Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

I wonder if eSim has always used the calculations of Paul Lakowski to establish these protection levels.

They did, but used newer, never published data.

 

[Andrei_bt]

They did, but used newer, never published data.

what a shame ((((

 

[Sovngard]

They did, but used newer, never published data.

Ammunition Data - SBWiki


Penetration values also appear to be false if we look at the L23, L27 (underestimated) or DM33, M829A3 (overestimated).

 

[Dejawolf]

Ammunition Data - SBWiki


Penetration values also appear to be false if we look at the L23, L27 (underestimated) or DM33, M829A3 (overestimated).

putting numbers into odematt
rod length: 815mm rod diameter 20mm, speed 1555m/s density 18500 and material DU, i get 776mm penetration for M829A3

 

[militarysta]

(...)

Andrei I have very important question, you had been written sevral articles about Soviet tank protection.
You put some draw about armour composition:

Left is T-72B (Ob.184) next two are from T-80U and other compositon, can You write what composition was firs (those whit polymer cells?) and what was later. Maybe on what tanks eacht was used?

 

[militarysta]

@Damian - dopiero teraz odczytałem PM

 

[Waffen SS]

This thread has over 400 pages now, now it should be closed.

Tank is today obsolete. Tanks are very costly and ineffective without infantry cover. We should concentrate more on attack Helicopters and light cars like US humvee fitted with ATGMs as well as infantry carried RPG 7's or Carl Gustav like weapons.

During 1st Chechnya war, Chechen separatists armed with RPG 7s halted an entire Russian Armour attack on Grozny, destroying many T 80 tanks.

Tis concept of Tank attack is an early WW2 era concept, when anti-tank guns were heavy like German Pak 38, even by 1943 Tank become easy victim of German Panzerfraust, Panzerschrek, US Bazooka, British PIAT, and of course Molotov Cocktails.


American anti-team.


German anti tank tactics.

Even now in Syria, Free Syrian Army is destroying Syrian Tanks using RPG 29's,

 

[Waffen SS]

More ever 1 question may I ask which is better Smooth bore gun or rifled gun as Tank's main armament?

And auto loader system or manually loading system?

What about Polish PT 91 tanks?

The PT-91 Twardy is a main battle tank designed by Obrum and manufactured by Bumar Labedy, Poland, to meet the requirements of the Polish and Malaysian Army. It is derived from the T-72M1 battle tank currently in service with the Polish Army.
The battle tank is manufactured by upgrading the T-72M1 with a dual-axis stabilised fire-control system, explosive reactive armour, a more efficient and powerful engine, and advanced automatic loader. The PT-91 entered into service in 1995.
PT-91 main battle tank orders and deliveries

About 20 PT-91 tanks were procured by the Polish Army in 1993 for field tests and armed forces trails. By 2002, 233 PT-91 had been acquired by the Polish Army.
The Malaysian Army placed a $370m order with Bumar Labedy for 48 PT-91M tanks and 15 support vehicles, which were delivered between 2007 and 2009. The Malaysian Army's PT-91M Pendekar reached operational readiness in October 2010.
PT-91 Twardy variants

The PT-91 was followed by five variants, namely PT-91A Twardy, PT-91Z Hardy, PT-91M Pendekar, PT-91E/Ex and PT-91P.
The PT-91A is an advanced version of the PT-91 and is powered by a S-1000 engine producing 1,000hp. The variant is used as a demonstrator in military expos.
The PT-91Z Hardy is equipped with an advanced SAGEM Savan-15 fire control system.
"The PT-91 is derived from the T-72M1 battle tank in service with the Polish Army."
The PT-91M Pendekar is an export variant deployed by Malaysia. It is equipped with an enhanced 125mm gun, S-1000 engine, French fire control system, communication system and hydropneumatic transmission.
The PT-91 E/Ex is also an export variant supplied to different countries. The PT-91E is designated as SP1, while the PT-91Ex is named as SP2.
The PT-91P is an advanced version of the PT-91Ex, used as a demonstrator for the SITDEF Peru 2009 military expo. It is fitted with a Drawa fire control system, advanced thermal sight as well as a communication system.
PT-91 development

The development of the PT-91 began in July 1991 as part of the T-72 modernisation programme. The Ministry of Poland decided to upgrade the T-72 battle tank with a new fire control system and engine rather than purchasing extra Russian tanks for the Polish Army. The upgraded version of the T-72 was renamed the PT-91 Twardy. Bumar Labey is licensed to manufacture the PT-91 Twardy in the Poland region.
The battle tank features a steel anti-cumulative screen for displaying the route information and laser beams approaching the tank.
PT-91 self protection

