Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Sovngard]

NATO tanks have semi-modular composite armor, yes it's repairs and replacement should take a bit longer than replacement of fully modular armor, but then again, both solutions have advantages and disadvantages.

Are you sure of that ?

1980s western MBTs design like the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 (or even the C1 Ariete and Challenger 2) have their composite armours covered by an outer metalic shell made of welded steel plates.

So you must grab a blowtorch, cut and remove these heavy plates in order to access to the cavities that house the composite armor (if the composite assembly is in a metalic box, it would be put and removed easily once opened, but I wonder if it is truly the case).

semi-modular composite armor

For me it means the kind of armor package fitted on the Leopard 2A5 and A6.

both solutions have advantages and disadvantages.

Which ?

 

[Damian]

Are you sure of that ?

Yes.

1980s western MBTs design like the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 (or even the C1 Ariete and Challenger 2) have their composite armours covered by an outer metalic shell made of welded steel plates.

So you must grab a blowtorch, cut and remove these heavy plates in order to access to the cavities that house the composite armor (if the composite assembly is in a metalic box, it would be put and removed easily once opened, but I wonder if it is truly the case).

Yes, and this is why it is semi-modular. Armor is not easy replaceable (fully modular) but still replaceable. For example you can't replace armor in T-72M1, as due to production process it is fixed inside turret armor cavity.

For me it means the kind of armor package fitted on the Leopard 2A5 and A6.

I do not understand? Leopard 2A5/A6/A7 have the same semi-modular composite armor in turret and hull cavities just like M1 series, older Leopard 2 versions, Challenger 1 & 2, C1 Ariete or Leclerc.

If you mean the outer wedges on turret, these are just NERA applique, mounted tu turret on mounting points and hinges as separate modules and are not vehicle basic protection.

Which ?

Semi-modular armor appears to be less fragile in most cases, as special armor inserts are inside solid cavities (boxes) made from turret and hull basic structure. Some types of modular armor are more fragile and prone to damage, as we could see on photos of two damaged Merkava Mk4A tanks.

Of course everything depends on armor design, for example BM "Oplot" also have front turret armor as modular, and special armor modules are more solid than in case of Merkava Mk4. This is because in case of BM "Oplot" case, modules (boxes) are made from thick steel plates welded togheter and then mounted to the turret front.

 

[ramakrishna]

Wish you happy new year

 

[Damian]

Internet is a funny place when some things that should not be seen are seen.

From Canada, Leopard 2A4 front hull armor cavity opened and some special armor filler visible, not much but still.

(Modifications to photo made by Militarysta)

 

[militarysta]

My idea:

~40mm front plate + NERA +NERA +NERA + 50mm HHS + cermacis + 50mm HHS + cermacis + 50mm HHS + cermacis + 40mm backplate

In this scenario [without NERA layers we have:
400mm vs APFSDS
430mm vs HEAT

Including at least 3 NERA layers we shoud have protection like: ~500mm vs APFSDS 700-750mm vs HEAT

 

[Sovngard]

My idea:

~40mm front plate + NERA +NERA +NERA + 50mm HHS + cermacis + 50mm HHS + cermacis + 50mm HHS + cermacis + 40mm backplate

In this scenario [without NERA layers we have:
400mm vs APFSDS
430mm vs HEAT

Including at least 3 NERA layers we shoud have protection like: ~500mm vs APFSDS 700-750mm vs HEAT

What did you mean by NERA ?

A steel plate which deforms in a thicker rubber layer while absorbing the projectile's energy much as possible before the plate breaks ?


Some rumors say that the armor was improved on the A4 model with titanium and tungsten inserts. (it was the first Leopard 2 armor upgrade since its introduction in late 1979).

 

[Damian]

What did you mean by NERA ?

NERA - Non Energetic Reactive Armor, this is what he means. There are different types of materials that can be used in NERA type protection.

 

[Damian]

Rather unique video, showing how autoloaders from 6ETs series, used in T-64, T-80 and T-84 tanks works.

