Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

If Tanks have to evolve, which path they should follow?

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 18 6.0%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 51 17.0%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 176 58.7%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 55 18.3%

  • Total voters
    300

Sovngard

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
97
Likes
20
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)
Source ?


What about this one :



Looks like two layers of steltexolite. :wat:


Nice Work militarysta !

:notbad:

But now, you will have to work on their respective turrets. :sarcastic:
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,187
What about this one :



Looks like two layers of steltexolite.
These are glacis plates of the Polish PT-91M for Malaysia before hull welding. These use exactly the same combination as T-72M1, which is two steel plates (outer and inner) with two STEF (glass textolite) layers in between.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
But now, you will have to work on their respective turrets. :sarcastic:
I have values for T-72M1, T-72B, in some part for T-80U and T-80UD + T-64A and T-64B. But in turret case they are some seriuus problem whit estimatous.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
For compare I can post CIA estimatous for Soviet Tanks. It's from 1984 so of course the had no idea about future soviet tanks, but whole values are quite good:



More or less all Soviet Tanks are known - mysterious are only the T-90A and Ukrainian newest T-80UD and Oplot.
Trully problem is whit estimatous western tank. I gat some infos aboit Leo-2A4, and we have brillant photo whit open turret side M1A1HA special arour cavity, but more or less it's all.
 

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
287
regarding armour, i found some images, saudi delegation visiting HIT and other installations these days..


notice composite AK composite cavity on down left... another smaller unknown cavity on the upper right corner










multiple type of composite armour plates and cavities can be seen




factory at a glance..









APC Saad, notice new batch of AK-1s in the background


 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,187
Something new about M1 tanks ECP1 modernization and their "dieselization"

Video:

http://leanermoreagileabct.com/video/abrams_02.swf

Brochure:

http://leanermoreagileabct.com/pdfs/Abrams_brochure.pdf

As we can see in the brochure, there is first photo of modernized M1 turret, we can see that old fire control system components and vetronics, which were rather bulky, had been replaced by new, compact, lighter components. Both gunner and tank commander have new, multifunction LCD displays, we can see that for example commander display can show simultanously image from his CITV, gunner sight and also 360 degree observation cameras.

Gunner have new more compact fire control system components, with greater ergonomics.

Vehicle will also receive new more powerfull diesel engine, new transmission, new tracks and suspension.

Other upgrades inclused improved survivability and firepower. Details are in the brochure.
 

LaVictoireEstLaVie

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2012
Messages
48
Likes
18
For all you armor experts out there, i was under the impression that a Bofors 40 mm L70 with the latest ammunition would be able to destroy t-72m1s, T-72Bs,etc. from the side with relative ease. Is this the case? . I read that the latest 40 mm round can pen up to 170 mm RHA equivalent. The side hull of the T-72s should be particularly vulnerable.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,187
It depends on tank design. T-72B like most "T" tanks have 80mm thick side hull over crew compartment and 70mm over engine compartment, additional protection is thin rubber skirts, sometimes reinforced with ERA, the Kontakt-1 ERA protects greater surface, but is also less efficent than Kontakt-5, which protects less surface.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,897
That depends upon the ammunition, There are few selected countries developed 40mm APFSDS, Which are India, South Korean and Sweden ..


Indian OFB`s ammo for Abhya IFV

Bofors APFSDS penetrator:

South Korean ammo for K21 IFV

40mm APFSDS can cut through many tank armors from Sides not Just T-72M1 and lethal against tanks such as T-55/59 at frontal Armour without dynamic protection ..
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,187
Small comparission of interiors.


M1A2SEP v2


M1 with ECP1.

New upgrade really saves space and weight.
 

LaVictoireEstLaVie

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2012
Messages
48
Likes
18
Thanks you guys for the replies. I was definitely under the impressions that the T-72s are not as invulnerable to Autocannon fire as some let on to believe.

And concerning the ECP1 upgrade for the Abrams series, does that combine the functions of the CITV and the new RWS?
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,187
And concerning the ECP1 upgrade for the Abrams series, does that combine the functions of the CITV and the new RWS?
It seems, that ECP1 might completely rid off bulky CROWS and replace it with new SICWS cupola.



You see that cable going to the cupola on the interior photo, it might be attempt to integrate SICWS cupola.
 

methos

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
302
So T series had more armor and lighter than Leo2 series, even when not counting ERA?
Not really. Many different aspects need to be taken into account. One of them is the question about the accuracy of militarysta's estimate on the Leopard 2's armour protection and another one is taking the ammunition used into account.

Speaking about armour protection as being "equivalent to xyz mm thick steel armour" is a valid way to compare the armour protection of tanks but only in a very limited perspective.
The big problem is that the Soviet Union was nearly exclusively relying on sheated penetrators (like the 3BM-42 "Mango") and steel penetrators (like the 3BM-26). Such rounds work very fine against homogenous (steel) targets, but lose a relatively high amount of penetration power against any more complex arrays (like spaced or composite armour). So if one does fire two APFSDS against a spaced/composite armour array - with one of them being sheated and the other using a monobloc penetrator (and both penetrating the same amount of homogenous steel armour) - the APFSDS with monobloc penetrator will penetrate much more of the armour array.
The NATO countries phased sheated penetrators much earlier out and relied on monobloc APFSDS beginning in 1982/1983, the Soviet Union still used sheated APFSDS as most common type of ammunition until it's dissolution. Hence during the Cold War a T-72B with armour "offering as much protection as a 520 mm steel plate" was worse protected than a NATO tank with composite armour providing only "protection equivalent to a 450 mm steel plate".