"The PT-91 Twardy is fitted with a single 125mm main gun, which is capable of firing 42 rounds of ammunitions."
Erawa is advanced armour developed by the Poland Military Technical Institute for protecting the PT-91 from highly explosive grenades and missiles. It has been improved by eliminating the gaps between the bricks and offers better protection compared with explosive reactive armour (ERA). The armour occupies 9m² of space in the vehicle.
The modern laser warning system (LWS) identifies the laser beams used by the ATM launchers or missile guiding system. It protects the battle tank from missiles by automatically firing smoke grenades from two banks, each with six launchers. The commander can also fire these grenades manually.
PT-91 Twardy armaments

The PT-91 Twardy is fitted with a single 125mm main gun, which can fire 42 rounds of ammunitions. It is also equipped with a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun, and 24 smoke grenade dispensers. The 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun and 7.62mm machine gun can fire 300 and 2,000 rounds respectively.
It is also incorporated with an autoloader, which reduces the workload of the tank crew. The autoloader can fire ammunitions at the rate of 10-12 rounds a minute. The traverse and elevation range of the battle tank is 360°, and +5.30° to +14° respectively.
PT-91 Twardy fire-control system

A fire control system comprising a gunner station is fitted in the PT-91 MBT. It has been modernised by replacing the soviet stabiliser with the TPDK-1, a stabiliser from Slovakia, which offers night-fighting capability.
"The PT-91 Twardy is powered by a single S-12U supercharged diesel engine."
The ballistic digital computer processes the information gathered by sensors, laser range finders, and manually inputs what is provided by the gunner or commander to determine the fire solutions.
The hunter-killer feature is obtained in the battle tank by combining both the gunner and commander station, which helps to track and destroy multiple targets quickly.
The integration of a dual-axis stabilised fire control system and electro-hydraulic gun stabilisation system can detect, identify, acquire and track a target efficiently, even in adverse weather conditions.
The crew compartment is equipped with an automatic fire suppression system (AFSS), integrated with infrared detectors that aid in detecting fire. The Halon 1301 suppresses any fire breakout in the compartment.
The engine compartment of the PT-91 is protected by an automated operating system that senses fire based on temperature-sensing Firewire and inhibits the fire with Halon 1211.
S-12U supercharged diesel engine

The PT-91 Twardy is powered by a single S-12U supercharged diesel engine, which can produce up to 634kW power. The S-12U is an advanced version of the Soviet V-46-6 engine; a modernised fuel and air injection system is responsible for increasing the power of the engine. The latest Twardy variants are fitted with 1000hp S-1,000 turbocharged engines.
PT-91 mobility

PT-91 can accomplish a maximum road speed of 60km/h. In the low gear, the vehicle can travel with 7km/h speed during low-speed manoeuvring. It has been designed to ford to a depth of 1.2m and 5m using torsion bar suspension. The Twardy can also cross rivers with water obstacles of 1m to 2m in depth without any preparation.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/twardymainbattletank/

Argentine TAM tank is also good.

Specifications-

Entered service 1976
Crew 4 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 30.5 t
Length (gun forward) 8.23 m
Hull length 6.78 m
Width 3.12 m
Height 2.42 m
Armament
Main gun 105-mm rifled
Machine guns 2 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range - 7 to + 18 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 50 rounds
Machine guns ?
Mobility
Engine MTU MB-883 Ka500 diesel
Engine power 720 hp
Maximum road speed 75 km/h
Range 550 / 940 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step 0.9 m
Trench 2.5 m
Fording 1.4 m
Fording (with preparation) 4 m

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tam.htm

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Waffen SS

I am fairly certain tank-like vehicles are here to stay for a while longer. But eventually, just like the Knights of old, they will be replaced by something that is revolutionary.

Tanks like the PT-91 and TAM are more or less obsolete compard to current mbts like the Oplot-M, T-90MS,etc.

 

[Damian]

Tank is today obsolete. Tanks are very costly and ineffective without infantry cover. We should concentrate more on attack Helicopters and light cars like US humvee fitted with ATGMs as well as infantry carried RPG 7's or Carl Gustav like weapons.

Wrong, tanks are not obsolete, to the contrary, US Army for example made a lot of analisis of all conflicts they went through, also assymetric ones, and they not only don't see any alternative for tank, but they changed their mind 180 degrees and believe that they actually need new revolutionary main battle tank to replace M1. However due to economic problems, US Army plans to start more seriosu work on new MBT after 2020-2025.

