Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Kunal Biswas]

There are dedicated thread for Comparison Post here :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-108.html

===============
===============

Any more post of such kind will be deleted..

 

[militarysta]

Bez pośredników - rozmowa z wiceministrem obrony Waldemarem Skrzypczakiem - DziennikZbrojny.pl

interviev whit polish vice-MOD about Armed Forces and other stuff.
Part about tanks in Poland and developed tank in poland:

Będą Leopardy w wersji A5 w liczbie około 120 czołgów. Mieliśmy konkurencję na te wozy, ale Niemcy zdecydowali, że trafią one do Polski. Program pancerny rusza, przy pomocy Narodowego Centrum Badań i Rozwoju. Z tego tytułu przez kolejne lata będą dedykowane środki dla powstałych konsorcjów na budowę nowego czołgu i bojowego wozu piechoty. Resort obrony będzie kontrolował te projekty, średnio co kwartał. Przykładowo na opracowanie konstrukcji i prototypu czołgu podstawowego powstało konsorcjum skupione wokół lidera, czyli Bumar-Łabędy.
(...)
To będą dwa różne pojazdy choćby z powodu, że przy bwp jest wymóg pływalności. Były różne koncepcje, ale po konsultacjach, również z dowódcami oddziałów liniowych tak zdecydowaliśmy. Dopilnujemy, aby za pieniądze podatnika powstał czołg na potrzeby naszej armii. Ma to być nasza własność intelektualna.

Resumee:
1.Polish army in very short time will take 120 ex german Leopard-2A5
2. Other country want to take those Leopard-2A5 but German had decidet that those Leo-2A5 will be sold to Poland. (IMHO political reson was more important here for Gemrmans then pure economy. Poland is natural "bumper" between Russia and other estern Europe countries - so stronger polish army makes Germany more safty place )
3. Polish tank program is running - till next 2 yers will be spending money to developmend and erly studies phases.
4. Two consortium was developed:
-one from tank program (leader -Bumar Łabędy factory)
- second for future IFV program
5.Those two platforms (tank and IFV) will be separated and on two completly difrent chassis.
6. IFV will be able to swim (propably in lightest armour level)

 

[farhan_9909]

Bez pośredników - rozmowa z wiceministrem obrony Waldemarem Skrzypczakiem - DziennikZbrojny.pl

interviev whit polish vice-MOD about Armed Forces and other stuff.
Part about tanks in Poland and developed tank in poland:



Resumee:
1.Polish army in very short time will take 120 ex german Leopard-2A5
2. Other country want to take those Leopard-2A5 but German had decidet that those Leo-2A5 will be sold to Poland. (IMHO political reson was more important here for Gemrmans then pure economy. Poland is natural "bumper" between Russia and other estern Europe countries - so stronger polish army makes Germany more safty place )
3. Polish tank program is running - till next 2 yers will be spending money to developmend and erly studies phases.
4. Two consortium was developed:
-one from tank program (leader -Bumar Łabędy factory)
- second for future IFV program
5.Those two platforms (tank and IFV) will be separated and on two completly difrent chassis.
6. IFV will be able to swim (propably in lightest armour level)

Good for poland
1 question

Does poland has any indigenous tank project for the future?Main battle tank?

 

[farhan_9909]

double post

 

[Damian]

Good for poland
1 question

Does poland has any indigenous tank project for the future?Main battle tank?

Yes there is a project for new MBT and new IFV as Militarysta quoted our vice minister of defence. The problem is that still details are not known. Perhaps more will be known september this year when some details will be revealed during MSPO exhibition.

 

[farhan_9909]

Yes there is a project for new MBT and new IFV as Militarysta quoted our vice minister of defence. The problem is that still details are not known. Perhaps more will be known september this year when some details will be revealed during MSPO exhibition.

looking forward for the exhibition.

can you name me the firm associated with the manufacturing of tanks/IFV in poland?

 

[Damian]

looking forward for the exhibition.

can you name me the firm associated with the manufacturing of tanks/IFV in poland?

PHO (former Bumar), there is also HSW which is currently manufacturing artillery systems among them AHS Krab self proppeled gun-howitzer and SMK/SMG Rak self propelled automatic gun-mortar or Langusta/Langusta 2 MLRS or Homar MLRS.

There are smaller companies which are manufacturers of smaller subcomponents.

Also PHO recently made a deal with BAE to develop tank and multipurpose modular tracked platforms.

It is complicated to say who is exactly doing what because the goal is to include whole military industry, so there is no single direct manufacturer.

