Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[bhramos]

 

[Sovngard]

*Shows a fictional T-100 Ogre*

 

[militarysta]

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.

It's not so easly... Of course T-72M1 protection was underestimated during 1980s, but now it's start to be overestimated.
Mentioned by You swedish T-71M1 trials was taken fromt that swedish book:
Svenskt pansar : [90 år av svensk stridsfordonsutveckling by Rickard O. Lindström | LibraryThing
and is nome parts translate on this russian website:
maxwolf: Противник в Швеции
If you want to check what really was written there you will find:

Осенью 1991 года шведская делегация закупила в Германии пять Т-72 и пять МТ-ЛБ

Swedish FMV bought in Germany 5 T-72M1 tanks and 5 MT-LB[/b]


Оказалось, что баллистическая защита как башни, так и корпуса, были недооценены (эквивалентная толщина оказалась 550 мм вместо 480).
this part You can understand in two ways:

1) "turret and hulls balistic protection was understimated (it was relevnat to 550 not 480mm thicknes)"
2) as psyhical thickenss?

More or less it's in som way relevant to three other sources/facts:
a) article in Deutsche Airspace, (L. Mann.) from 1993 when T-72M1 protection was described as 420-480mm RHA and DM-33 pretend to be on the border of the efectivnes. This article is ofen mentioned on russian sites, I can;t find orginal surces in Poland
b) polish trials against T-71M1 whit ERAWA ERA when DM-33A1 fails 4 times
c) knowing T-71M1 hull and turret structure. It's give circa:
hull:
472mm RHA vs APFSDS.
570-580mm vs HEAT.
turret:
360-450mm RHA + 170mm "snad bards" (quartz sand) so propably circa 480mm vs APFSDS max.
470-560mm vs HEAT

Taking back to the WITU DM-33A1 data wa have (as for russian norm: at least 75% penetrations in HB270) 470mm RHA at 2000m
in NATO norm (50% penetrations for the same HB) we had at least 500-510mm RHA (teh difrence between both norm ic circa 8%).

It's seems that T-72M1 was mucht more better protected, but fromt the other side - DM33A1 on typical distance have a really big chanse to penetrate it, becouse on 2km it was on the borders.

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).

It's not work in that way Methos.
Burlington style armour (or based on NERA) offers mucht better protection then homogoneus armour.

T-72B nacked turret weight not 11 600kg but, only circa 8 688 kg.

First I will make sevral general assumptions:

1. Leopard-2A4 turret have frontal volumen 25% bigger then T-72B.
2. BUrlinghton style armour in Leopard-2A4 have mass efficiency -at lest 1,5 x kg vs KE and at lest 3 z kg vs HEAT -according to the data from 1978, and posted in two greate articles about erly Burlinghton ( I've already quoted them before)
3. The same mass efficiency is taken for T-72B "NERA style" special armour -maybe it's revaluation but I'd rather prefer to overestimated soviet tank then understimated.
4. In T-72B 80% turret mass is taken for frontal protection (+/- 30.degree) - rest (20%) of nacked turret mass is taken for roof, rear sides and turret back. So from 8 680kg it give 6 950kg (inluding NERA special armour). Both NERA armour inserts weight 740kg, so rest of turret armour weight 6 210kg.
5. From known Leopard-2A4 "special armour mass" 8 900kg ~22% is taken for turret sides, so only frontal armour (+/-30 -without turret sides) we have 6 942kg

Now small compare:
T-72B 6 210kg of cast steel turret x0.9 as RHA converter = 6 210kg x0,9= 5 588kg. So whole cast steel T-72B turret armour act like 5 588kg RHA. Now "special armour" cavities (both NERA inserts).
Against APFSDS: 740kg x 1,5 = 1100kg, and against HEAT: 740kg x 3 = 2220kg. So those values are RHA equivalent, and we shoud add them to previous mass.
5 588kg + 1100kg RHA= ~6 688 kg stell armour vs APFSDS
5 588kg + 2200kg RHA= ~7 788kg stell armour vs HEAT


Leopard-2A4 turret weigh 16t, special armour weight 8 900kg, 22% of it ist taken for turret sides, so for +/-30. we have only 6 942kg of special armour. Now x 1,5 vs APFSDS and x 3 vs HEAT:
10 410kg RHA vs APFSDS
20 826kg RHA vs HEAT

Now compare for both tanks:

vs APFSDS
T-72B : 6 688 kg stell armour vs APFSDS
Leopard-2A4: 10 410kg RHA vs APFSDS

So leopard-2A4 armour have 35% more kg of steel armour for protection. Even if Leopard-2A4 turret is 25% bigger in frontal area then still Leopard-2A4 is at least 10% better.


vs HEAT:
T-72B ~7 788kg stell armour vs HEAT
Leopard-2A4: ~20 826kg RHA vs HEAT

So Leopard-2A4 have ~63% more kg of steel armour for protection. And even if Leopard-2A4 turret is 25% bigger in frontal area then still Leopard-2A4 is at least 38% better

So as I wrote -in reality, Soviet cast steel turets shoud have less density protction in kg of RHA plates equivalent. And whe take only one from many factor - how many kog of steel plates is placed in some volumen. When we included other factor like:
- higher hardnes of western plates included in armour
- fact that stack of steel plates whit the same weight and thckness is 1.2 better then RHA monoblock
and others
then this difference will be even greater (against soviet tanks).

BTW: in some estimatous T-72B have circa 540mm RHA vs KE and circa 650mm vs HEAT.
10% better vs KE value give us cirxca 590mm and 38% better vs CE give us circa 900mm...

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.

