Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Dazzler]

85III

 

[Dazzler]

rare pic of Osorio with Sheikhs

 

[Dazzler]

another link to the M1 trials...

 

[Dazzler]

That makes the case for cooked up story more stronger... Pakistan knew it will not get it and hence the beautiful story...

nobody would want a 5 million tank that broke down thrice after missing most of its targets. Just because its American, doesnt mean its invinvible. Saudis also raised objections on its initial performance but Americans brought an improved model with sweeter deal which settled them down.

The actual demonstration, in front of so much Army brass, was a big embarrassment to the
Americans. The much-vaunted Abrams tank failed to score many hits and the billion dollar deal
evaporated in the enervating heat.

http://www.combatreform.org/BATTLESafghanistanTheBearTrapDefeatofaSuperpowerMohammedYousaf.pdf

 

[Dazzler]

participants in Saudi mbt trials 1987...

Rare photo showing the vehicle crews of all contestants in Saudi Arabia, 1987. Left to right, Osório, AMX-40, Challenger and M1A1 Abrams

 

[bose]

nobody would want a 5 million tank that broke down thrice after missing most of its targets. Just because its American, doesnt mean its invinvible. Saudis also raised objections on its initial performance but Americans brought an improved model with sweeter deal which settled them down.

Most of the modern tanks has issues initially that is acceptable but missing targets 10 out of 10 [say for example] is nothing but fabrication of actual truth... as simple as that... no one believes that... Either the gunner was in competent or the tests were done to fail intentionally to sabotage the trial...

 

[SilentKiller]

Dear friend,, though i agree with some of your points but arguing on them willl drift this thread and i am sure none of us would want that

sure discussion can happen elsewhere not the argument..

 

[Damian]

The funny thing is this idiotic argument about problem with temperature...

Hello earth to fantasy guys, tank tested in Pakistan was M1A1, the same variant later was successfully combat tested in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq (where is also hot) without any improvements to adapt it to desert conditions.

Why? Because Americans allways test their tanks (just like Soviets) in different climatic conditions before inducting them in to service, this means tests in deserts (and deserts in USA are also very hot and there is a lot of dust and sand) and also in arctic condition on Alaska and Canadian north.

Also mising all 10 of 10 targets is just immposible.

Sorry Dazzler, this is a made up story by you, Pakistanis.

M1 tanks without any significant modifications to it's powerpack (both engine and transmission) have achieved a high readiness status in desert conditions without any problems.

X-1100-3B transmission it's known for it's simple design and reliability, however the cost for this simple design and reliability is somewhat increased inefficency of transmission that's results in two problems, tank can't use the full potential of it's turbine engine, because some power is lost in a transmission (even if gas turbines lost less HP on auxiliaries, avarage about 30HP for gas turbines while diesels lost approx 100+ HP) and it's increases fuel consumption of the AGT-1500C.

Also AGT-1500C needs months of combat operations to be damaged by sand and dust to the level when it's needs regeneration process and general maintnance. Air filters used in M1 are really efficent in cleaning air used by engine.

 

[Damian]

Army Looks to Mount 30mm Cannons on Strykers | Military.com

And some interesting news. US Army will upgrade Strykers with a 30mm automatic cannon in unmanned turret, and are also considering to equip their airborne troops with light tanks that can be air dropped via parachutes, they consider to ressurect M8 AGS light tank.

It will be funny if they will in the end create a requirement to develop a family of lightly armored airborne vehicles, like the russian BMD's.

 

[Sovngard]

participants in Saudi mbt trials 1987...

Rare photo showing the vehicle crews of all contestants in Saudi Arabia, 1987. Left to right, Osório, AMX-40, Challenger and M1A1 Abrams

Any results for these trials ?

The funny thing is this idiotic argument about problem with temperature...

M1 tanks without any significant modifications to it's powerpack (both engine and transmission) have achieved a high readiness status in desert conditions without any problems.

X-1100-3B transmission it's known for it's simple design and reliability, however the cost for this simple design and reliability is somewhat increased inefficency of transmission that's results in two problems, tank can't use the full potential of it's turbine engine, because some power is lost in a transmission (even if gas turbines lost less HP on auxiliaries, avarage about 30HP for gas turbines while diesels lost approx 100+ HP) and it's increases fuel consumption of the AGT-1500C.