 

[ersakthivel]

PHO (former Bumar), there is also HSW which is currently manufacturing artillery systems among them AHS Krab self proppeled gun-howitzer and SMK/SMG Rak self propelled automatic gun-mortar or Langusta/Langusta 2 MLRS or Homar MLRS.

There are smaller companies which are manufacturers of smaller subcomponents.

Also PHO recently made a deal with BAE to develop tank and multipurpose modular tracked platforms.

It is complicated to say who is exactly doing what because the goal is to include whole military industry, so there is no single direct manufacturer.

@Somreet Bhattacharya @kushalappa@sayareakd @A chauhan
@TrueSpirit @Patriot @Payeng @rahulrds1 @rahulrds1 @Yusuf
@Decklander@Appolyon@Abhi9
@brahmos @sasi @Rahul Singh@Sridhar @nitesh @Draedevil


@Kunal Biswas @LurkerBaba @ersakthivel @methos @Damian @militarysta @W.G.Ewald @Ray @pmaitra @arnabmit @Lidsky M.D. @Andrei_bt @p2prada @Austin @AUSTERLITZ @Rage @STGN @Dejawolf @Akim

According to the drawing above the base of the vertical standing hatch cover is at a distance of 2500 mm behind the turrret front tip (front face of the covering plate over gun mantle plate)

 

[hest]

Khrizantema-SM

Khrizantema-SM

Note the target, T-80U or UD

------------

Interesting M1A1 heavy armour tank 1989 test results, frontal turret armour.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_tabl.htm (number 22)

Interior air sampling was also taken during the three last impact tests when breakthrough into the crew compartment occurred. Data, though limited, was collected on the first two of those impact events. Data for the last impact was lost because the vehicle caught fire destroying all of the air samplers. During the two impact events in which the penetrators entered through the turret into the main crew area

The rounds which penetrated into crew compartment:

120 mm APFSDS, KE - DU (Test 5A) (probably M829)
120 mm APFSDS, KE - tungsten (Test 5B)
Hellfire equivalent (early, block I)

Data for the last impact was lost because the vehicle caught fire destroying all of the air samplers (Hellfire warhead penetrated and set the tank on fire).

For Test 6B, reentry occurred following the fire and the Test 6B sample was collected primarily from inside the crew compartment. The report indicated that a penetrator might have been ejected from one of the storage compartments into the crew compartment and then completely oxidized during the test.

 

[Damian]

Must be some of the older examples, still with Kontakt-1, or it might be T-80A, a rarity.

 

[hest]

Yes, seems T-80U with Kontakt-1

 

[Damian]

Interesting M1A1 heavy armour tank 1989 test results, frontal turret armour.

Tab L (number 22)

Interior air sampling was also taken during the three last impact tests when breakthrough into the crew compartment occurred. Data, though limited, was collected on the first two of those impact events. Data for the last impact was lost because the vehicle caught fire destroying all of the air samplers. During the two impact events in which the penetrators entered through the turret into the main crew area

The rounds which penetrated into crew compartment:

120 mm APFSDS, KE - DU (Test 5A) (probably M829)
120 mm APFSDS, KE - tungsten (Test 5B)
Hellfire equivalent (early, block I)

Data for the last impact was lost because the vehicle caught fire destroying all of the air samplers (Hellfire warhead penetrated and set the tank on fire).

For Test 6B, reentry occurred following the fire and the Test 6B sample was collected primarily from inside the crew compartment. The report indicated that a penetrator might have been ejected from one of the storage compartments into the crew compartment and then completely oxidized during the test.

Purpose of these tests was to get idea, how DU dust and fragments can affect the crew and environment, which means that this test was not performed to check if armor protection is adequate or not, which further means that any conclusions about armor protection can't be made, because each test was done in such way, to defeat armor, which probably means, they were precisely aiming at the same spot, and we all know that multiple hits in the same place, will eventually defeat all known types of vehicle armor.

 

[hest]

The aim was to test the consequences of contamination, likely those which could happen in combat, one penetration unexpectedly destroyed the sensors as it went throught the armour into crew compartment.

they were precisely aiming at the same spot, and we all know that multiple hits in the same place, will eventually defeat all known types of vehicle armor.

This was clearly not the case:

Based on the circumstances surrounding each of the two impact breakthroughs for which samples inside the vehicle were collected, significantly higher results would have been predicted for the first impact breakthrough. In the first the turret armor impacted had already been hit on two prior occasions, that may have added to the DU residue inside the tank that was resuspended in the crew compartment at impact. In addition, a DU kinetic energy (KE) round was fired into the armor package during this breakthrough event. In contrast, the round fired for the second event was a non-DU KE round, and the DU turret armor package impacted was impacted for the first time.

