Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

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

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 25 7.3%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 57 16.7%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 198 58.1%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 61 17.9%

  • Total voters
    341

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Yup. We should remember that most of financial resources are allways consumed by personell. With so many soldiers, much money is spended to fead them, shelter them, provide medical care for them.

Also we should remember that ground forces are no priority for PLA, air forces and navy are.
 

Blood+

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
3,027
Likes
4,828
Country flag
About Containerized Bins, As you asked once ..



Also do note, It says improved Kanchan, We may know now how weight is more ..
Thank you Kunal,though I would have preferred a sliding blast door more than this but still it's safer than MkI which is a rather good thing.
And what's that flame coming out of the Arjun turret in that poster??Is it gases from cooked off ammunitions through the blow-out panels??
 

Blood+

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
3,027
Likes
4,828
Country flag
And I can see a gap between the upper surface of ammo box and the blow-out panels which means in case of ammunition cook-off,some burning gases would still sip into crew compartment before forcing open the blow-out panels and venting out.What do you think @Damian @Kunal bhai??
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
There must be reason not to put sliding door ..

If that would have been the case, that photo would not showed up nor the containerized bin would be put on poster ..

f,some burning gases would still sip into crew compartment before forcing open the blow-out panels and venting
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
And I can see a gap between the upper surface of ammo box and the blow-out panels which means in case of ammunition cook-off,some burning gases would still sip into crew compartment before forcing open the blow-out panels and venting out.What do you think @Damian @Kunal bhai??
Not nececary, a sort of chimney might be placed deeper and is not visible on photos.

There is other thing I am more affraid of. These caps, it is obvious that such cap won't have the same sealing as solid, heavy blast doors or blast port, this I fear it might not protect crew, and caps might open if there will be more pressure inside.

Besides this, to make this solution work with blow off panels, these tubes for rounds can't be separated from each other, there must be some sort of venting ports going through tubes so eventuall cook off can be vented via blow off panels.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
If they have cleared the test, And certified, Then they are good enough for the operational usage ..

There is other thing I am more affraid of. These caps, it is obvious that such cap won't have the same sealing as solid,
 

Blood+

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
3,027
Likes
4,828
Country flag
Thank you @Damian and @Kunal bhai for your replies.But what's the flame thing coming out of that Arjun turret rear in Kunal's poster??Is it hot gases from cooked-off propelant charges through the blow-out panels??If that's the case,then it seems like those ammo caps did perform their job - what say??
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Blood+

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
3,027
Likes
4,828
Country flag
There must be reason not to put sliding door ..

If that would have been the case, that photo would not showed up nor the containerized bin would be put on poster ..
Like I said earlier,my knowledge in these matters is fairly limited to say the least.That's why it seemed kinda awkward to me.But after going through @Damian's explanations,it seems the solution could indeed work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Well, frankly I am not enthusiast of any kind of individual canisters for rounds, I seen to many of such solutions to fail in real combat and I seen to many photos of how a crew members looks after ammo cook off.
 

Guest

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
924
Likes
2,951
Country flag
On topic, The AK does not have such module rather addon ERA tiles ..
I was referring WRT cavity which is there in your photo too-- I know AK has ERA tiles instead of Non-Explosive plates found on chinese- also Chinese have larger module It appears- due to turret size-
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Do you guys have any information on this Iraqi M1A1M ?

These are 3 different tanks. I have a reliable source that says that only 1 or 2 were immobilized, no losses so far.

wow they aimed for amo storage and they hit it.
And no effect is seen. It seems that or HEAT warhead from SPG-9 failed to perforate armor, or Iraqis use insensitive propelant charges that are less prone to cook offs.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Type-99 latest models are comes with different turret but older 99 and 96 have common turret dimensions and modules ..

AK on other hand is simply a customized 96, With french, Ukrainians parts ..

I was referring WRT cavity which is there in your photo too-- I know AK has ERA tiles instead of Non-Explosive plates found on chinese- also Chinese have larger module It appears- due to turret size-
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202

This is first video showing interior of the M1A1SA. I must say it is very similiar in some aspects to M1A2SEP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dazzler

New Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
318
Type-99 latest models are comes with different turret but older 99 and 96 have common turret dimensions and modules ..

AK on other hand is simply a customized 96, With french, Ukrainians parts ..
type-96 is a follow on upgrade of type-85III, AK, MBT 2000, though has similarities in some subsystems with Type-85III, is based on new development that gave birth to other improvements such as Type-98/ 99 as per PLAA requirements.



85/96 turret scheme from andrei's blog








type-90 II/ MBT 2000 turret scheme..




night vision/ Image intensifier ..


 
Last edited:

Dazzler

New Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
318
at malir cantt garrison, hours after exercise, no ERA, just composite plates on the turret front





 
Last edited:

Sovngard

New Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
97
Likes
20
So my question here is why does a 2 piece ammunition gun need a bustle autoloader like the Leclerc and are they compatible?

You can consult the patent here => http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/al-640-patent.pdf


And no effect is seen. It seems that or HEAT warhead from SPG-9 failed to perforate armor, or Iraqis use insensitive propelant charges that are less prone to cook offs.

It sounds like the PG-9 rocket has succeeded to perforate the left rear side of the turret bustle which is normally protected by ~30 centimeters of composite armor. :hmm:


This is first video showing interior of the M1A1SA. I must say it is very similiar in some aspects to M1A2SEP.
Do you guys have any information on this Iraqi M1A1M ?
It's actually an upgraded M1A1 using the M1A2 SEP v2's optronics (sight, Battlefield Management System, wiring (all main components linked to a computer) new gen thermal camera, IFF etc...) and some elements issued from the TUSK urban warfare kit (tank infantery phone, rear-view camera, external power outlet).

:cereal: The first M1A1 SA left the factory in 2008.

The significant difference with the others members of the Abrams family is its new gyrostabilized commander weapon station.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
It sounds like the PG-9 rocket has succeeded to perforate the left rear side of the turret bustle which is normally protected by ~30 centimeters of composite armor.
No. I writed two options, or armor defeated shaped charge jet, or Iraqis use ammunition with insensitive propelant charges. Either way vehicle survived.

It's actually an upgraded M1A1 using the M1A2 SEP v2's optronics (sight, Battlefield Management System, wiring (all main components linked to a computer) new gen thermal camera, IFF etc...) and some elements issued from the TUSK urban warfare kit (tank infantery phone, rear-view camera, external power outlet).
Tank-Infantry Phone or TIP, rear view camera and external power outlet were but are not anymore part of TUSK kit. They become standard equipment, currently all modernized tanks are equipped with them. The only parts of TUSK kit are ARAT, C-IED belly armor and additional ballistic shield for loader, ballistic shields for commander were more or less abandoned due to use of SCWS and CROWS.

The significant difference with the others members of the Abrams family is its new gyrostabilized commander weapon station.
This is later improvement, originally M1A1SA had old CWS cupola, SCWS cupola was added in 2010 I believe.
 

Broccoli

New Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
231
Likes
109
Anyone remember this pic from 2009-2010? Back then it was claimed that this is Type-99A2 turret, but it doesn't look like it and none of the current Chinese tanks have RCWS installed... perhaps something for export. It reminds me of that one tank from way back in Norinco ad.



Edit here is the older pic.
 
Last edited:

Articles

Top