Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Andrei_bt]

its less the 50m/s

it is more than 100 m/s

 

[The Last Stand]

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


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.

Do you mean 50 m/s for 1 km or 2 km? Because at 2 km, the round should have lost 100-110 m/s velocity.

 

[The Last Stand]

@militarysta,

Can you provide a clear, marking free top view image of the Arjun drawing in Kampfpanzer heute und morgen?

Because all the ones I have seen so far have markings, and the book is not available here.

Thanks.

 

[Sovngard]

Any russian here to translate all these notes ?

 

[militarysta]

Any russian here to translate all these notes ?

Translating notes about Leopard-2 is pointless couse it's written bullshit there about Leopard-2...
And Leopard-2 turret is not in scale in compare to soviet tanks.

 

[pmaitra]

Any russian here to translate all these notes ?

@Akim, @Lubov, please help us out with translations.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Translating notes about Leopard-2 is pointless couse it's written bullshit there about Leopard-2...
And Leopard-2 turret is not in scale in compare to soviet tanks.

what exactly, maybe that Leopard-2 has huge ~40 cm gun mask, gunner sight weekened zone, unprotected ammo in turret with thin armor wall?

 

[militarysta]

what exactly, maybe that Leopard-2 has huge ~40 cm gun mask, gunner sight weekened zone, unprotected ammo in turret with thin armor wall?

But You don't compare onestly this whit Sowiet tanks

Those "huge" (in width) mask is no more width then gun mantled area in Soviet tanks, and cast steel area around this. It;s weak spot too, the same in size as in Leo-2:

In all Sowiet tanks is the same story. And this is real "weak area" in Soviet tanks turrets.

In depth is even more funny story, becouse in Soviet tanks whole area have thickenss between 280 and 300mm cast steel and only nera corrner of the 85cm width area we have circa 440-480mm cast sttel. Whole is around 250-270mm RHA vs KE and HEAT. Only near corners we have more (390-430mm vs KE and HEAT).

In Leopard-2 we have CONSTANS thick gun mantled mask 420mm thick, and some additional protection before it:

240mm thick "weige" (made by titanium alloys) and around this thick 80-280mm RHA "frame", so we have
420mm LOS gun mask + 240mm "weige" or 80-280mm RHA "frame".
It's mucht better protection then in Soviet tanks.

Maybe you want to compare areas for some degree level?
Here:

the same story. No really bigger area.

gunner sight weekened zone

whit 650mm LOS after it. And what is line of sight (or cut-viev thickenss in mm) for Soviet tanks turrets in compare to this 650mm after main sight? hmm?

 

[Andrei_bt]

but I don't say soviet tanks are something outstanding in question of weekened areas. Btw why you are painting roof of turret on soviet tanks but don't paint it on Leo-2?

 

[militarysta]

but I don't say soviet tanks are something outstanding in question of weekened areas. p

But when you made draw when pointed are weak areas only ONE side (western tanks) it's not OK IMHO.

Btw why you are painting roof of turret on soviet tanks but don't paint it on Leo-2?

[/quote]
How many Sowiet tanks have roof masy by thick RHA plate? T-80U, and T-80UD, yes?
In T-64 and T-72 we have convex (curved?) roof mady by cast steel - less effective then RHA plate.
In fact long rods (M829A1, DM43, Lekalyo 3BM42M M322 can perforate RHA plate angled on very stupid angle - 10-12 degree, but in 1980s. roof in Leo-2A4 and T-80U/UD wasn't weak area. In opposide - curved roof in T-72 and T-64 was able to perforate by middle 1980s APFSDS ammo.

 

[militarysta]

T-84 on Charkiv production line:

 

[Damian]

Meanwhile...

 

[Sovngard]

As far I understand, the T-84's turret had been inspired by the fully-welded turret from the Объект 187 prior to the T-90A.