From 3 breakthroughts, one DU round penetrated into crew compartment, throught armour which was impacted 2 times. The other breakthrought was from first impact.

 

[Damian]

Still, no details really, no distance, no hit angle, ammunition designation codes not known.

I would not make any claims about armor protection based on this document.

Correction:

It seems there were indeed 3 penetrations, but it says that these were 3 last tests, also report says

For all of the tests, the highest fallout levels occurred on the test pad within 5 to 7 meters of the target. However it was noted that heavy armor material was blown out 76 meters (250 feet) or more from the target after several tests.

which means that they were just firing large amount oif ammunition in to a single test target, and penetration, called "breakthrough" in report

Interior air sampling was also taken during the three last impact tests when breakthrough into the crew compartment occurred.

as per document, occured during last 3 test shots.

To say it simple, they were firing in to armor until it started to disintegrate.

 

[hest]

The 3 mentioned went inside the crew compartment

"Interior air sampling was also taken during the three last impact tests when breakthrough into the crew compartment occurred"

Only one is said to have ocurred after 2 previous impacts. The other impacted the armour for the first time. The Hellfire warhead breakthrought set the tank on fire.

Distance is likely close, around hundreds of meter as normal for such test, and it does not matter for the HEAT warhead. The place is where DU is located in frontal turret armour. It is said that the HEAT warhead is of Hellfire, the DU round is likely M829.

 

[Damian]

Still no conclusion can be made about protection, and I know your are tempted to communicate the whole world your "conclusions"...

 

[The Last Stand]

@hest @Damian, was the M1A1 tested, having the HA armour package or not?

That would help us to conclude protection better.

And hest, as Damian mentions, they fired at the armour till it disintegrated, so your argument is superflous even if the test tank was the normal M1A1.

 

[Damian]

From the report it seems it was M1A1HA, but report is not really detailed about the test conditions. I read the report several times and it is rather obvious that armor was hit several times before 3 projectiles were capable to defeat it. It is clear when we read the fragment:

For all of the tests, the highest fallout levels occurred on the test pad within 5 to 7 meters of the target. However it was noted that heavy armor material was blown out 76 meters (250 feet) or more from the target after several tests.

Context is very clear, it was single armor package tested all the time, no replacement of fresh armor after each test.

However important is also fact that indeed such tests are concluded at the distnce of several hundred meters, which is important for APFSDS ammo, at such distance even relatively old M829 have good penetration performance against relatively modern armor.

M829 depeding on source have penetration capability varrying from ~550mm to ~600mm @ 2000m which is a very good result, at very close range it's penetration capability might increase beyond 600mm.

While M1A1HA front turret protection depending on estimations vary from ~660-680mm to ~700-800mm of RHAe, it is for tanks manufactured in late 1980's, in 1990/1991 armor package was improved.

 

[Damian]

For comparrision, the most modern Soviet APFSDS at the end of 1980's were BM32 and BM42.

BM32 could penetrate depending on source ~560mm to ~570mm @ 2000m.
BM42 ~520mm to ~580mm @ 2000m depending on source.

As for tungsten penetrator used in tests, we have several options.

It might have been never fielded by US Army M827, or something from Germany, most likely DM33.

DM33 dependin on source is estimated to have capability to penetrate ~550mm to ~600mm @ 2000m.

So preaty much, all these types of ammunition were capable to perforate a weakened armor after several hits of different ammunition types.

 

[Dejawolf]

From the report it seems it was M1A1HA, but report is not really detailed about the test conditions. I read the report several times and it is rather obvious that armor was hit several times before 3 projectiles were capable to defeat it. It is clear when we read the fragment:



Context is very clear, it was single armor package tested all the time, no replacement of fresh armor after each test.

However important is also fact that indeed such tests are concluded at the distnce of several hundred meters, which is important for APFSDS ammo, at such distance even relatively old M829 have good penetration performance against relatively modern armor.

M829 depeding on source have penetration capability varrying from ~550mm to ~600mm @ 2000m which is a very good result, at very close range it's penetration capability might increase beyond 600mm.

While M1A1HA front turret protection depending on estimations vary from ~660-680mm to ~700-800mm of RHAe vs KE, it is for tanks manufactured in late 1980's, in 1990/1991 armor package was improved.

~680mm figure is for 1991 desert storm M1A1(HA) with DU armour, original 1980s M1A1 abrams had "less" protection.
afaik, original M1 had about ~450mm front turret armour vs KE.M1A1 had more, probably in range 500-600mm vs KE