Also AGT-1500C needs months of combat operations to be damaged by sand and dust to the level when it's needs regeneration process and general maintnance. Air filters used in M1 are really efficent in cleaning air used by engine.

What does the C stands for ?

Some additional details about :

AGT1500 : http://www.kampfpanzer.de/items/detail/agt1500
X1100-3B : http://www.kampfpanzer.de/items/detail/x1100

 

[Dazzler]

Any results for these trials ?

Secondary sources found on internet suggest that Osorio did better than other competitors, Saudis were impressed but politics stepped in, again. Engesa got bankrupt due to heavy expenses and overly reliant on the Saudi sale which the Saudis assured. Funny thing is, Brazilian army had plans to induct the tank once a sale part is done.

 

[Damian]

What does the C stands for ?

It is just designation code, I seen somewhere such code and it just stay in my mind, perhaps you are right that AGT-1500 is a more proper designation code.

Secondary sources found on internet suggest that Osorio did better than other competitors, Saudis were impressed but politics stepped in, again. Engesa got bankrupt due to heavy expenses and overly reliant on the Saudi sale which the Saudis assured. Funny thing is, Brazilian army had plans to induct the tank once a sale part is done.

I can't understand how anyone can say that a primitive vehicle like EET1 "Osorio" could perform better than more advanced vehicles.

Besides this, "Osorio" is a coffin for it's crew, as it does not have any sort of modern armor, neither thickness of it's armor would be sufficent to protect vehicle and crew.

Saudis are now probably very happy that they purchased M1A2 instead of this... thing.

 

[methos]

Secondary sources found on internet suggest that Osorio did better than other competitors, Saudis were impressed but politics stepped in, again. Engesa got bankrupt due to heavy expenses and overly reliant on the Saudi sale which the Saudis assured. Funny thing is, Brazilian army had plans to induct the tank once a sale part is done.

I've read some Brazialian website, which claims that the main difference was the fire control system, which provided hunter-killer-ability and a higher hit rate on the move. During the mobility tests it was slightly better than the AMX-40, while the Abrams and Challenger 1 both were considered worse (on the Abrams the fuel consumption was aweful). The Challenger 1 and AMX-40 both performed poorly during the firing trials, the M1 Abrams was slightly worse than the Osorio.
The main reason which spoke against the Osorio from the Saudi point of view was that they also wanted to sell the tank to other countries of the region like the Iraq.

I can't understand how anyone can say that a primitive vehicle like EET1 "Osorio" could perform better than more advanced vehicles.

The EE-T1 Osorio is not less advanced than other tanks like the M1A1. The Osorio made use of (at the time it was designed) state-of-the-art components from France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

Besides this, "Osorio" is a coffin for it's crew, as it does not have any sort of modern armor, neither thickness of it's armor would be sufficent to protect vehicle and crew.

You are biased. The Osorio has less armour than modern tanks, but it was designed not to resist state-of-the-art weapons. It was designed for countries like Iraq, Saudi-Arabia and Brazil, which did not expect to encounter modern weapon systems. In 1987 there hasn't been any tank with 120 mm tank gun and modern ammunition (i.e. APFSDS) exported in these regions, only Soviet 125 mm APFSDS with steel core and outdated 105 mm APFSDS for the L7 tank gun (in best case M735A1). Against these threats the level of protection could be sufficient.
The Osorio was tested by the German defence ministry (like some other weapon systems which include essential German components) - they were actually surprised by the level of protection provided by the Brazilian composite armour.

The Osorio is from the physical size very small (the hull for example is just 18 cm longer than that of a T-72, but at the same time the hull is 33 cm narrower) - both the hull and the turret are considerable smaller than that of an Abrams. So a comparision based on the weight can only be done very roughly. The armour thickness seems to be about two feet, which is comparable to the Abrams' hull armour. A protection level equal to that of a T-72A (or even greater) should be possible.

 

[Damian]

The EE-T1 Osorio is not less advanced than other tanks like the M1A1. The Osorio made use of (at the time it was designed) state-of-the-art components from France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

EE-T1 is obsolete vehicle, just like PT-91M is. Integrating some modern components do not make vehicle modern.