Attack helicopters however, proved their vurnability, in Iraq, in 2003, lightly armed Iraqi forces were capable to stop AH-64's and Americans could not complete their tasks using them. On the other hand, Iraqis were incapable to stop heavy armor mechanized forces.

RPG-7 and Carl Gustav are obsolete weapons if we consider them as a weapon to fight with modern armored vehicles like MBT's, especially MBT's with addon armor.

During 1st Chechnya war, Chechen separatists armed with RPG 7s halted an entire Russian Armour attack on Grozny, destroying many T 80 tanks.

You seems to not known details eh?

So for your information, Russian forces were commanded by incompetent morons, were poorly trained, and for worse, due to lack of time for proper preparations and corruption, tanks were equipped with empty cassettes of dynamic protection, simply there were no reactive elements in explosive reactive armor making it ineffective, just empty inert boxes.

Tis concept of Tank attack is an early WW2 era concept, when anti-tank guns were heavy like German Pak 38, even by 1943 Tank become easy victim of German Panzerfraust, Panzerschrek, US Bazooka, British PIAT, and of course Molotov Cocktails.

You are wrong. Actually there were problems with Bazooka and Piat. Molotov cocktails are also in effective especially if a modern tank have closed hatches, then the crew is hermetically isolated from the outside world and burning gasoline can't get inside.

And no, tanks were not easy victims.

Even now in Syria, Free Syrian Army is destroying Syrian Tanks using RPG 29's,

Tanks that are obsolete and have obsolete protection... may I ask how old are you, you make absurdal conclusions without even deeper understanding of reality?

More ever 1 question may I ask which is better Smooth bore gun or rifled gun as Tank's main armament?

Smoothbore guns have future, rifled guns are obsolete armament system.

And auto loader system or manually loading system?

For future tanks, autoloading system is the only option. By using autoloader we can reduce internal volume, thus reducing weight without nececity to reduce protection.

What about Polish PT 91 tanks?

PT-91 is just a modernized T-72M1, nothing special about it, and we in Poland consider it as obsolete as whole family of T-72 tanks. We plan to sold or scrap all T-72M1's in near future, and then also PT-91's, we will replace them with Leopard 2 tanks and new vehicle based on multipurpose platform that is designed by PHO and BAE.

Argentine TAM tank is also good.

Good? What is good in this obsolete piece of lightly armored junk incapable to survive any type of hand held anti tank weapon?

I am fairly certain tank-like vehicles are here to stay for a while longer. But eventually, just like the Knights of old, they will be replaced by something that is revolutionary.

Yes, old tanks will be replaced by new revolutionary tanks, simple as that.

Just accept the fact that there is no alternative for a tank.

What do you except, a mech's to replace tanks? Mechs are one of the most moronic ideas humanity was capable to create. What next, hovercrafts? To move they need to be lightweight, thus are not survivable.

 

[debasree]

future tanks will be light & fast..so that it can be transported one place to other quickly...as firepower mobility inteligence ..& communication rulls tomorrows battlefirld

 

[Damian]

future tanks will be light & fast..so that it can be transported one place to other quickly...as firepower mobility inteligence ..& communication rulls tomorrows battlefirld

How light and how fast? What about their protection and survivability. And guess what, no, inteligence, communications will not rulls battlefield. Over reliance on electronics is plain stupidity.

Also people tend to forget about one basic principle, tanks are vehicles which have superior balance in survivability, firepower and mobility compared to other fighting vehicles, which means they are most balanced and most universal battle machines designed ever by humanity.

 

[Dejawolf]

future tanks will be fitted with unmanned turrets, and a personal drone to scout ahead in urban warfare.

 

[Dejawolf]

putting numbers into odematt
rod length: 815mm rod diameter 20mm, speed 1555m/s density 18500 and material DU, i get 776mm penetration for M829A3

actually, talked With Nils, for armour penetration we use target hardness of 237 BHN as recommended by odermatt.

in that case, things looks a little different.

we get a perforation of 856mm. almost exactly the number in SB.

 

[militarysta]

actually, talked With Nils, for armour penetration we use target hardness of 237 BHN as recommended by odermatt. .

Greate but cast steel on soviet tanks was 270HB so more "hard", in all welded sowviet turret, and since 1991 there where used in "special armour" and in welded turret construction ETs steel whit circa 25% bigger HB value. So in fact those M829A3 penetrate slighty less armour IMHO

 

[The Last Stand]

This thread has over 400 pages now, now it should be closed.

Any specific reason, Herr Fuhrer?

