT, just upgraded, modernized, so nothing special. T-72 is also 2nd generation, or rather 2nd + generation.

 

[farhan_9909]

It is still 2nd generation MBT, just upgraded, modernized, so nothing special. T-72 is also 2nd generation, or rather 2nd + generation.

dont you think upgrading t-54 to al zarar standard was a bad idea..instead they should have upgraded type 85III with every gadget and new engine they have added to al zarar?

 

[Damian]

dont you think upgrading t-54 to al zarar standard was a bad idea..instead they should have upgraded type 85III with every gadget and new engine they have added to al zarar?

Both are waste of time, upgrading absolutely obsolete tanks.

You should or redirect all funds on Al Khalid, or do even better thing, scrap Al Khalid, and purchase BM "Oplot" to replace all your tanks with very modern, very well armored tank.

 

[farhan_9909]

Both are waste of time, upgrading absolutely obsolete tanks.

You should or redirect all funds on Al Khalid, or do even better thing, scrap Al Khalid, and purchase BM "Oplot" to replace all your tanks with very modern, very well armored tank.

what about developing a new variant of al khalid on the pattern of BM oplot.

will ukraine agree to give us the license for the manufacturing of Oplot turret for Al khalid?

since i think the only think Al khalid at the moment lack is a better designed turret.

 

[farhan_9909]

double post

 

[hest]

Driver still could respond. There was another similiar incident where RPG hit turret roof, tank commander lost eye, loader was injured in arm, only gunner and driver were ok, and capable to act. And so they did, driver just drive out of danger zone and other vehicles in formation provided support.

What is surprising is that again, even after roof hit, M1 received only minimal damage.

It's not like such hit is safe for crew, with disabled members, unfortunately hatch is vulnerable zone.

Danger of more intensive enemy fire is only possible when vehicle do not have capability to move, and which is worse, there are no friendly units to provide support. US Army never made that las mistake, and enemy during firefight or died, or was forced to retreat.

Yes, but single shot of weak weapon by insurgent is not very serious compared with multiple hits which vehicles received in other experiences, and powerfull effect of more modern weapon can result in serious injury or death of crew members, not to talk about ignition of propellant charges. Now most of armoured vehicles can mount additional armour, or ERA improving their protection atleast against the average RPG, which preserve their ability to operate even after hits.

As for that Hellfire description, you should provide a source.

Способы борьбы с танками оснащёнными ДЗ - 0004.htm

 

[Damian]

what about developing a new variant of al khalid on the pattern of BM oplot.

will ukraine agree to give us the license for the manufacturing of Oplot turret for Al khalid?

since i think the only think Al khalid at the moment lack is a better designed turret.

Better just purchase BM "Oplot" and later try to negotiate licence production, I am sure Ukrainians would agree.

It's not like such hit is safe for crew, with disabled members, unfortunately hatch is vulnerable zone.

Did I said it is safe? No, I said that survivability is high, higher in most other tanks.

Yes, but single shot of weak weapon by insurgent is not very serious compared with multiple hits which vehicles received in other experiences, and powerfull effect of more modern weapon can result in serious injury or death of crew members, not to talk about ignition of propellant charges. Now most of armoured vehicles can mount additional armour, or ERA improving their protection atleast against the average RPG, which preserve their ability to operate even after hits.

This is normal evolution in combat environment.

Способы борьбы с танками оснащёнными ДЗ - 0004.htm

I expected something more reliable, from US sources, not assumptions of a russian author who never had contact with AGM-114.

 

[hest]

I expected something more reliable, from US sources, not assumptions of a russian author who never had contact with AGM-114.

Yes, from document http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/214851.pdf

The problems were confirmed by US officials

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.
----

The author was a person directly involved in ERA developement and in tests of tandem ATGM, having written many articles with his material. The distance between warheads and ERA plate surface is a problem common to such designs, that is why they were later rejected.

 

[Damian]

The author was a person directly involved in ERA developement and in tests of tandem ATGM, having written many articles with his material. The distance between warheads and ERA plate surface is a problem common to such designs, that is why they were later rejected.

Making conclusions about specific weapon system, based on tests of different weapon systems is like... trying to predict who will win the next football match.

As for GAO document, you do not understand one simple fact, Americans allways perdicted that Soviet tanks have higher protection levels than in reality, very normal and healthy approach. And GAO report do not shows any penetration values, we do not know what criteria Americans had to make such conclusions.

 

[hest]

You can read about results of tests of such weapons and about the description of the mechanism, the damage of main warhead of tandem ATGM before it's initiation in several articles, (and worse performance against ERA plates of greater surface) there were also such problems for example, during developement of western ATGM, which were later redesigned (due to this reason, PARS-3, Javelin, Spike, as well as late Hellfire II), nothing to do with previous scheme.

 

[Damian]

And what this have to Hellfire penetration levels? I talk about provided values that are taken from the roof.

Seriously, work on your understanding of english text.