Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Saumyasupraik]

from KMDB page, they offer several upgrades for t-72, pretty decent ones.


KMDB - T-72-120 Upgraded Main Battle Tank

The gun was a 125mm KBA-3, why the bustle autoloader for a 2 piece 125mm ammunition? Why not use the older carousel or a modernised carousel autoloader and place hull ammunition in bustle like the T-90MS and Oplot-M.

 

[Dazzler]

The gun was a 125mm KBA-3, why the bustle autoloader for a 2 piece 125mm ammunition? Why not use the older carousel or a modernised carousel autoloader and place hull ammunition in bustle like the T-90MS and Oplot-M.

the gun in t-72-120 is KBM-1 120 mm smoothbore, fires single piece ammunition (NATO standard compliance), T-72AG and MP have standard 125 mm (KBA-3 ) gun, standard autoloader (ETs xx) with two piece ammo.

 

[Damian]

Meanwhile in Iraq, M1A1M have tasted a few shaped charges.

Interesting, it seems armor protected vehicle but something later catched fire on the hull rear deck.

I suspect two things, turret side was hit by RPG, and or armor stopped it or the ammo cook off didn't occured, perhaps Iraqis are supplied by USA with ammunition that uses insensitive propelant charges.

Then front turret is hit and, hmmm interesting, hard to say what happens next and what causes a fire on the hull rear deck. Hopefully it was extuinguished by crew.

Hi, I was watching the KMDB video and noticed the T-72 upgrade has a 125mm KBA-3 gun but the autoloader is not carousel and instead is the conveyor type autoloader similar to the Leclerc's autoloader. So how is this possible with 2 piece 125mm ammunition? Is the ammunition stored in the autoloader just like an unitary 120mm round?

Yeah, two piece ammunition is just stored like unitary round.

The gun was a 125mm KBA-3, why the bustle autoloader for a 2 piece 125mm ammunition? Why not use the older carousel or a modernised carousel autoloader and place hull ammunition in bustle like the T-90MS and Oplot-M.

It is just option proposed by Ukrainians, it is improvement for crew survivability, and also with bustle autoloader you can replace 125mm gun for 120mm NATO standard gun with NATO ammunition. Same bustle autoloader is proposed as upgrade for Oplot.

Russians and Ukrainians does not use it on their own tanks for cost and simplicity reasons as their army's are more familiar with 6ETs and AZ series of autoloaders.

the gun in t-72-120 is KBM-1 120 mm smoothbore, fires single piece ammunition (NATO standard compliance), T-72AG and MP have standard 125 mm (KBA-3 ) gun, standard autoloader (ETs xx) with two piece ammo.

No, T-72AG and T-72MP just like all T-72's uses AZ type of autoloader, not 6ETs.

 

[Saumyasupraik]

the gun in t-72-120 is KBM-1 120 mm smoothbore, fires single piece ammunition (NATO standard compliance), T-72AG and MP have standard 125 mm (KBA-3 ) gun, standard autoloader (ETs xx) with two piece ammo.

I am talking about the video posted here.
Skip to 6:21 you can see the KBA-3 being mounted the upgraded T-72 which is a 125mm gun with 2 piece ammunition. So my question here is why does a 2 piece ammunition gun need a bustle autoloader like the Leclerc and are they compatible?

 

[Saumyasupraik]

the gun in t-72-120 is KBM-1 120 mm smoothbore, fires single piece ammunition (NATO standard compliance), T-72AG and MP have standard 125 mm (KBA-3 ) gun, standard autoloader (ETs xx) with two piece ammo.

I am talking about the video posted here.
Skip to 6:21 you can see the KBA-3 being mounted the upgraded T-72 which is a 125mm gun with 2 piece ammunition. So my question here is why does a 2 piece ammunition gun need a bustle autoloader like the Leclerc and are they compatible?

 

[Saumyasupraik]

Yeah, two piece ammunition is just stored like unitary round.

It is just option proposed by Ukrainians, it is improvement for crew survivability, and also with bustle autoloader you can replace 125mm gun for 120mm NATO standard gun with NATO ammunition. Same bustle autoloader is proposed as upgrade for Oplot.