Tank is today obsolete. Tanks are very costly and ineffective without infantry cover. We should concentrate more on attack Helicopters and light cars like US humvee fitted with ATGMs as well as infantry carried RPG 7's or Carl Gustav like weapons.

Obsolete? How?

Costly. Yes. Ineffective without infantry cover? Not so much. Attack helicopters are so much more vulnerable than tanks, they cannot stand a 12.7 mm round in the right place. How can you forget such a trivial thing?. Same for the Humvee. A simple light-weight mine will send it sky-rocketing. RPG-7 is obsolete. So is the Carl Gustav.

During 1st Chechnya war, Chechen separatists armed with RPG 7s halted an entire Russian Armour attack on Grozny, destroying many T 80 tanks.

Tis concept of Tank attack is an early WW2 era concept, when anti-tank guns were heavy like German Pak 38, even by 1943 Tank become easy victim of German Panzerfraust, Panzerschrek, US Bazooka, British PIAT, and of course Molotov Cocktails.

The Russkies placed foremost importance on ERA instead of integral armour, and forgot to place the explosive liner in the boxes. Completely their mistake. The tank is not to blame.

Molotov cocktails?

They never worked 90% of the time even in 1939, and by 1941, throwing Molotovs was a joke. Shaped Charges were revolutionary at that time, penetrating heavy armour easily. Not anymore. Composite armour effectively made Shaped charges look like a joke when they were introduced, and strive to continue the joke. Comparing 1940's armour with today's complexities is a futile action, and a waste of time.

Even now in Syria, Free Syrian Army is destroying Syrian Tanks using RPG 29's,

Do you really think Syrian tanks are modern right now? T-55 can't do anything but roll over and surrender when they face the modern RPG-type weapons.

Different eras. Different logic. Don't compare them.

And tanks are definitely dangerous on an open field, you have forgotten the immense psychological impact the hulking 60-ton heavy machines produce. They create fear. They destroy minds. They make things disappear.

Post-traumatic stress disorder makes soldiers go mad. And seeing a tank turning his best friend into ashes is not to be received lightly by a soldier.

 

[Sovngard]

Within the framework of the SCORPION programme, a part of the Leclerc tank fleet will be upgraded to the Standard F1 by 2018.

- Composite side skirts protect now the fighting compartment on its whole lenght, cage armor is added on the non-ballistic side skirts who protected the engine compartment (taken from the AZUR urban warfare kit)

- Four foldable wire cutting devices (two on the glacis, near the rear-view mirrors and two others on the of the turret in front of the episcopes).

- Originally mounted Galix launcher are now larger in the purpose to carry more grenades (each can hold now ten 80,5 mm grenades).

- Two extra batteries of Galix launchers (each has four 80,5 mm grenades) on the forward part of the turret.

- Laser warning receiver : two fitted alongside the newly added Galix launchers and another mounted on the turret bustle.

- The ATO remote weapon station is finally installed (French ANF1 7.62 mm machine gun will be normaly replaced by the the Belgian FN MAG).

- The storage bins who are mounted on the roof, beside the air conditioning unit are now thicker and are probably strengthened against threats from above.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Shershen APS

Andrei-bt - Новые разработки активной защиты для БМП-2 и Т-64БВ

 

[Waffen SS]

@Keshav Murali and @Damian

I know in First Russia Chechnya war, Russian troops were led by incompetent persons and their inability to operate Tanks properly, but what about Soviet Afghanistan war? See how many Soviet Tanks, IFV were destroyed by Mujahideen RPG 7 and mines. This time they were not operated by morons. You understand? Look at what happened to Israeli armour in Yom Kippur by Egyptian infantry armed with AT 3 Sagger.

The reference of RPG 7 and Carl Gustaf I made that was only for example. For more modern see RPG 29.

Of course Tanks are hard to destroy completely, but they can be easily disabled. And disabled Tanks can be captured by enemy infantry easily.

Tanks can stay far longer in battle field true and in a short time Helicopter can give a massive punch what tank cant even though staying longer. A Helicopter or an attack aircraft firing auto cannons, missiles and dropping bombs can cause more panic among infantry.

There are many examples that air attack blunted entire armour assault, see at what happened on Longewalla, Highway of Death, but did any one ever see tanks repelling an air attack

Syrian army also has T 80's, Or US M1 abrams being disabled by RPG 29?

In Gulf war, not all Coalition air power was dedicated to attack Tanks, Estimated one-third of it was used to destroy Iraqi scud launchers, see what US A 10's did to Iraqi tanks and German Ju 87 Stukas to Soviet Tanks.

