Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

the tests were done in 1989, the M829A1 was fielded 1 year prior in 1988. it's highly likely this is the round used in the tests.
M829A1 should have a P0 of around 700mm or so, vs 600mm for the M829.

It's interesting. M829A1 shoud have (in other sources) a litle bit lover values:
circa 560mm RHA at 2000m
achivable 620mm RHA

If M829A2 from point blanck penetrate M1A1HA then it's means that those tank have slighty less then 620 maybe 650mm RHA

 

[Damian]

It's interesting. M829A1 shoud have (in other sources) a litle bit lover values:
circa 560mm RHA at 2000m
achivable 620mm RHA

If M829A2 from point blanck penetrate M1A1HA then it's means that those tank have slighty less then 620 maybe 650mm RHA

But we do not know impact angle of the projectiles. Different armor thickness and protection you will have at 0 degrees from longitudinal axis, and different at 30 degrees from longitudinal axis.

And there is reported accident with AGM-114 not capable to perforate front turret armor.

Perhaps armor improvements were more fluent during production, without clear distinction between improvements?

Hard to say.

 

[farhan_9909]

under testing old prototype

 

[The Last Stand]

Knowing close relationship of Myanmar and PRC it won't be strange if such tanks would not be sold to them.

That seems to be Type-96 rather than MBT-2000.

 

[farhan_9909]

That seems to be Type-96 rather than MBT-2000.

checkout the third pic

this is mbt-2000

 

[farhan_9909]

Pakistan set to upgrade Sri lankan armour?

The assessment also suggested that Pakistan is believed to have discussed upgradation and rebuilding of T-55 tank engines, incorporation of rubberised tracks on tanks besides modernisation of the fire and tank gun control systems.


Read more at: Pakistan's help to Sri Lanka for Nuclear plant alarms India : India, News - India Today

 

[STGN]

the tests were done in 1989, the M829A1 was fielded 1 year prior in 1988. it's highly likely this is the round used in the tests.
M829A1 should have a P0 of around 700mm or so, vs 600mm for the M829.

I don't think its a M829A1 used, mainly because here: ~4000g DU the DU mass of the projectile is given and that is the DU mass of a M829. I don't know the DU mass of an A1 but given that its vastly different I guess that the DU mass is not exactly the same.

 

[Damian]

BTW, I think somewhere I seen a video from ballistic tests of M1A1 or M1A1HA, will try to find, there is one known video from M1A2 tests.

 

[Dejawolf]

I don't think its a M829A1 used, mainly because here: ~4000g DU the DU mass of the projectile is given and that is the DU mass of a M829. I don't know the DU mass of an A1 but given that its vastly different I guess that the DU mass is not exactly the same.

M829A1 penetrator is 4.6kg.
length 780mm
diameter 22mm

from here:

http://www.atk.com/products-services/120mm-m829a1-apfsds-t-ammunition/

 

[Damian]

M829A1 penetrator is 4.6kg.
length 780mm
diameter 22mm

from here:

120mm M829A1 APFSDS-T Ammunition | ATK

Hmmm, it seems to be a more capable ammunition that previously believed, but not designed to defeat heavy ERA.

 

[STGN]

M829A1 penetrator is 4.6kg.
length 780mm
diameter 22mm

Well the weight of the M829 penetrator(tip, windshield, body, core and fin) is 4.46kg(measured from WA core of equal density) but the DU core is only 4kg. Is 4.6 the weight of complete projectile minus SABOT or the DU weight? This again seems to be point in the direction of not being a M829A1 used in the test.

 

[STGN]

M829A1 penetrator is 4.6kg.
length 780mm
diameter 22mm

Well the weight of the M829 penetrator(tip, windshield, body, core and fin) is 4.46kg(measured from WA core of equal density) but the DU core is only 4kg. Is 4.6 the weight of complete projectile minus SABOT or the DU weight? This again seems to be point in the direction of not being a M829A1 used in the test.

ETA see the link now

 

[STGN]

Heres an article that mentions the 3BM42
ISSUU - Arms 2010-4 light by Pavel Dem

I typed out the numbers so if anybody wants them they can copy it here.

Characteristics of the 3BM42 APFSDS projectile <<Mango>>
Introduced in 1986
Material of Active part of the hull-steel
Material of Penetrator - Tungsten-nickel-iron alloy
Material of Sabot - C-96C1 aluminium alloy
Material of Obturating Device on the Projectile-polymeric amide
Round Weight-20.4 kg
Projectile Weight with Additional Charge (3BM44)-10.8 kg
Powder Weight of Main Charge-5.0 kg
Powder Weight of Additional Charge-3.4 kg
Weight og Active Part width sabot-7.05 kg
Weight of Active Part without sabot (3BM42)-4.85 kg
Weight of Sabot-2.2 kg
Length of Active Part (3BM42)- 574 mm
Length of Hull-452 mm
Diameter of Hull-31 mm
Length of Penetrator- 420 mm
Diameter of penetrator- 18 mm
Dimensions of armor-piercing Damper- 112x22mm
Velocity- 1700m/s
Guaranteed Piercing Performance at a Distance of 2000m, 0/60 degrees- 450/230mm
Average Piercing Performance at a diastance of 2000m, 0 degrees-500mm
Effective Range of Piercing:
7-layer armored target at 30 degrees.(Depth in the direction of travel 630mm)- 3300m
7-layer armored target at 60 degrees.(Depth in the direction of travel 620mm)- 3800m
3-layer distributed armor target, at 65 degrees.(depth in the direction of travel 1830mm)- 2700m
230 mm homogenous armor, at 60 degrees- 2000m
440 mm homogenous armor, at 0 degrees- 2000m
Service Temperature Range - -40...+50 degees Celsius

3BM42M
20% more effective than 3BM42
STGN

 

[Damian]

Israel plans to sold out surplus Merkava Mk1 tanks that are not in active service and are only in storage.

Izrael wyprzedaje swój sprzęt wojskowy

(In Polish, translator needed)

 

[Austin]

So why didnt they release 3BM42M for export so far if its 20 % better over previous model ?

 

[The Last Stand]

So why didnt they release 3BM42M for export so far if its 20 % better over previous model ?

Russia doesn't export its higher-class ammunition. They always export their second-rate things, if at all.

 

[methos]

So why didnt they release 3BM42M for export so far if its 20 % better over previous model ?

It does not fit into the standard autoloaders of the T-72 and T-80 tanks. It's quite probable that it also cannot be used on the early T-90 model.

 

[Damian]

3BM42M?!

Did you not confused it with something newer?

 

[methos]

3BM42M?!

Did you not confused it with something newer?

3BM-42M is Lekalo. With a length of 730 mm it does not fit into the autoloaders where the length is limited to 640 - 650 mm.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Has anybody info on Leclerc azur side armor stats? Does it hve anti-tandem protection?