Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Both photos shows different tanks with different protection. Your observation then is invalid.

 

[contra 101]

Both photos shows different tanks with different protection. Your observation then is invalid.

they are both type-99s arent they, one is type-99A2, the one i posted is type-99 early, see the arrow shaped cover near the cannon root

 

[Damian]

Tank called ZTZ-99A2 is in fact new design completely separate from earlier ZTZ-99 family. ZTZ-99A2 does not have modular front turret armor like previous generation and it's protection is different.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Tank called ZTZ-99A2 is in fact new design completely separate from earlier ZTZ-99 family. ZTZ-99A2 does not have modular front turret armor like previous generation and it's protection is different.

It clearly seen that it also have modular front turret armor.

 

[Damian]

It clearly seen that it also have modular front turret armor.

Where? On all avaiable photos, modular armor is not visible on ZTZ-99A2.

Of course I might be wrong because good quality photographs of this tank are rare and difficult to find.

 

[313230]

No, You just don't understand that text "defeat all type of armor at all ranges of engagement" is just marketing. This is nothing else. Simply because manufacturers of ammunition also do not have capability to test their ammunition against all types of protection, because many types of protection are manufactured by other companies or even state owned manufacturing centers, and that armor capabilities are mostly classified.

This means that in most cases, ammunition manufacturers needs to test most of their products against simple RHA plates.

For example, in USA APFSDS ammunition is manufactured by private companies under goverment supervision, however armor packages for M1 tanks, are manufactured by goverment agency and is strictly classified. What's more, private manufacturers are most likely not even allowed to test on their own both ammunition and armor, this is done by ARL (Army Research Laboratory) and data from these tests is classified.

And then again, if for example penetration capabilities data is classified, then manufacturer can only use advertisement of kind similiar to "defeat all type of armor at all ranges of engagement". But only naive people tends to bite the catch.

So we have a great translator here who can translate German English to internet English for naive people to understand

English 101:

Defeat all type of armor at all range blah blah .. in official German English means marketing, nothing else, in expert English

So my question to our expert, if you say there is data you don't know (you call it classified, what a mythical word), how do you know that the designers of DM 63 don't know that data? Are you their boss?

In case you are the boss of the team designed DM63, and you know that your company is lying, how did you design your product? I mean, which goal you set for your team since most of armor data from potential Russian or Chinese tank is classified, so you design your product with T55 or a brick wall in mind? Great, is that how RD works?

OK, now I can imagine how the industry works. But still a question: if you know that your team is blatantly lying, how do you persuade your customers to buy your produce? Are your customer all idiots, believe and buy what ever you said with millions of dollar? What a sweet industry. I think I should make a ammunition company, maybe I will get rich very soon if I claim defeat all type of future armor with all range of money. Expert, pls help me get into this sweet industry.

 

[contra 101]

Tank called ZTZ-99A2 is in fact new design completely separate from earlier ZTZ-99 family. ZTZ-99A2 does not have modular front turret armor like previous generation and it's protection is different.

it is not entirely different, it has the chasis of mbt 2000, engine placed vertically to accommodate in a smaller hull/ chasis. Armour module may have thickened a little with new inserts but dimensions are still same, little tilted downwards with eRA layer atop.

 

[Damian]

So we have a great translator here who can translate German English to internet English for naive people to understand

English 101:

Defeat all type of armor at all range blah blah .. in official German English means marketing, nothing else, in expert English

So my question to our expert, if you say there is data you don't know (you call it classified, what a mythical word), how do you know that the designers of DM 63 don't know that data? Are you their boss?

In case you are the boss of the team designed DM63, and you know that your company is lying, how did you design your product? I mean, which goal you set for your team since most of armor data from potential Russian or Chinese tank is classified, so you design your product with T55 or a brick wall in mind? Great, is that how RD works?

OK, now I can imagine how the industry works. But still a question: if you know that your team is blatantly lying, how do you persuade your customers to buy your produce? Are your customer all idiots, believe and buy what ever you said with millions of dollar? What a sweet industry. I think I should make a ammunition company, maybe I will get rich very soon if I claim defeat all type of future armor with all range of money. Expert, pls help me get into this sweet industry.

Ok I will try to explain.

If a military of country X wants new ammunition, it starts to work on requirements, requirements are written in such way, that ammunition of certain type, must penetrate x thickness of certain type of armor. It however does not mean, such ammunition will be capable to penetrate armor of certain tank.

And protection of certain vehicles used by military of country X can be completely classified.

So saying that ammunition of certain type can defeat all types of protection, within all ranges, is just pure marketing.

Of course it does not mean that customers are idiots, because they can first test different types of ammunition, and see, which performs the best.

Also in most of such tests, special armors are not used, but only stacks of RHA plates, sometimes protected by ERA.

Sometimes also there is no other way than try to estimate and use RHA equivalent for projected possible protection of certain vehicle.

For example Russians don't know real protection of NATO MBT's, they can only estimate, predict. On the other hand, USA or Germany had opportunity to test ex Soviet designs, and design ammunition adequate to defeat their protection, but it still does not mean it can defeat protection of their own tanks.

I don't know how much simpler it can be explained.