 

[militarysta]

I know in First Russia Chechnya war, Russian troops were led by incompetent persons and their inability to operate Tanks properly, but what about Soviet Afghanistan war? See how many Soviet Tanks, IFV were destroyed by Mujahideen RPG 7 and mines. This time they were not operated by morons. You understand?

During Afgan war, Soviet Army had the same poor trening as in 1994. That was conscript army, whit soliders after less then 5 month trening. Whit ussaly not very good quality. Of course there was really god trening units: spetznaz, air assult, etc, but most of Army toops are poor treined. So you thesis is wrong - trening and skills where alomust the same in Afgan and firs Chechen war. In both wars scenario was simillar - troops "skils" where better which eacht year of the war. But they started from very low level.

Look at what happened to Israeli armour in Yom Kippur by Egyptian infantry armed with AT 3 Sagger.

Look at what happened to Egiptian and Syrian armour in Yom Kippur by Israeli 105mm tank guns
ps. what is bigger number 400 or ~2000 hmm?

Of course Tanks are hard to destroy completely, but they can be easily disabled. And disabled Tanks can be captured by enemy infantry easily.

False statment.

Syrian army also has T 80's,

No, Syrian army havn't single T-80 in any variant.

Or US M1 abrams being disabled by RPG 29?

They are 3 known cases when somthing penetrate side M1 Abrams turret armour: 1x AT-4HP 1x RPG-29, 1x unkown, after added TUSK whit XM32 tiles on turret sides we have no single mentioned about penetrated side armour.

There are many examples that air attack blunted entire armour assault, see at what happened on Longewalla, Highway of Death, but did any one ever see tanks repelling an air attack
In Gulf war, not all Coalition air power was dedicated to attack Tanks, Estimated one-third of it was used to destroy Iraqi scud launchers, see what US A 10's did to Iraqi tanks and German Ju 87 Stukas to Soviet Tanks.

Lol, you really havn't bigger idea about what you are writting?
On famous "Highway of Death" from over 1400 destroyed vechicles they are only 14 destroyed Tanks and 14 other armoured vechicles.

Airs Strikes against armoured force generally had faild before 2003. There was not good enought technology. For example:

During Kosovo War NATO air strikes where able to destroy only few serbian tanks.

Firtsly NATO propaganda claims (gen Henry Shelton) that Serbian forces in Kosovo lost in air strikes 120 tanks, 220 IFV, 450 artilery guns and motars.
But then went to Kosovo NATO MEAT (Munitions Effectiveness Assessment Team) comission.
MEAT team had worked in whole Kosovo and studied all wracks and air strikes places and consist that Serbian Army in Kosovo lost in air strikes:
14 tanks,
18 IFV,
20 artilery guns.
ALL: 58 destroyed targets.

In 1991 in Iraq was the same story - Air Strikes had low efectivness:

between 17.01-23.02 1991 when air strikes where started (withut land battle) we had diffrent sources for Iraq losses:

USCENTCOM from februar 1991:
1772 tanks destroyed
948 IFV and armoured vechicles

USCENTCOM from march 1991:
1388 tanks destroyed
929 IFV and armoured vechicles

DIA raport:
579 tanks destroyed
400 IFV and armoured vechicles

CIA raport:
449 tanks destroyed
277 IFV and armoured vechicles

As you can see the ussaly most accurate inteligence raport give 3-4 times smaller values then previous sources.
But it's not enought. After land battle there where sent few research groups to assume how many tergets had been destroyed by air, land and other forces.
One of those gropus had acess to 163 destroyed Iraq tanks from Tawalkana Tank.Div, 12 Tank Div, and 3 Tank Div.
All of those division had fight in Kuwait and Iraq. From 163 tanks there where:
-78 tanks without any damage (abandoned)
-28 tanks where destoryed by Air Strikes
- 57 tanks where destroyed by Land Forces.

Based on this tested they assume that in Air Strikes can destoryed circa 160 tanks durign ODS.

Next funny thing was about "Hellfire myth" - firstly USCENTCOM claimed that Ah-64A fired about 5000 Hellfire and destroyed over 600 Iraq tanks. After the war they changed they opinion to: " destoryed 550-600 vechicles - and 10-20% armoured vechicles from that number"
So writing this clearly: not "600 tanks" but 600 vechicles and only 55-120 IFV, SPHs. APC and tanks. Tanks number is not given and "hide" between IFV, SPHs, and APCS in those "55-120) destoryed by Hellfire "hard targets".
Nice - isn't it?