Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

@militarysta, but You meassure armor module + turret integral armor plate. There is meassured only armor module.

 

[methos]

militarysta, but You meassure armor module + turret integral armor plate. There is meassured only armor module.

Yes, his values are also much bigger. I estimated the armour module to be probably between 675 mm to 740 mm thick. Based on the size of the measurement triangle, there is less than 270 mm space to the inner diameter of the hatch (i.e., the hole) and between 60 mm and 200 mm to the outer diameter (depending on location and exact size [300 mm or 330 mm] of the measurement triangle).

So, yes my estimates based on this image and militarysta's drawing say more or less the same.

 

[militarysta]

So, yes my estimates based on this image and militarysta's drawing say more or less the same.

On set square is visible whole scale whit numbers (on first photos). So is possible to just caculate (cm after cm) whole set square lenght. So it's posible to estimatous whole armour blokc. Error will be circa 1,5% maybe 3%max).
The result is that:

More or less armour block have the thickest LOS circa 660mm, backplate (acoding to other photos) is thin - 30-40mm RHA max.
Whole armour LOS (in thickest place) is circa 690-700mm thick.

 

[methos]

You are right, the scale does not range from +15 cm to -15 cm, like it normally does (at least in case of mine). However, the overall length (and this was what I used), seems still to be larger than 300 mm (but not as large as 330 mm). Here is a small sketch:

So I would say the armour module is larger than 675 mm but smaller than 700 mm (which is the value for an assumed total hypotenuse length of 310 mm).

More or less armour block have the thickest LOS circa 660mm, backplate (acoding to other photos) is thin - 30-40mm RHA max.

Are you sure about this? In all the drawings (like your old one) the turret backplate seems to be rather thick:

 

[militarysta]

about backplate im almoust sure
the are avaible photos from interior and whole tank
without armour module. visible is there mounted
points an how thick is backplate. its circa 30-40mm

 

[Andrei_bt]

30-40mm ... definetly more.

 

[militarysta]

30-40mm ... definetly more.

IMHO rather not:

a) judging internal video from Chineese propaganda TV there is not anought space for thicker bacplate
b) IMHO all chineese tanks whit "modular" armour have simmilar problem as VT-1 and clones:

IMHO backplate is thinner then we suspected.

 

[militarysta]

You are right, the scale does not range from +15 cm to -15 cm, like it normally does (at least in case of mine). However, the overall length (and this was what I used), seems still to be larger than 300 mm (but not as large as 330 mm).

I did the simplest thing -zoomed first photo and count how many cm is visible on scale on set squere. The mesure values are +/- 13cm, so whole maasure scale lenght is 26cm (whit values) -rest is blank, but I didn't use it couse enought visible is scaled 26cm long part. Using this value I got those results.

 

[militarysta]

EDIT: backplate visible is here:

 

[Sovngard]

What is the weight of the jordanian Falcon low-profile turrets ?

 

[Waffen SS]

@Damian @militarysta is RPG 32 more effective to disable Tanks than RPG 29?

PS. today what is best multi purpose hand held anti-tank gun? And what is best 1 shot disposable anti-tank gun? AT 5?

 

[militarysta]

PS. today what is best multi purpose hand held anti-tank gun? And what is best 1 shot disposable anti-tank gun? AT 5?

there is no anti-tank "gun"
gun it's means barrel, and shells
you propably think about hand held anti-tank granades.

Here is few options IMHO:

1) PzF-3IT600
2) RPG-28
etc

which is better -I don't know.

Main warhed in PzF-3IT have 110mm caliber, and in RPG-28 it's 125mm
for modern SC warhed penetration is in relatio to dimaeter - for modern HEAT (SC) warhed it's ussaly 6,5 in extremly good conditions and labolatory tests circa 7.
110x 6.5-7 = 715-770mm RHA
125x 6.5-7 = 812-875mm RHA
and those values (without precursor warhed) are possible.

Why without precursor? I will explain in next post.

 

[militarysta]

For new, or less advanced users in SC (HEAT) warhed thema:

From many thesis, or scientific in SC warhed thema (HEAT) we know now that most values given 5-10 yers ago for SC warhed where bullshit. Now, wen we have acess for PHDs form Sweden, GB, Poland, etc, wen we can read Balistic Symposium thesis, and declassified CIA files we can say that most values used in internet or military press where overestimated or "taken from space".
The best example is TOW warhed penetration. In most sources we had:

BGM-71A circa 600mm RHA
BGM-71C circa 700mm RHA
BGM-71D TOW 2 circa 800mm RHA
declassified CIA files we know that real pebetration was mucht smaller:
BGM-71A circa 440mm RHA
ITOW circa 650mm RHA etc

As we can see warhed penetration was overestimeted at circa 200mm RHA -it was 25-30%!

Now there is some generall rule - SC warhed (HEAT) for it's optimum "ignit" distance have penetration equal to some sevral SC diameter (in fact: cone diameter (CD) This value is still bigger and bigger.

