Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

This is my concept of a IV generation MBT. Overall design is my idea, and drawing is made by my associate "Knat".

Of course it is not completed, neither detailed enough.

Some basic things tough. The front hull armor is designed to provide as good protection as possible within reasonable weight and size limits, however basic front hull armor thickness still have potential to be increased, however such increase in thickness will be depending on the internal components size and weight inside crew compartment.

Front armor thickness is (real thickness/LOS thickness)

Glacis - 115/1040mm
Lower front hull - 565/785mm.

Vehicle have hydrogas suspension system, compact powerpack, and unmanned turret module which can use different types of main armament and autoloading mechanisms.

 

[sayareakd]

This is my concept of a IV generation MBT. Overall design is my idea, and drawing is made by my associate "Knat".

Of course it is not completed, neither detailed enough.

Some basic things tough. The front hull armor is designed to provide as good protection as possible within reasonable weight and size limits, however basic front hull armor thickness still have potential to be increased, however such increase in thickness will be depending on the internal components size and weight inside crew compartment.

exchange crew compartment with engine compartment that will give more protection to crew.

 

[Damian]

exchange crew compartment with engine compartment that will give more protection to crew.

No, actually engine at front will compromise vehicle protection and crew protection. Because engine needs maintnance, it means that if I will place it at front, I will need to reduce armor thickness, this further means that vehicle will be easy to disable.

Right now they are sitting at front and have the best possible protection from all sides. Also sitting at front, they have much better situational awareness, because besides sights and additional side and rear view cameras, they have their own vision blocks.

Of course at current stage, vehicle have similiar lenght to conventional MBT's, this is hull is 7,5m long. It can be however shortened by changing configuration of crew seats.

Currently driver is a bit to the front, while tank commander and gunner are slightly to the rear, this means that side protection of their compartment might be increased, while maitaining standard witdh comparable with currently used MBT's.

However If I would reduce side protection of their compartment, crew members can be placed in line, and thus their compartment lenght can be decreased, resulting in decrease of the hull total lenght.

 

[cobra commando]

Polish 7TP tanks in formation 1939

 

[Sovngard]

This is my concept of a IV generation MBT. Overall design is my idea, and drawing is made by my associate "Knat".

Your exotic tank reminds me some 1970s & 80s concepts like the Soviet Объект 450 and the French AS 40 of the EPC program. But yours is almost identical to the US M1 TTB Tank Test Bed.

 

[Damian]

Your exotic tank reminds me some 1970s & 80s concepts like the Soviet Объект 450 and the French AS 40 of the EPC program. But yours is almost identical to the US M1 TTB Tank Test Bed.

I was inspired by the 1980's and 1990's future tank projects, and tried to use the best ideas from them.

The objective is to design as much lightweight and compact tank, with as high protection level as possible.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Glacis - 115/1040mm
Lower front hull - 565/785mm..

not good... project declined )

 

[Damian]

not good... project declined )

Why? Of course armor thickness can be increased. This is afterall only early concept, and without chances for realization.

Not to mention it is only physical thickness before and after inclination. I was also thinking about additional protection that could be installed on front armor, something like composite armor modules or "Duplet" modules.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Interesting ..

 

[Andrei_bt]

testing -

Andrei-bt - Защита танка «Оплот»

 

[militarysta]

testing -

Andrei-bt - Защита танка «Оплот»

As I understend those video is now open for wide public?
I have Andriej a lot of questions about Duplet and Knive ERA. I know that all is more or less OPSPEC but mayby You can answer for some question?

For example finnaly answer if my suspicion about Knife working mehanism is correct or not:

Those % in my table was given as for Czech EFA armour when couple of the SC linears are ignit by active indicator - so EFA SC are able to hit rod (penetrator) in optimum distance from armour. In Knife/Duplet we haven't sucht optimalization like in EFA.
EFA biggest efectivnes against APFSDS was 30% -but it's APS based on linear SC only.
IMHO Dubplet and Knife are more sophisticated in working mehansim.
I suppose that casette whit only SC linears can't be effective as EFA - becouse it's haven't optimum distance from penetrator. So it's impossible to achive better result, but IMHO Knife casette (brick) is the same important as inner casette (bax) whit linears only.
I think that Knife Duplet is working on two levels in the same time:
1) APFSDS hit casette, penetrate external plate, linear SC internal casette and hit in one SC. The reaction in internal SC casette is starting.
2) all SC linears start exploding but only first 2-3 after those one SC hit by rod are danger, becouse only the closer ones have propper distance and thay are able to "cut" penetrator (rod) next to the hit place. And for that place working mehanism is not very diffrent from EFA mehanism, exept mucht whorse distance and optimlaisation, but:
3) rest (all) SC durnig exploding are cut external Knife/Duplet casette on mettal debrits whit thickness circa 8mm, lenght egual to casette width, and width equalt to distance between linear placed SC. So whole Knife casette is cut in that shape:
=
=
=
=
=
And those quite heavy metal plates (in shape circa ractangle) are blow out and moved in to APFSDS direction - perpendicular to the flight path, so they are hitting penetrator (previously separated from hit place and firs circa 5-10% it's lenght by first 2-3 SC) and moved it, crushed and breake.
In the other way: internal SC casette is not better then EFA armour, but combination explode SC internal casette and external casette (turned by explodes SC linears in to moving heavy debrits) is dedly for penetrator.
Cold or hot Andriej?

Couple of photo

 

[Andrei_bt]

As I understend those video is now open for wide public?

no., it is not, just some screenshots

 

[Andrei_bt]

answer for some question?

I will try, it is mostly a translation problem.

 

[Sovngard]

According to the Andrei-bt's website, the OFL 120 F1 has only achieved to create a 60 mm deep hole in the T-84 Oplot-M turret frontal armor, since the multi-layered Nozh ERA sheared the penetrator.

 

[Andrei_bt]

According to the Andrei-bt's website, the OFL 120 F1 has only achieved to create a 60 mm deep hole in the T-84 Oplot-M turret frontal armor, since the multi-layered Nozh ERA sheared the penetrator.

No, it achieved 0 mm at 68 degress (hull)

 

[Sovngard]

No, it achieved 0 mm at 68 degress (hull)

Thanks

But this is the last time that I use Google Translate.


It is strange that Ukraine has used French APFSDS, they have probably fired (how far) by the KBM-2 antitank gun.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Thanks

But this is the last time that I use Google Translate.


It is strange that Ukraine has used French APFSDS, they have probably fired (how far) by the KBM-2 antitank gun.

It was fired by a franch gun from close distance, so APFSDS has much more penetration than on 2 000 m

 

[Andrei_bt]

btw one of the tests video leeked to u-tube.

 

[militarysta]

It is strange that Ukraine has used French APFSDS, they have probably fired (how far) by the KBM-2 antitank gun.

In fact Knife ERA was tested against M322 Israeli and OLF F1 120mm APFSDS.

OLF F1 is the same as DM-43 -so penetration between 560 and 600mm RHA at 2000m at 90. plate.
M322 have simmilar perfroamce. Both are "long rods" made from tungsten alloy but both have not any special solution for overpas ERA - just "normal" APFSDS. DM-43 perform not very well even against Kontakt-5 so it's not suprise that double layer Knife just masacre OLF F1.
More interesting will be test DM63 vs Knife or M829A3 vs Knife Becouse bot rounds will slighty penetrate Kontakt and Relikt and have confirm (at least DM53 and DM63) anti double layerd ERA abilities:

This projectile was designed and optimised especially for penetrating double-reactive armour.

The DM63 was developed to destroy the latest generation ofmain battle tanks; even at long ranges of engagement, the round can penetrate double-reactive armour. The DM63 using a special state-of-the-art tungsten penetrator capable of overcoming the most extreme cutting and bending forces of double-reactive armour.
The unique design makes it possible for the DM63 to defeat all known types of tank armour, including multi-layer and composite arrays and reactive armour systems at all ranges of engagement.

Knive/Duplet ERA is very diffrent, so it would be interesting in theory.

 

[militarysta]

btw one of the tests video leeked to u-tube.

Andrei, those video was able to find since July becouse it was no marked as "private".

It was fired by a franch gun from close distance, so APFSDS has much more penetration than on 2 000 m

Not so sure, difrence between P=0 and P=2000m is not so big in case modern APFSDS. In fact all is about velocity difrense ussaly its less the 50m/s.