 

[Haman10]

talking about home made tanks ?

thats when iran can showcase its zolfigar MBT

panoramic systems :

so give an small description , the zolfigar 3 MBT is an iranian heavily upgraded T-72S MBT . all the systems from the targetting , reloading and ......

are replaced with iranian version . also the chassis was modified .....

maybe i can describe the upgrades completely one day .....

 

[Haman10]

i dont know why i cant edit my post above , but here are some more pics :

 

[militarysta]

Hello guys, I have some hull factory draws whit thickenss, so I decide to recalculate this using Dejawolf page values, and NI Stalii data
Im almoust soure that is imposibble to find better (more accurate) estimatous soviet tank hull in internet.
Special thanks to Wiedzmin user from otvaga2000 - спасибо!

STEF is recalculate as 0.4 vs KE in RHA (thickness effectivens)

T-72M1:
16 mm RHA + 60 mm RHA + 105 mm STEF + 50 mm RHA

for 68. angle (so frontal hull armour slopped at 22. degree) we have:
42mm HHS + 160mm RHA + 280mm STEF + 146mm RHS
42mm *1.3 + 160mm + 280 *0.4 + 146mm = 472mm RHA vs APFSDS.



T-72B z 1985:
65mm RHA, 20mm STEF(?) + 65mm RHA + 20mm STEF (?) + 50mm RHA


for 68. angle (so frontal hull armour slopped at 22. degree) we have:
173mm RHA + 53mm STEF+ 173mm RHS +53mm STEF + 133mm RHA=
520mm vs APFSDS
*WARNING - here Im not sure armour composition inside.



T-80BV:
50mm RHA + 35mm STEF +50mm RHA +35mm STEF +50mm RHA

for 68. angle (so frontal hull armour slopped at 22. degree) we have:
133mm RHA + 93mm STEF + 133mm RHA + 93mm STEF + 133mm RHA so we have:
~473mm RHA vs APFSDS.


T-80U:
25mm+ luka na ERA + 50mm RHA + 35mm STEF +50mm HHS +35mm STEF +50mm RHA

for 68. angle (so frontal hull armour slopped at 22. degree) we have:
66mm + gap for ERA+ 133mm RHA + 93mm STEF + 133mm HHS + 93mm STEF + 133mm RHA so we have: ~580mm vs APFSDS

T-80UD since 1991:
25mm RHA, gap for ERA, 50mm RHA, 30mm ceramics, 50mm RHA/HHS, gap, 30mm ceramics, 50mm RHA.

for 68. angle (so frontal hull armour slopped at 22. degree) we have:
66mm RHA + gap for ERA +135mm RHA + 80mm ceramics + 135mm RHA/HHS + gap whit distancer +80mm ceramics + 135mm RHA.
so we have: ~630-640mm vs APFSDS without ERA



T-72B since circa 1988:
25mm RHA + gap for ERA +60mm RHA +5mm rubber +3mm stell +19mm gap +3mm RHA
5mm rubber +60mm HHS +10mm anti-radiation cover +50mm RHA

for 68. angle (so frontal hull armour slopped at 22. degree) we have:
66mm RHA + gap for ERA +165mm RHA +14mm rubber +8mm RHA + 53mm gap +8mm RHA +14mm rubber +165mm HHS +30mm anti radiation cover +140mm RHA
so we have: at least 600mm RHA in only RHA plates sum, but there is double NERA so protection will be bigger then only mm RHA sum.
https://imageshack.com/i/f5k5glj
so whole protection is [more then 600mm vs APFSDS, propably circa 640mm without ERA



Results:

T-72M1: ~472mm RHA vs APFSDS.

T-72B z 1985: ~520mm vs APFSDS

T-80BV: ~473mm RHA vs APFSDS.