Now, I am not going to argue with the values of militarysta's Leopard 2A3/2A4 armour estimate, but just as he says the amount of information on NATO armour and it's protective capabilities is highly limited compared to the quite vast amounts of knowledge on Soviet tank armour which can today be acquired by essentially everybody. Paul-Werner Krapke wrote that the Leopard 2 was designed/expected to resist 125 mm APFSDS rounds at 1,500 m distance. However he does not specify for which version of the tank and for which ammunition this values are valid.

Speaking about the T series being ligher: Depending on what you look at. The T-64, T-72 and T-80 are all ligher, but the armour of the late version is in fact heavier than the armour of the Cold War Leopard 2 models. The lower weight of the whole tanks is a result of their much smaller physical size and the component weights.
I.e. the Leopard 2 turret of the earlier Cold War Leopard 2 tanks weighs 15.5 metric tons. The weight of the frontal armour should be about equal to the weight of a 400 - 450 mm steel plate covering the same area (this is based on different estimations, the easiest is to take a look at the quite similar sized Chieftain turret which weighs 15 metric tons and has 380 - 390 mm thick frontal steel armour). The T-80U for the sake of this comparision has frontal turret armour weighing more than a 520 mm steel plate covering the same area - without even taking the 2 x 120 mm composite arrays marked by militarysta on the drawing into account.


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?
As mentioned earlier there are quite some constraints when it comes to producing triple hardness steel armour (machining hard enough plates in the required quantity and thickness alone should be hard to achieve for a country which shut down as much arms industry as Russia did). But a more important question is why should they try to reach a protection of over 1,000 mm vs KE?


Any estimation for the turret of T series?
There is a lot of controversy about the armour protection of the turrets. For example both DASA and Swedish tests estimated the T-72M1/T-72A's turret armour to provide protection equivalent to more than 500 mm armour steel vs KE. However the estimates for the T-72B turret (based on the known thickness and composition) is often estimated to provide only some 500 to 550 mm RHAe protection. The T-72M1 is by some sources estimated to provide about 400 to 450 mm RHAe protection against KE.
One important thing that has to be noticed is that the shape of the Soviet tank turrets does not provide such a (nearly) unitary armour thickness on the front as NATO tanks, but differs a lot depending on location. E.g. the CIA report on the T-72 contains a scale drawing of the frontal area of a T-72 tank (the original model without composite armour) where the armour thickness ranges from (less than) 350 mm close to the main gun to a total of 475 mm thickness.
 

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
287
jjust a good share thats all,


In July — September 1995 on the ground in Pakistan were organized gender tests on tanks special program: 3000 km in the desert criteria, shooting day and NIGHT MODE on mobile and immobile targets on the move and from a place. Two Kharkov "eight" showed indisputable an advantage over the Chinese T-85, which the company "Norinco" offered for re-Pakistani army. Chinese after 1000 kilometers had to change the engine, which automatically brought them out of the fight.

In the end, after th
e final 100-day talks July 30, 1996 a treaty was signed at the cost of 650 million. bucks for the supply to Pakistan 320 T-80UD tanks. The award will also cut in training tank, the supply of spare parts and maintenance to operate. And the Pakistanis when buying a modern tank is also preserved — Ukrainian T-80UD cost them 2 million dollars each, while in the South American "Abrams" would have to shell out 4.8 million, and for the French "Leclerc" — 5500000 ..

Delivery of tanks to Pakistan have been calculated for three years, but the first batch of 15 vehicles the customer wished to obtain the necessary 23 March 1997 The reason was the ordinariness — to this day the country celebrated prazdnichek State, which was to be accompanied by a stunning military parade.

The plant them. A.Malysheva deployed emergency work. To have time to date, batch tanks had to be ready by January 31. I had to work seven days a week, and New Year's Eve, and on the solemn days of. February 20, 1997 car safely left Ukraine to set sail from the port of Nikolaev freighter, and then went on parade in Islamabad, allowing the Pakistani military to "play" with their new muscles of iron. And for Ukrainian producers were benefits are obvious. General Designer Boricyuk noted that the contract concluded with Pakistan, "served as a massive impetus to improve the T-80UD, also stepped up testing of all systems and components for the first Ukrainian tank T-84 "Kern" in general. "

TOWARDS A "bastion of"

Testing of the upcoming construction of new units of T-84 was carried out with the introduction of a number of machines that have received site-room 478DU4, 478DU5, 478DU7, 478DU8. The projects' object 478DUZ "and" object 478DU6 ", despite the fact that there have been documented and reserved, but for various reasons have not been developed and implemented in the metal were not.

Experienced "object 478DU4" received adapted to new, more massive, improved engine box in which, apart from ordinary 7 forward gears, and proposed three transfer back (on the T-80UD — one reverse). This box has significantly expanded range of velocities of the tank. Now a good way T-84 without the effort developed velocity is 60, and 73 km / h, the motion was reversed as can be speeds up to 32 km / h

Pre-production machine that in the coming received index "object 478DU5" equipped Kondyukov 4 kW with an air flow of 250 m3 / h to ensure comfortable living criterion of the crew and the usual operation of the devices — a very useful device for tanks, operating in countries with a hot climate. So, for example, according to the Indian magazine Political Events, by Russian T-90, set in India, due to lack of Kondyukov for four years out of order and were not applicable to the use of about 80 thermal imagers. On 478DU5 kondyuk arranged in a special box on the turret, there is a secluded bay on the crew compartment and moved part of ammunition.

On the "object 478DU5" tested and automatic control system (Suat), which provides management modes of the engine and automatic gear to save fuel and reduce stress on the driver. He ran the tank is no longer the classic cars for Russian arms, and with the set before him a special steering.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top