Exmaple form history, and not so old days:

Tested in half of the 1960s SC warhed (agiant Burlinghton armour) had warhed diameter 127 and 152mm. And had penetration: 584mm and 711mm RHA.
So penetration was equal for 4.5 and 4.67 cone diameter (CD)

Next we can follow Soviet Union warhed CD penetration values:

9М111М (1983) diameter 120mm; penetration: 600mm RHA; CD = 5
9М120 (1985) diameter 130mm; penetration: 800mm RAH; CD= 6,1
9М128 (1985) diameter 125mm, penetration: 650mm RHA, CD = 5,2
and the last not tandem warhed:
9M119M «Инвар» (1992?) diameter 125mm, penetration: 700-750mm RHA, CD = 5,6 to 6

We can follow (or study) german DM-12 and it's clones penetration:

DM12 (erly) 600mm RHA - cone diameter* 115mm - CD = 5,2
DM12 (1990) 700mm RHA - cone diameter 115mm - CD = 6
M830 (USA clone ) up to 750mm RHA - cone diameter 115mm - CD = 6,52

*here cone diameter 115mm is smaller then round diameter -120mm.

And finnaly we had super precision, and used in testes condition test SC warhed:
used in M.Held tests:
1993r, 950mm RHA(!), cone diameter 136mm, CD = 6.98(!)

And this value is propably the biggest avaible now: CD=7 any valye bigger then this ratios seems to be still impossible - propably here is some technology barier not avaible yet to overpas it.

More or less there is some trend - SC warhed penetration was equal circa 4,6 cone diameter in middle 1960s,
at the end of 1970/1980 penetration was equal circa 5,2 cone diameter and in the end of the 1980's it was equal to circa 6 cone diameter (CD). In first half of the 1990s the best avaible penetration was equal to 6,9-7 cone diameter.

The problem is whit double warhed - (warhed whit precursor) -there is problem, becouse most ATGM and AT hand held weapons producers give overestimeted values, or/and they give penetration on RHA plate including precursor...
Good exmaple here is Panzerfaust-3:
Pzf 3-T600 - warhed 110mm - 700mm RHA - CD = 6.36 (ok, possible)
Pzf 3-IT600 - warhed 110mm - 900mm RHA(!) - CD = 8.18 (impossible ).

The difrence is in precursor (first warhed):
Pzf 3-T600:

Notice - how big is the cone angle in precursor - the precursor during work will will form jet whot quite big diameter but small or very small penetration. IMHO precursor in PzF-3T600 is developed to "break" or "crush" ERA tiles and elements inside ERA casete.
Precursor in PzF-3T600 could be just EFP.

Now, diffrent precursor form Pzf 3-IT600:
[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/n5m9amg]
Notice how small is the cone angle in precursor - the precursor during work will will form jet whit small diameter but quite big penetration.

There is no mirracle and 110mm diameter main warhed will have penetration equal to 6.36-6.5 maybe in newest warhed 7 CD.
So in first case (Pzf 3-T600) penetration will be equal to values fromt the manufacturer's brochures -circa 700mm RHA what is fully posible (CD=6.36) but in second case (Pzf 3-IT600) even if we use the best CD ratio (7) we have only circa 770mm RHA penetration - so we have 130mm to small penetration to achive " brochure values" -over 900mm RHA.
The key may be this precursor - it have 34mm diameter and it shoud have 130-150mm RHA penetration - what is possible even whit so small caliber.

propably germans give penetartion value for precursor and main warhed on one plate. IMHO it's only option to achive "over 900mm RHA penetration" from 110mm warhed.

 

[Dejawolf]

What is the weight of the jordanian Falcon low-profile turrets ?

from what i've read: 17 tons with "full armour kit" 13 tons with "reduced protection".

 

[methos]

The problem is whit double warhed - (warhed whit precursor) -there is problem, becouse most ATGM and AT hand held weapons producers give overestimeted values, or/and they give penetration on RHA plate including precursor...
Good exmaple here is Panzerfaust-3:
Pzf 3-T600 - warhed 110mm - 700mm RHA - CD = 6.36 (ok, possible)
Pzf 3-IT600 - warhed 110mm - 900mm RHA(!) - CD = 8.18 (impossible ).

It is possible. In fact it is possible to achieve a charge diameter ratio of more than 10 (see the reference here). The difference most of these are not applicable in real warheads due to the use of exotic materials or weight/size limitations.
The penetration value of 900 mm RHA after ERA is not made up by some journalists, but it is in fact used in the actual Dynamit Nobel Defence brochures.

Now it comes to possible differences: What do all the warheads (TOW, ITOW, AT-8, DM12, M830, etc.) in common? They all use copper liners in their warheads. More modern shaped charges can be made using different materials. TOW-2 for example is claimed to use a tantalum liner which enhances penetration capabilities, while staying at the same caliber.

