Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Dazzler]

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-

in case of alkhalid, that cavity is not an airgap, it has inserts.

 

[Guest]

in case of alkhalid, that cavity is not an airgap, it has inserts.

Please backup your claims with proper material source- I did with mine-- Its time you learned how to behave on international forums and did the same-

 

[Dazzler]

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.

I am not responsible for what other forumers say.

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.

Actually it was a Type-59, Type 85 II with ISFCS-212 Fire Control System mated with catherine FC thermal is no joke i can tell you mate




In case you dont know what ISFCS-212 is and what it does, here is some info...

The fire control system is designed for 85 - â…¡ main battle tank developed a new fire control system, and after the experiment on 59 tanks. The system with the car long day / night periscope has an interface that allows drivers to go beyond control or rotary turret gunner to deal with different objectives.


System components

1. sighting device

Sighting devices include day and night, ranging stable triple field of view sight, including the main sights, laser emission cavity, the laser power and counters, 1 × periscope into the mirror and shimmer sight. Its function is to observe the battlefield, targeting and tracking targets; determine the target distance; determine the target level and azimuth speed.

Its features include:

(1) by the method of direct field of view so stable gunner can clearly observe the battlefield, easy to aim, track smoothly and reliably measure the distance.

(2) shimmer sight, 1 × periscope, such as laser firing chamber connected by a modular design approach and the main sights, so good interchangeability and easy maintenance.

(3) the use of a laser rangefinder first / last pulse logic technology, in order to suppress the false targets.
2 ballistic computer

Ballistic computer, including the main computer, a control panel and stepper motor drive.

Its function is: according to the selected playing field, target distance, the output of all the automatic and manual setting of the parameters of the sensor device, and the calculated azimuth angle weapon advance angle; shooting display all input signals, and outputs intermediate results of various Yuan; self-test;

When fire control system is in the automatic setting partition work, sight reticle by a stepper motor drive automatic setting by a stepper motor.
Its technical features include: weapons firing data is calculated using the cycle calculation, in order to improve first round hit probability; Thanks to LSI, ballistic computer simple structure, stable performance and reliable operation; interrupt switch to shooting with a quick check of the projectile off-target reason.

3 correction sensor

Target height and azimuth velocity sensors included in the sight of. Tilt sensor (vertical gyro) is used to measure static and dynamic tilt angle gun trunnion. Cross wind vane sensor (optionally) be used to measure horizontal wind turret is located. Turret angular velocity sensor (tachometer generator type) used to measure the speed of the target azimuth automatic setting of work when planning.

4 artillery bi stabilizer

Artillery bi stabilizer comprises motor, gyroscopes group, converters, angle limiter, electromagnetic clutch, automatic locking device, console, tachometer generator, motor amplifier, amplifiers, distribution boxes, body gyro, gyro turret, auxiliary fuel tanks, hydraulic power cylinder and the hydraulic booster.

Artillery bi stabilizer function is: When the tank artillery chance stable movement and provide artillery firing; gunner or it can be used to drive the car long guns, and so before firing artillery automatic aiming.

Technical characteristics artillery bidirectional stabilizer is: through the principle of using a composite control and stability, so that two-way stabilizer artillery guns showing a good performance and high tracking accuracy and stability; due to the use of advanced components and control methods, the artillery bi-stable has good low-speed performance, and the ability to tilt swivel gun on a tank.

5 Control Equipment

Control equipment functions are: to stabilize ranging field of sight, ballistic computer and artillery carried out between electrically connected bi-stable, comprehensive and deal with all control signals; formation of artillery firing signal allowed; forced to allow firing artillery into the door; Show fire control system works and assisted artillery and line of sight collimation adjustments.


ISFCS 212 fire control system block diagram shown in Fig.

Principles and characteristics

The fire control system has stabilized as the type of work in two ways and automatic setting division of work.

1 stabilization-type work

Gunner control table to drive the line of sight. Position signal input to the artillery bi-sight stabilization, position feedback signal back with artillery sight comparative form a closed loop position signal, then follow the line of sight artillery movement.