T-80U: ~580mm vs APFSDS

T-80UD(1991): ~630-640mm vs APFSDS

T-72 Model 1989: more then 600mm (640?) vs APFSDS.

and we have ammo (APFSDS) penetration valuse for: DM26, DM33, M829, but recalcluate for 68. angle:
DM26 for 68. degree (22. slopped plate) we have circa 452mm RHA on 2000m
DM33A1 for. 68 degree (22. slopped plate) we have circa 500mmRHA on na 2000m
M829 for 68. degree (22. slopped plate) we have circa 530mm RHA on 2000m
M829A1 for 68. degree (22. slopped plate) we have circa 600-640mm RHA[/b] on 2000m

 

[militarysta]

For compare I had tried to estimatous Leopard-2A3/A4 armour using sevral diffrent factors and I got values:

vs APFSDS turret for 840-740-650mm LOS
570-500-440mm RHA

vs APFSDS hull (for circa 600mm LOS)
500mm RHA

we can compare this whit soviet APFSDS:
3BM-32: A: 500mm G: ~460mm
3BM-42: A: 460mm G: ~430mm

(A- achivable paenetration, G -guaranteed)



vs HEAT turret for 840-740-650mm LOS
911-800-700mm RHA

vs HEAT hull (for circa 600mm LOS)
700mm RHA

vs.
9М111М (1983) penetration: 600mm RHA;
9М120 (1985) penetration: 800mm RAH;
9М128 (1985) penetration: 650mm RHA,
9M119M «Инвар» (1992?) penetration: 700-750mm RHA

 

[Sovngard]

Hello guys, I have some hull factory draws whit thickenss, so I decide to recalculate this using Dejawolf page values, and NI Stalii data
Im almoust soure that is imposibble to find better (more accurate) estimatous soviet tank hull in internet.
Special thanks to Wiedzmin user from otvaga2000 - спасибо!

Results:

T-72M1: ~472mm RHA vs APFSDS.

T-72B z 1985: ~520mm vs APFSDS

T-80BV: ~473mm RHA vs APFSDS.

T-80U: ~580mm vs APFSDS

T-80UD(1991): ~630-640mm vs APFSDS

T-72 Model 1989: more then 600mm (640?) vs APFSDS.

Your statements only rely on these two schematics ?

I'm quite impressed by the high proportion of steel used in these composite armours.

I don't think that the Leopard 2A3 has the same armor package as the Leo 2A4.

 

[militarysta]

Your statements only rely on these two schematics ?

Not only, I have sevral factory draws whit thickens on them, Wiedźmin based mostly on big part of this draw (exept few of them). So those Wiedźmin's draw are secondary after factory draw. Values given above are taken from factory draws, for example:


or patent draws:

Of course I had draws in HQ -this posted here is low-res for obvious resons.

I'm quite impressed by the high proportion of steel used in these composite armours.

Yes, it's one of the reson of quite hight protection - "a lot of the mm RHA" it's maybe primitive but quite effective.

I don't think that the Leopard 2A3 has the same armor package as the Leo 2A4.:

But it have. We have few generation of the special armour in Leopard-2:

2A0-2A1
2A3-2A4 (erly)
2A4 since 1986 -1992 ( but most sources give the 1988)

 

[313230]

So T series had more armor and lighter than Leo2 series, even when not counting ERA? If those T series replace their RHA with dual or triple hardness steel then protection may increase ~1.5 time (i.e latest T90 series) and then add ERA it may reach over 1m vs KE?

Any estimation for the turret of T series?

PS: @militarysta, while you wrote 'without' correctly, you often wrote 'whit' which is incorrect. The correct word is 'with', not 'whit'

 

[militarysta]

If those T series replace their RHA with dual or triple hardness steel then protection may increase ~1.5 time (i.e latest T90 series) and then add ERA it may reach over 1m vs KE?

1) It's impossible for weight resons. Propably circa 600mm RHA was max but only for slopped armour resons. Bigger protection was achive by using NERA or ceramisc layers.
2) ERA is now not enought against modern KE weapons.
IMHO: DM53, DM63, M829A2, M829A3, KEW-E3 will penetrate sucht armour whit ERA quite easy.