In case of the Panzerfaust-3T and Panzerfaust-3IT, the liner of the precursor warhead is definetly made of a non-copper material, because according to the brochure, it does not incinerate the explosives inside the ERA tiles (this has been done in laboratories for example with teflon shaped charges).

 

[militarysta]

And finnaly I found in Wisniweski book answer about ERAWA and what is so difrent in ERAWA in compare to other ERA that it can be placed whit minimum angle. Im suprised.

As I presented few yers ago, ERAWA-2 have interesting feature - it perform quite well against singke SC even in angle close to 90. (or 0.):


As we can see, ERAWA-2 vs FAGOT (circa 600mm RHA penetration) even without any angle vs casette (0. degree) reduce penetration to only 120mm RHA (so 80% reduction). For compare unkown Soviet ERA achive almoust no protection for 0. degree.

What is so difrent in ERAWA-1 and ERAWa-2 casettes?

[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/g9erawakasetyj]

I will quote Adam Wiśniewski book PANCERZE budowa, projektowanie i badanie, Warszawa 2001
(A. Wiśniewski, Armours, the build, developning, testing, Warshaw 2001)

page198:
About test whit 0. degree:

A characteristic feature of the ERAWA-1 casette working is significant increase in diameter cumulative jet after go through ERA casette. (...) the cumulative jet diameter is more then twice bigger after moving ERA casette (for 0. degree) and the velocity is smaller by 23,1% in compare to cumulative jet velocity before ERA casette.

in other words - even for the worst case (0. degree) cumulative jet after passing ERAWA-1 casette will have more then twice bigger diameter, and velocity smaller by 23,1%. What give in case ERAWA-1 and single SC more then 67% reduction of the SC warhed penetration.
Values for ERAWA-2 are not given there - only about improved any feature in case protection in compare to older ERAWA-1

BTW: ERAWA-2 was tested against next SC warhed whit precursor:
PG-7VR
LAW
Panzerfaust-3T600
panzerfaust-3IT600

 

[militarysta]

It is possible. In fact it is possible to achieve a charge diameter ratio of more than 10 (see the reference here). The difference most of these are not applicable in real warheads due to the use of exotic materials or weight/size limitations.

But sucht perforamnce was achive in labolatory work, I can't give example used in serial waepons this kind of the SC warhed.

The penetration value of 900 mm RHA after ERA is not made up by some journalists, but it is in fact used in the actual Dynamit Nobel Defence brochures.

And previous overestimted TOW values was used in acual ITOW manufacurer brochures...

Now it comes to possible differences: What do all the warheads (TOW, ITOW, AT-8, DM12, M830, etc.) in common? They all use copper liners in their warheads. More modern shaped charges can be made using different materials. TOW-2 for example is claimed to use a tantalum liner which enhances penetration capabilities, while staying at the same caliber.

Well, I have still some doubts, but I have not enought data after circa 1995 to compare CD relatio in SC warhed. It can be tre, that there is some tchnology breaktrought:
Uploaded with ImageShack.com

In that secnario we have 8-10 CD indeed.

In case of the Panzerfaust-3T and Panzerfaust-3IT, the liner of the precursor warhead is definetly made of a non-copper material, because according to the brochure, it does not incinerate the explosives inside the ERA tiles (this has been done in laboratories for example with teflon shaped charges).

So it's precursor developed to non-ignit ERA, as describe in some in Sout Africa work about sucht style of the precursor? If I remember I sent You those pdf.

 

[militarysta]

If this values above (8-9 CD) are correct then values for Panzerfaust-3IT600, or Kornet could be true:

9P163 Kornet (older ones) - 152mm caliber, up to 1100mm RHA penetration, CD = 7.2
9P163 Kornet - 152mm caliber, up to 1300mm RHA penetration for newest variant, CD = 8.55
Panzerfaust-3IT600, caliber 110mm:
a)"over" 900mm RHA, CD = 8.18
b) up to 1000mm RHA, CD = 9.1
RPG-28, 125mm caliber, over 900mm RHA penetration, CD = 7.2

Vell maybe, you have right Methos, and - SC warhed penetration was equal circa 4,6 cone diameter in middle 1960s,
at the end of 1970/1980 penetration was equal circa 5,2 cone diameter and in the end of the 1980's it was equal to circa 6 cone diameter (CD). In first half of the 1990s the best avaible penetration was equal to 6,9-7 cone diameter, but for the newest cone and SC warhed we have penetration equal to 8-9 CD.

But, I have one problem - only one single good source is this table above (taken from balistic symposium article) - but from the other hand - we have a confirm in data from manufacurer. So, indeed it can be true.

 

[Sovngard]

from what i've read: 17 tons with "full armour kit" 13 tons with "reduced protection".

I suppose that this one (Falcon II) has the "reduced protection" configuration :

 

[Damian]

I suppose that this one (Falcon II) has the "reduced protection" configuration :

IMHO this is the one with maximum protection, note thick armor modules at turret front. For turret sides it would be problematic to install armor modules due to placement of crew hatches.