Russians and Ukrainians does not use it on their own tanks for cost and simplicity reasons as their army's are more familiar with 6ETs and AZ series of autoloaders.

Thanks, makes sense. Where is the rest of the ammunition stored? In the hull? Wouldn't this be a problem as hull penetration can cause ammunition cook-off?

 

[Damian]

Additional ammunition can be stored in hull, and yes, this is dangerous in such case as it is stored in simple ammo racks.

 

[Saumyasupraik]

For their FMBT concept they have 22 round ammunition and an unmanned turret. How is the rest of the ammunition supposed to be loaded into the autoloader the crew have to physically get out of the vehicle and load the ammunition from the hull storage area?

 

[Damian]

Probably rest of ammunition is stored in the hull rear, and no, they don't need to go outside. Actually unmanned turret is big enough to allow enough space for realoding under armor protection from vehicle inside.

 

[Blood+]

i know the thing inside out, i know more than many on internet forumers.

the same article mentioned CV 12 Condor as the engine whereas alkhalid has the ukrainian 6td-2. Condor was installed/ tested on 2nd prototype.

That's simply absurd and not an explanation.Over the time I have come across many folks on internet forums who claims that their who's who knows someone who's someone is involved in some project and all of the times these turned out to be simply lies.And let me tell you a secret - almost 99% of the time those posers were from your country.So please,spare me of your rhetorics.After all you were the one who claimed that M1A1s missed 10 out of 10 targets and got battered' by the joke called Type 85!!So don't tell me to believe your wild claims.Unless you can back your claims up with logics,don't bother to reply.
And by 'logic' I mean real logic with marked pictures and not 'I know from my inside sources' bullshit.

 

[Blood+]

@Damian,seems like in Arjun MkII,the main gun ammunitions are sealed into individual ammo beans.How safe is it compared to earlier storage configuration??

And I heard that unlike the T 72 or T 90 where ammo is stored horizontally,the ammo in the T 80UD carousel are stored in vertical configuration - is there any truth into it??

 

[Guest]

That's simply absurd and not an explanation.Over the time I have come across many folks on internet forums who claims that their who's who knows someone who's someone is involved in some project and all of the times these turned out to be simply lies.And let me tell you a secret - almost 99% of the time those posers were from your country.So please,spare me of your rhetorics.After all you were the one who claimed that M1A1s missed 10 out of 10 targets and got battered' by the joke called Type 85!!So don't tell me to believe your wild claims.Unless you can back your claims up with logics,don't bother to reply.
And by 'logic' I mean real logic with marked pictures and not 'I know from my inside sources' bullshit.

He appears to be a noob forumer- LOS 600mm can be mistake as Armor cavity in the turret armor module is probably not considered and calculation seems to be over all length-

ZTZ99 Armor module-- Al Khalid uses similar-

 

[Damian]

@Damian,seems like in Arjun MkII,the main gun ammunitions are sealed into individual ammo beans.How safe is it compared to earlier storage configuration??

Well, it is safer, however do not expect the same safety as in case of trully isolated ammunition compartment. However I can understand why fully isolated ammunition compartment is not used in Arjun. Such compartment have sliding blast doors, these blast doors requires electric and hydraulic engines to move them. Thus it is more expensive and more complex than containers for each individual round.

So the answer might be simplicity and economic issues why Arjun does not have similiar solution like some other tanks.

And I heard that unlike the T 72 or T 90 where ammo is stored horizontally,the ammo in the T 80UD carousel are stored in vertical configuration - is there any truth into it??

It looks that way, a projectile is stored horizontally on the bottom of autoloader ammunition cassettes, while propelant charge is stored vertically. This is typical for 6ETs autoloaders family. T-72 and T-90 uses AZ family of autoloaders.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. AZ is safer and provides some degree of space so driver can go in to turret. 6ETs completely separates driver from turret, so rotating turret to 6 o'clock and removing two ammunition cassettes is needed so he can go through turret if his hatch is blocked.

However AZ autoloader is more vurnable to mine explosions, and can much easier malfunction if hull belly is bended by explosion. Also AZ have slower loading cycle, while 6ETs is much faster. Here some videos.

AZ autoloader used in T-72 and T-90 series.

6ETs autoloader used in T-64, T-80 and T-84 series.