 

[militarysta]

As far I understand, the T-84's turret had been inspired by the fully-welded turret from the Объект 187 prior to the T-90A.

Well, it's not so easy, and Andrei_bt don't explain this question clear enought

looks like we have "common soviet welded turret" in 1984 - used on Ob.187 and in 2001 on T-90A, and the same turret was used on Ukrainian T-80UD in 1992 Ob.478BE (and in Pak. T-80UD) but after that Ukrainina industry made next "step ahead" and developed fully modural turret for T-84 and Oplot-M - simmilar in shape but diffrent (modular).

Andeij_BT had claimd that "Ob.478BE used Kharkiv designed turret, before this cast turrets were in use.
But this "Kharkiv designed turret" looks exatly the same as "common soviet welded turret" from 1984, and really simmilar to the Ob.187 turret. And polish (Szulc) press is opposite to this - all articles in NTW welded turret on Ob.478BE and.. Ob.188A1/A2 is present as the same turret from Ob.187 and "welded 1984 turret". What more - photos "nacked" turret for pak. T-80UD shows us typical welded turret, not modular, produced in 2001.

So here is small mess IMHO, and I have serious doubts if Kharkiv Ob.478BE turret is so super diffrent then "1984 welded turret".

IMHO we have since 1991 on Ukriane 3 diffrent turrets:

"old cast" before 1993
"new welded" (Ob.478BE) - simmilar as "common soviet welded turret" from 1984 turret (and it's clones on Ob.187, T-90A1/A2) acoding to the polish military press since 1992-1993 and as we can see on photos - used in 2001 for T-80UD too.
"new welded modular" (Oplot-M) - whit modular armour, but we haven't photos proof yet. So propably younger then 2001 (2005?)

 

[Damian]

You are wrong MIlitarysta, Kharkiv welded turret have besides overall shape, very little in common with Object 187 and T-90A turrets.

Also if you look at drawings, Kharkiv welded turret have different rear and is slightly larger (have larger internal volume).

 

[militarysta]

You are wrong MIlitarysta, Kharkiv welded turret have besides overall shape, very little in common with Object 187 and T-90A turrets.{/quote]
Ans this statsment is based on what sources exatly?
We know that in 1984 in Soviet Union was developed new welded turret whit very small front area (m2) and whit greate geometry, this turret was common from UWZ and Charkiv, and choosen from low-risk FST version - and it's went to Ob.187 in end of the 1980s. Almoust the same, or the same turret was avaible on Ukraine since 1992/1993. Propably material was diffrent (great steel from Fazotron instutiute), but shape and dimesnios give us conclusion that this is almout the same turret.

Also if you look at drawings, Kharkiv welded turret have different rear and is slightly larger (have larger internal volume).

What draw? Those on btvt or those avaible in net whit Oplot factory draw? IMHO we shoud compare those factory draw whit Ob.187 draw, and then said about size and shape
Becouse sometimes draws on btvt are not in scale (Leopard-2A4..T-80U...etc...)

 

[militarysta]

Looks simillar?

 

[Dazzler]

Peruvian trials, the man who drive Leo-2 and MBT 2000 haad this to say about both.

The composite armor of the MBT-2000 is not Chinese, was / is developed by Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) of Pakistan, which appears to be quite competent in this field, because as reported Jane's, after numerous tests real fire, it was found that modular packages developed for shielding the turret and the hull of the tank were successfully withstand 120 and 125mm ammunition of all kinds.

It would be nice to substantiate their claims technically. In what ways do you argue that is "lower"? Regarding mobility, both tanks can reach a top speed similar both in forward (72km / h for the Leopard 2A4, 70 for the MBT-2000) and backward (32km / h for the German tank, 35 for the Sino-Pakistani). Its power to weight ratio is similar (27hp / t vs. 26.08hp / t), as well as the scope of road (400-500km). Both models can overcome trenches of similar size (2.70-3.00m), similar vertical obstacles (1.1m vs. 0.85m) side can negotiate gradients up to 60% and circumvent pending between 30 and 40%. control systems shooting and marksmanship are comparable, even in the most basic version of the MBT-2000: the look of the head of the Leopard 2 can scan through 360 ° and has optical magnification levels (x2 and x8) similar to the MBT-2000 (x7.5 ).