You are biased. The Osorio has less armour than modern tanks, but it was designed not to resist state-of-the-art weapons. It was designed for countries like Iraq, Saudi-Arabia and Brazil, which did not expect to encounter modern weapon systems. In 1987 there hasn't been any tank with 120 mm tank gun and modern ammunition (i.e. APFSDS) exported in these regions, only Soviet 125 mm APFSDS with steel core and outdated 105 mm APFSDS for the L7 tank gun (in best case M735A1). Against these threats the level of protection could be sufficient.
The Osorio was tested by the German defence ministry (like some other weapon systems which include essential German components) - they were actually surprised by the level of protection provided by the Brazilian composite armour.

The Osorio is from the physical size very small (the hull for example is just 18 cm longer than that of a T-72, but at the same time the hull is 33 cm narrower) - both the hull and the turret are considerable smaller than that of an Abrams. So a comparision based on the weight can only be done very roughly. The armour thickness seems to be about two feet, which is comparable to the Abrams' hull armour. A protection level equal to that of a T-72A (or even greater) should be possible.

This is example of shortsighted, stupid thinking of people that created requirements for this vehicle.

It means that EE-T1 have a short effective service life, because such vehicle would be difficult to improve survivability.

In the end it is obsolete design without any future perspectives, and I would definetely not want such... thing in armed forces of my country acting as Main Battle Tank, it can be only used in support role for real MBT's.

 

[Sovngard]

EE-T1 have a short effective service life, because such vehicle would be difficult to improve survivability.

All electric turret drive, turret separate ammunition storage, automatic fire-extinguishing system, what more do you want ?



Does Saudis have only trialed the EE-T1 ? In any case, that was a promising MBT but is a pity that its turret side armor looks so thin...



I also find it more odd that British didn't have trialed their Vickers Mk 7 or Mk 7/2.




Herewith a cutaway of the AMX-40 :

 

[Damian]

In any case, that was a promising MBT but is a pity that its turret side armor looks so thin.

Can you explain me, what was promising in this tin can? This vehicle had no perspectives on modern and future battlefield, even against insurgency it would have problems due to inadequate protection from all sides.

I can agree that EE-T1 in the end could be a good lightweight tank, but main battle tank, in late 1980's through 1990's?

All electric turret drive, turret separate ammunition storage, automatic fire-extinguishing system, what more do you want ?

All ammunition was stored in turret isolated ammo storage, you are certain? And electric servomechanisms or automatic fire extinguishing system is nothing special.

Not to mention that armor protection of EE-T1 is inadequate against any serious threat.

 

[Sovngard]

Can you explain me, what was promising in this tin can? This vehicle had no perspectives on modern and future battlefield, even against insurgency it would have problems due to inadequate protection from all sides.

I can agree that EE-T1 in the end could be a good lightweight tank, but main battle tank, in late 1980's through 1990's? Not to mention that armor protection of EE-T1 is inadequate against any serious threat.

With a relatively modest weight (40,9 metric tons and 1040 hp at 2300 RPM for the EE-T2), there was a headroom for a future up-armoring.


Thickness of the front side of the turret seems to be 50 centimeters or more. It's rather correct, despite the fact that we will never know how good was this Brazilian-made composite armor.

All ammunition was stored in turret isolated ammo storage, you are certain? And electric servomechanisms or automatic fire extinguishing system is nothing special.

What about the high-pressure hydraulic traverse system featured at that time on the Leopard 2A4 and the M1A1 Abrams (still today).
Challenger 1 stows its 120mm shells in the same way as the old Chieftain ; everywhere in the fighting compartment...


Osorio cutaway :

 

[Damian]

With a relatively modest weight (40,9 metric tons and 1040 hp at 2300 RPM for the EE-T2), there was a headroom for a future up-armoring.

Up armoring is never easy and simple.

Thickness of the front side of the turret seems to be 50 centimeters or more. It's rather correct, despite the fact that we will never know how good was this Brazilian-made composite armor.

How did you estimated this? I do not see any weld lines for armor cavity on turret roof. It is rather unreasonable to make such claims. However main sight positions, points out rather weak front armor.

What about the high-pressure hydraulic traverse system featured at that time on the Leopard 2A4 and the M1A1 Abrams (still today). Challenger 1 stows its 120mm shells in the same way as the old Chieftain ; everywhere in the fighting compartment...