1) propably lack of the propper tehnology of the making "long rods"
2) in "offcial" statsment sucht build of the 3BM42 was developed to overcome multi-layerd armour. Liike Bulington. Something must go wrong becouse we after partial 4BM42 Mango fully monoblock 3BM42M Lekalyo and after 3BM32 we had fully monoblock 3BM46 Åšviniec (older ones).


BTW: Mango was overestimeted it's seems that 430-460mm penetration for that round was max.

 

[313230]

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.




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?




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.

Uhmm thanks a lot for clarification

Why does Russian want to reach 1m RHA vs KE? Facepalm, why not, if it is possible? If your income is 100k why not trying to reach 200k?

Russian or soviet always were prepared for ww3 so their need cheap solution for mass production. Any estimation on cost of triple hardness steel? I don't know how much ballistic steel cost but some steel like maraging cost like gold, so steel may cost much more than ERA or NERA or ceramics per kg, or per volume. Guess that steel used in armor must not cost that much but if its application is limited to armor only then it costs will be high. And now a day Russian still can produce submarine, air superiority fighter, ICBM and satellite,... so IMO triple hardness steel is not something hard to reach for them.

And for the west AFAIK, mostly based on adding torque to break penetrator which is not that effective against multi segment penetrator, so IMO steel armor is something safer, i.e if it is 500mm then it is 500mm, not worrying about some special ammo.

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Some very detailed information on the Challenger 1 MBT can be found here:

Tank, Combat, 120mm Challenger - Part 1 Automotive System

and here

"Tank, Combat, 120 mm GUN, Challenger" - Part 2 "Fighting Systems"

 

[Damian]

So, we know which unit will get our new Leopard 2's. 34th Armor Cavalry Brigade from Żagań, it is part of 11th Armor Cavalry Division, which have Leopard 2's allready in it's 10th Armor Cavalry Brigade.

To the end of 2014 Germans will send us 91 tanks, 77 Leopard 2A5's and 14 Leopard 2A4's, and to the end of 2015 rest 28 Leopard 2A5's.

We will also receive additional logistic and support vehicles and equipment.

In following years, if funding will be sufficent, all Leopard 2A4's will begun modernization to Leopard 2PL standard, in fact first vehicles should start process this year. We also plant to modernize BPz 2 armored recovery vehicles to BPz 2PL standard, it will include improvements like stronger powerpack, better crane and winch (with capability to hold 30 tons), capability to transport spare Leopard 2 powerpack, additional armor protection etc.

Overall it is good information, 11th Armor Cavalry Division will be the best equipped, strongest armor-mechanized formation in our army.

 

[Sovngard]

Some very detailed information on the Challenger 1 MBT can be found here:

Tank, Combat, 120mm Challenger - Part 1 Automotive System

and here

"Tank, Combat, 120 mm GUN, Challenger" - Part 2 "Fighting Systems"

I have already read this manual for sometime.



On page 10 (part 1 Automotive System), we can read security instruction for Chobham armour (so even the MVEE uses this name).



I still wonder why they removed the two base fuel tanks, dropping from 1797 liters on the FV4030/4 Challenger 1 to 1592 liters on the FV4034 Challenger 2.

The part 2, Fighting Systems dates from April 1990, it is most recent than the two other documents (June and August 1983 respectively).


Here the internal layout of the FV4030/4 Challenger 1 : http://fr.scribd.com/doc/33230231/Challenger-Stowage-Illustrations

It's pretty crazy to see that the internal layout of the Challenger 1 is nearly identical to its predecessor.


What a shame that Scribd began to apply charges, preventing us to read the few Hunnicut books on their website.

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

I have already read this manual for sometime.



On page 10 (part 1 Automotive System), we can read security instruction for Chobham armour (so even the MVEE uses this name).



I still wonder why they removed the two base fuel tanks, dropping from 1797 liters on the FV4030/4 Challenger 1 to 1592 liters on the FV4034 Challenger 2.

The part 2, Fighting Systems dates from April 1990, it is most recent than the two other documents (June and August 1983 respectively).


Here the internal layout of the FV4030/4 Challenger 1 : Challenger - Stowage Illustrations

It's pretty crazy to see that the internal layout of the Challenger 1 is nearly identical to its predecessor.


What a shame that Scribd began to apply charges, preventing us to read the few Hunnicut books on their website.

You can upload documents and download the equal amount of documents you uploaded for free.

 

[Dazzler]

A2 abrams...

tpye-99.

 

[Dazzler]

al zarrar? nope, its chinese type-59D mod

 

[Dazzler]

ukrainianss oplotss, love the new digi camo.

 

[Dazzler]

 

[Dazzler]

t-80u cyprus..

Cypriot National Guard - 26th Tank Squadron - T-80U/UK - 2011 - 2013 (English Subtitles) - YouTube

 

[Dazzler]

90MS, 80U in the background..

72..

ob. 292 experimental tank..

 

[Dazzler]

 

[Dazzler]

type-85III, T-80ud with catherine FC

 

[Dazzler]

@militarysta, @Dejawolf, @methos


indigenous electronic warfare equipment tested on t-80ud, already equipped on AK, must be a counterpart of Varta? :shocked:

 

[Dazzler]

continued....

 

[JBH22]

@ Dazzler what has been Pakistan experience using T-80 Tanks and is it staffed by elite units only?

 

[Damian]

US Army heavy component backs to Europe.

Some interesting observations. M1A2SEPv2's here, have some new elements mounted on turret rear, no idea what it is. M2A3's have new tracks similiar to T158 tracks used on M1A2's, it is possible that these M2A3's are after ECP1 and maybe even after ECP2 modernization phases.