 

[Sovngard]

Who told you that? What is the source for such a kind of statement? The Leopard 2 was during Cold War designed to resist 125 mm APFSDS from 1,500 m. I know that the LKE 1 (which finished qualification and evalutation in 1996) was not able to penetrate the late Leopard 2A4 (1987/1988) armour from 2,000 m distance.

Methos have right. What is more important - the armour have some "seafty margin" - I will say -quite big.

More or less - DM-43 was unable to perforate Leo-2A4 test station armour model. To perforate whole model lack circa 90mm of RHA plates and two strange layers (cermaisc?) 100 mm thick (2x 50mm).

source ?




Some times ago, I've saw on this (huge) thread some dispersion rate data for the 105mm L7 tank gun with HESH and APDS ammunition.

If someone still have this content in its possession, I'm more than interrested !

 

[Damian]

http://www.peogcs.army.mil/documents/ABCT-Abrams.pdf

Some interesting informations.

It seems that M1A2SEPv2 production will continue through 2015, and the next variant of the M1, might have start in production even as early as 2016. WHat is more interesting is that they seems to not know what final designation it will receive, if it still be M1A2, or perhaps M1A3, so they use desgination M1A SEPv3.

 

[Kay]

Hi All
This can be a noob question, but can some expert please throw some light.
In the movie "Saving Private Ryan", we saw the use of Sticky Bombs (C4 stuffed in socks and attached to tank tracks with grease).
Will these work against modern tanks as well?

 

[Srinivas_K]

Welcome to DFI @Kay !!

Explosives are also advancing along with Armour. A right kind of explosive will work to blow a tank.

 

[Kay]

@Srinivas_K: Thanks. I put down the question wrong. Actually, I wanted to know if the tracks would be affected by some small explosives or are they protected. There seem to be too many gears in the tracks. So would a small explosion (say, with crude homemade explosives) disable the track?

 

[Srinivas_K]

@Srinivas_K: Thanks. I put down the question wrong. Actually, I wanted to know if the tracks would be affected by some small explosives or are they protected. There seem to be too many gears in the tracks. So would a small explosion (say, with crude homemade explosives) disable the track?

Depends on the explosives and the fuse used.

 

[Damian]

@Srinivas_K: Thanks. I put down the question wrong. Actually, I wanted to know if the tracks would be affected by some small explosives or are they protected. There seem to be too many gears in the tracks. So would a small explosion (say, with crude homemade explosives) disable the track?

Actually it depends on many factors, however I seen videos and photos of M1 tanks from Iraq, after encounters with really big IED's, and tracks were not damaged to the point where some of their links would broke and vehicle would be immobilized.

So don't expect a clear answer, because just like all things in life, result my differ depending on situation.

 

[Kay]

Thanks. Just two more related questions:
1. Is it possible to fly drones carrying IEDs right to the underbelly of tanks and explode them? How well protected are the bottom of the tanks and how effective would be such a strategy?
2. Same strategy - except the IED being exploded right next to the tank gun or after hitting the tank gun? Can tank guns withstand such explosions?

 

[hitesh]

Thanks. Just two more related questions:
1. Is it possible to fly drones carrying IEDs right to the underbelly of tanks and explode them? How well protected are the bottom of the tanks and how effective would be such a strategy?
2. Same strategy - except the IED being exploded right next to the tank gun or after hitting the tank gun? Can tank guns withstand such explosions?

1 yes its possible but not a good solution(probability of reaching to the underbelly is very unlikely) as its very difficult for a missile or drone to get there on a moving tank ,more effective solution is to hit the top of the tank as the principle of physics too supports it very well.

2 Explosive fragments does/can damage the main gun but if you are talking about sniping a very small target like a 120mm/125mm tube ,again better you aim at the target easier to acquire like the turret .

 

[Sovngard]

@Srinivas_K: Thanks. I put down the question wrong. Actually, I wanted to know if the tracks would be affected by some small explosives or are they protected. There seem to be too many gears in the tracks. So would a small explosion (say, with crude homemade explosives) disable the track?

This depends on the type of tracks.

With double-pin tracks as those fitted on modern Main Battle Tanks, it just need to break one of the two connectors that keep each track links on their tips.


It will be less easy with single-pin tracks (still used on early Merkava and T-72 models, FV4030/4 Challenger and Omani FV4034 Challenger II) since the whole rod is inside the hinges. High explosives are more than appropriate.

 

[hitesh]

Ok i too have a question .we all have witnessed the cooking up of the turret on Tseries tanks specifically T72 so my question is after the coking off ,does the remains of Tank crew still be able to identify or it turns into ashes .

 

[DivineHeretic]

1 yes its possible but not a good solution(probability of reaching to the underbelly is very unlikely) as its very difficult for a missile or drone to get there on a moving tank ,more effective solution is to hit the top of the tank as the principle of physics too supports it very well.

2 Explosive fragments does/can damage the main gun but if you are talking about sniping a very small target like a 120mm/125mm tube ,again better you aim at the target easier to acquire like the turret .

Just to add to your second point,

In WW2, German tank crews and 88 mm AT gunners were instructed to target the separation between the turret and the hull for assured first strike knockout. And we do know that these engagements were made from as much as 1000-2000 m out. Eventually, the Russians too began targeting these points. So such precision shots were possible or rather the expectation even then.