Hydraulic traverse system is over exaggarated problem, in fact in Iraq, there were incidents where hydraulic system component in crew compartment was hit, oil leaked, and not only it did not catch fire, but also did not made any harm to crew.

As for Challenger 1, well it is not safe storage method, but still safer than normal ammunition racks used in Leopard 2 hull or Osorio, afterall not the high explosive filler in ammunition is big problem, but vurnable propelant charges.

 

[methos]

It means that EE-T1 have a short effective service life, because such vehicle would be difficult to improve survivability.

Because of what? The EE-T1 Osorio should have (like any other modern tank) a weight growth potential of several tonnes. The Leopard 1's weight was increased by 2.4 tonnes on serial production tanks and by a further 3.5 to 4.6 tonnes (depending on prototype) on the Leopard 1A6. The Leopard 2's weight was increased by at least 7.35 tonnes from original production model to 2A6M and will see a further increase on future models.

The EE-T1 uses Diehl 570 tracks capable of handling at least 63 tonnes. The ZF LSG 3000 transmission is also used on the K1 and K1A1, so it can at least handle 1,200 hp and 53.2 tonnes. So if the EE-T1 is an "example of shortsighted, stupid thinking", then the original production model of the M1 Abrams with short turret and 105 mm gun is one too.

Up armoring is never easy and simple.

It can be done in very simple manner, if it is wanted. Even if the armour cavities don't provide enoguh space, there are numerous solutions like welding steel plates at the turret front (like done on some M1A1s prior ODS), adding ERA panels, adding spaced armour or composite armour (Leopard 1A1A1, Leopard 1A6, Leopard 2A5, Leopard C2 with MEXAS).

Hydraulic traverse system is over exaggarated problem, in fact in Iraq, there were incidents where hydraulic system component in crew compartment was hit, oil leaked, and not only it did not catch fire, but also did not made any harm to crew.

Any more exact sources about this? Because it is actually not an over exaggerated problem according to literature and various incidents IRL backed this up.

 

[Damian]

Because of what? The EE-T1 Osorio should have (like any other modern tank) a weight growth potential of several tonnes. The Leopard 1's weight was increased by 2.4 tonnes on serial production tanks and by a further 3.5 to 4.6 tonnes (depending on prototype) on the Leopard 1A6.

And Leopard 1 also do not provide any protection against any significant threat.

The Leopard 2's weight was increased by at least 7.35 tonnes from original production model to 2A6M and will see a further increase on future models.

It is a more modern tank, incomparable with a lightweight, lightly armored vehicle that should not even be called main battle tank.

The EE-T1 uses Diehl 570 tracks capable of handling at least 63 tonnes. The ZF LSG 3000 transmission is also used on the K1 and K1A1, so it can at least handle 1,200 hp and 53.2 tonnes. So if the EE-T1 is an "example of shortsighted, stupid thinking", then the original production model of the M1 Abrams with short turret and 105 mm gun is one too.

EE-T1 is designed per obsolete concept, only because it uses some modern components it does not make it modern and comparable with better designs, like even original M1.

It can be done in very simple manner, if it is wanted. Even if the armour cavities don't provide enoguh space, there are numerous solutions like welding steel plates at the turret front (like done on some M1A1s prior ODS), adding ERA panels, adding spaced armour or composite armour (Leopard 1A1A1, Leopard 1A6, Leopard 2A5, Leopard C2 with MEXAS).

No, up armoring is not easy and simple, especially in case of lightweight vehicle, up armoring can increase stress on vehicles mechanical components leading to increased wear and tear.

Any more exact sources about this? Because it is actually not an over exaggerated problem according to literature and various incidents IRL backed this up.

Operation Iraqi Freedom lessons learned, where there was at least single incident where hydraulic oil reservoir was hit by shaped charge jet, oil did not catch fire, crew was not harmed by it. Tank that was hit is a 3-69 AR A23, hit in to left side of hull. Hydraulic reservoir had a large exit hole in it done by shaped charge jet. Hydraulic oil did not ignited, no reports about harm done to crew.

I don't know what real life accidents you have in mind, in Europe? In older tanks? Perhaps Americans have a better solution that reduces danger of hydraulic oil, and why not?