And there is more, you can notice that AZ autoloader, ejects stub case with primer of the propelant charge outside vehicle, it is usefull yes, but can broke hermetic seal of tank in case of operating in NBC type environment. 6ETs autoloader, places used stub case of propelant charge in to empty ammunition cassette, so it is not ejected outside and NBC seal is not broken during each reloading cycle.

 

[Blood+]

Well, it is safer, however do not expect the same safety as in case of trully isolated ammunition compartment. However I can understand why fully isolated ammunition compartment is not used in Arjun. Such compartment have sliding blast doors, these blast doors requires electric and hydraulic engines to move them. Thus it is more expensive and more complex than containers for each individual round.

So the answer might be simplicity and economic issues why Arjun does not have similiar solution like some other tanks.



It looks that way, a projectile is stored horizontally on the bottom of autoloader ammunition cassettes, while propelant charge is stored vertically. This is typical for 6ETs autoloaders family. T-72 and T-90 uses AZ family of autoloaders.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. AZ is safer and provides some degree of space so driver can go in to turret. 6ETs completely separates driver from turret, so rotating turret to 6 o'clock and removing two ammunition cassettes is needed so he can go through turret if his hatch is blocked.

However AZ autoloader is more vurnable to mine explosions, and can much easier malfunction if hull belly is bended by explosion. Also AZ have slower loading cycle, while 6ETs is much faster. Here some videos.

AZ autoloader used in T-72 and T-90 series.

6ETs autoloader used in T-64, T-80 and T-84 series.

And there is more, you can notice that AZ autoloader, ejects stub case with primer of the propelant charge outside vehicle, it is usefull yes, but can broke hermetic seal of tank in case of operating in NBC type environment. 6ETs autoloader, places used stub case of propelant charge in to empty ammunition cassette, so it is not ejected outside and NBC seal is not broken during each reloading cycle.

I see.By the way the vulnerabilities of AZ series autoloaders against anti-tank mines were probably first experienced by the Indian Army in the fighting,against the LTTE in and around Jafna peninsula .They learned it the hard way when IPKF lost 4 T 72M1s to those guerrillas and their turrets were blown off of the turret rings.

 

[Broccoli]

Iraqi Abrams hit.

Anti-material rifle?

RPG.

 

[Damian]

It seems that insurgents are not very effective. Their predecessors fighting with Americans were far more effective.

As far as I know from reliable source, only 1 or 2 Iraqi M1A1's were disabled (immobilized) for sime time. However Iraqis lost some soldiers and M113 APC's.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Adding to Blood`s post >

All Chinese mutated version have same design, Let it be Type-96 or MBT-2000 or 3000 ..

btvt.narod.ru/4/90.htm

According to the above article,Al Khalid MBT's front turret armor LOS thickness stands at circa 600mm.Is this an accurate measurement??

@Damian @militarysta,guys can you please tell your opinions??

this estimate is wrong

spare me of your rhetorics.

i know the thing inside out, i know more than many on internet forumers.

the same article mentioned CV 12 Condor as the engine whereas alkhalid has the ukrainian 6td-2. Condor was installed/ tested on 2nd prototype. ????

===================

There is no one noob here, Its deliberated as usual and then off-topic ..

On topic, The AK does not have such module rather addon ERA tiles ..

He appears to be a noob forumer- LOS 600mm can be mistake as Armor cavity in the turret armor module is probably not considered and calculation seems to be over all length-

ZTZ99 Armor module-- Al Khalid uses similar-

 

[Blood+]

Well,to be frank I consider myself to be a noob and that's why I annoy you folks with questions every time.:d

 

[Kunal Biswas]

About Containerized Bins, As you asked once ..

Also do note, It says improved Kanchan, We may know now how weight is more ..

Well,

 

[Broccoli]

I would add that Chinese choice to use those "armor modules" has probably lot to do with cost, it's cheaper just to change one of those modules outside tank than take blowpipe and start cutting to add new armor inside.

Chinese still use SACLOS variant of Malyutka (HJ-73C) even though they have better ATGM's in inventory, and instead of giving ATGM's to most infantry units they chose to go with PF-98 recoilless rifle.

PLA is a cheapskate military.