The gunner, in the case of the Leopard 2, has an optical magnification of x12, while the MBT-2000 Dual x3 and x10. In both cases, the views of both the gunner and the head are fully stabilized in two axes and the gunner, in both models, channels have day, night and thermal and laser rangefinder built. Even the "humble" and "Third World" FCS (totally westernized) copies of MBT-2000 that came to Peru with the thermal camera that brought Chinese factory farting, I was able to autotracking and hunter-killer mode. And since the tank, even in its most austere, included in the series present refinements Leopard 2 tanks and other contemporaries, such as modular composite armor, NBC protection system and smokeless pots launchers automatically activated, associated with a laser warning system (LWS). APFSDS ammunition at the time requested by Peru to be fired from 125mm Chinese cane the MBT-2000 is the best currently offered by the Republic of China, comparable to that available for the Leopard 2 by Rheinmetall. The ballistic properties of this ammunition were checked in situ by observers Peruvians live fire tests.

So do not get to understand how holding the MBT-2000 assessed the Peruvian Army is "inferior in every way" to Leopard 2. Therefore, it appears that they are fairly equivalent. And after the assessment made "‹"‹by the EP is clear that the development of this tank continues and has included a number of improvements to be maintained at a level competitive with the latest developments in this and other models. As mentioned previously, 55 % component tank new items purchased outside China - including the fire control system, autoloader, system electro-hydraulic control of the turret, engine, transmission, thermal camera, among others - to countries that have participated and continue to participate in the development of this tank as Ukraine, Belarus, France, UK, etc.. defense industries which are more than competent. Pakistan itself, Third, and groncho probrete sees it maintains a significant level of their heavy industries with facilities equipped with precision tools and production lines for the manufacture of tanks, as well as for the development of compounds capable shields to address current and future threats.


Pakistan has a very competent defense industry - what can not be said for its neighbor, India - thanks to its strategic partnerships with countries such as Ukraine and the Republic of China, in the field of development and manufacture of armor has got good amount of successes, such as the licensed production of the Type 69-II tanks and NORINCO Type 85II AP and U.S. M113 APCs, and the development of special steels for the manufacture of guns and, as mentioned previously, shields compounds. MBT-2000 The original version still export only retains 45% of existing legacy components of Chinese-made vehicles, all the rest are foreign components integrated into the tank: the powerpack, as we know, is Ukrainian, as well as the autoloader, the FCS (westernized) is Eastern European (I think that Belarus), thermal camera in later models is European, etc.. and can be integrated upon request components - the EP, for example, did not want to manually Ukrainian transmission but an automatic French - also has built an efficient climate control system that allows the tank to operate at temperatures up to 55 ° C environments saturated with dust and / or fine sand particles. 's MBT-2000 and has a client export - Bangladesh, who asked medidados 2011 a batch of 44 tanks and 3 vehicles recyclers - and has been successfully assimilated by the Pakistani Army itself.

 

[militarysta]

Peruvian trials, the man who drive Leo-2 and MBT 2000 haad this to say about both.

APFSDS ammunition at the time requested by Peru to be fired from 125mm Chinese cane the MBT-2000 is the best currently offered by the Republic of China, comparable to that available for the Leopard 2 by Rheinmetall.

LOL
Maybe with DM-33A1 this round can be offered whit old 2A4.

 

[Dazzler]

LOL
Maybe with DM-33A1 this round can be offered whit old 2A4.

if Chris BV being a tanker didnt know whether it was DM-43 or 33A1 that he fired from Leo 2s, its quite ironic.