 

[The Last Stand]

PS: @militarysta, while you wrote 'without' correctly, you often wrote 'whit' which is incorrect. The correct word is 'with', not 'whit'

Knowing him, he does it all the time. His native language isn't English, so lay off a bit.

 

[313230]

1) It's impossible for weight resons. Propably circa 600mm RHA was max but only for slopped armour resons. Bigger protection was achive by using NERA or ceramisc layers.
2) ERA is now not enought against modern KE weapons.
IMHO: DM53, DM63, M829A2, M829A3, KEW-E3 will penetrate sucht armour whit ERA quite easy.

Isn't your estimation already over 600mm? Let take your T80UD for example:

25mm RHA, gap for ERA, 50mm RHA, 30mm ceramics, 50mm RHA/HHS, gap, 30mm ceramics, 50mm RHA.

for 68. angle (so frontal hull armour slopped at 22. degree) we have:
66mm RHA + gap for ERA +135mm RHA + 80mm ceramics + 135mm RHA/HHS + gap whit distancer +80mm ceramics + 135mm RHA.
so we have: ~630-640mm vs APFSDS without ERA

1/cos(68) = 2.67

So change that layout a little, just merge any RHA or steel into a single triple hardness steel (THS) block: 25mm + 50mm + 50mm + 50mm = 175mm THS

THS from late 80s has +1.5 TE vs APFSDS, so (175mm * 1.5 * 2.67) + 80mm + 80mm = 700mm + 160mm = 860mm without any ERA. This array has the same weight and thickness, only change the content of steel.

Sloped or not, the weight of armor must be the same to achieve the same thickness

If this is the armor of the hull then I guess turret will be more armored, maybe 900+ without ERA?

 

[militarysta]

Isn't your estimation already over 600mm?

Yes, late Soviet tanks achive level, as I wrote: circa 600-640mm RHA but using cermaics or NERA layers. Thicknes of RHA and HHS paltes is simmilar in most hull version. The trully problem was weight.

So change that layout a little, just merge any RHA or steel into a single triple hardness steel (THS) block: 25mm + 50mm + 50mm + 50mm = 175mm THS

It's not so simple
first: first RHA plate in soviet tanks was to cover ERA tiles on hull, nobody will use exspensive HHS there. In modern Russian tank those plate (25mm thick) is replaced and we have typical ERA modules. So we can't count this plate.
So we have "only" circa 150mm RHA plates in model.
second: not all plates can be made from THS steel, some part must be made from more soft steel - for example interlayers. It's highly unlike to made this layer from THS or HHS.
third: while RHA is 1, cast steel is 0.85-0.9 and HHS is 1.3 then value 1.5 for THS looks be very big, it will be nice to find second confirm of sucht big value.

THS from late 80s has +1.5 TE vs APFSDS, so (175mm * 1.5 * 2.67) + 80mm + 80mm = 700mm + 160mm = 860mm without any ERA. This array has the same weight and thickness, only change the content of steel.

Nope
As I said - we can't count first plate (ERA cover) becouse it's not present in modern tanks, and even in older ones it was made from other materials (propably not even HHS -just RHA), so not 175mm but 150mm, and next porblem - propably intrelayer plate can't by made from HHS or THS lust more "soft" RHA whit hight plasticy so not 150 but max 100mm. So in fact you can choose RHA or HHS plate by THS only in sucht level.
So propably in best case 100mm THS slopped on 68 degre so act like 400mm RHA + external ERA cover plate (66mm RHA) and on normal RHS plate in hull (135mm RHA) so whole RHA will by like circa 600mm in best case + cermaics + ERA

If this is the armor of the hull then I guess turret will be more armored, maybe 900+ without ERA?

Well turret LOS is in T-90A between (for 0. degree) 600mm up to 915-920mm, but for 30 degree it's "only" circa 620mm LOS - so more or less like for hull. So all is depend on hit angle.

 

[militarysta]

For compare T-80U turret:



(thanks Andriej_BT vsl Andriej Tarasenko for correct few mistakes in those model)