When the target has been the target and its distance has been measured, ballistic computer data calculated according to the following cycle weapon firing data, these data are the distance from the automatic sensor target relative angular velocity, trunnion tilt, horizontal wind data, and people Shells set of tooling, propellant temperature, air temperature, muzzle velocity data. Computed firing data integrated with artillery position signal. After the signal is input to the consolidated artillery bidirectional stabilizer is automatically controlled by controlling the artillery gun advance angle and azimuth angle. When artillery reaches a predetermined position, allowing artillery fire control equipment generates signals and transmitted to the artillery firing circuits. If at this time gunner press the launch button, you can immediately artillery firing.



2 automatic setting mode partition

At this point, the lock gyro stabilization, so the field is no longer stable. Turret azimuth angular velocity sensor generates a target speed signal. When the targeting and measuring the distance, the computer calculated only once and produce firing data signals, these signals by stepper motor drive automatic setting sight annular partition. When using the ring again aiming reticle target, the gunner can fire.

The fire control system features are:

Sight independent and stable, with high stability and accuracy in order to observe the road in the tank gunner, aiming, target tracking and measuring the distance between the target and the target relative motion angular velocity;

Feature allows the firing door (ie in line with the door) so that the system can automatically find the exact timing of fire;

In a combat situation, because shooting conditions can change at any time, ballistic computer can calculate and generate new cycle firing data, and to provide for artillery, can increase first-hit rate;

Automatic setting angle and azimuth angle without disturbing the line of sight ahead, fire control system is simple, short reaction time, from the discovery of the target to fire only about 6s;

1 × periscope and shimmer gunner sight interchangeable;

The system has target azimuth velocity, angular velocity of the target level, trunnion tilt, automatic crosswind four kinds of sensors and drug-temperature, air temperature, muzzle velocity, manual setting crosswind, manual setting distance and in azimuth and elevation to the comprehensive correction 6 kinds of manual setting parameters can also choose from a variety of shells;

Fire control system can be used with the original tank car long day / night periscope sight interfaces, then turned the car long can override artillery to combat direction;

Fire control system command ceremony, so that the tank can quickly and accurately shoot moving targets on the move.

Performance Data


System parameters


target distance 200 ~ 3990m

angular velocity tracking
Azimuth ± 20mrad / s

level to ± 10mrad / s

trunnion tilt       ± 250mrad

crosswind          ± 20m / s

drug Wen -40 ~ +50 ℃

temperatures -40 ~ +50 ℃

muzzle velocity 0 ~ -4.5%

comprehensive correction (for any kind of ammunition)

Azimuth -3.2 ~ +3.1 mrad
level to -3.2 ~ +3.1 mrad

The accuracy of the information processing

angular position

Azimuth ± 0.1mrad
level to ± 0.1mrad

target distance ± 10m

angular velocity tracking

Azimuth ± 0.4mrad / s
level to ± 0.4mrad / s

trunnion tilt ± 10mrad

crosswind ± 1m / s

Manual setting parameters for resolution

manual setting distance 10m

temperatures 1 ℃
drug Wen 1 ℃

muzzle velocity -0 / 5%

comprehensive correction

Azimuth 0.1mrad
level to 0.1mrad

Maximum rotational angular velocity

turret azimuth 300mrad / s

artillery level to 75 ~ 100mrad / s

Low rotational speed of the line of sight

Azimuth <0.3mrad / s

level to <0.3mrad / s

 

[Dazzler]

Please backup your claims with proper material source- I did with mine-- Its time you learned how to behave on international forums and did the same-

not at liberty, this might interest you though..

 

[Damian]

And this is proof to what?

It's your view after all...

Not only my. And believe me, I know what I am talking about.

Maybe because Israelis and Russians already doing this.

With old tanks and on small scale in Russia. In Israel situation is different but then again, Namer APC is new build. There is no nececity to have tank with front mounted engine to design such APC, especially that these design are not modular and interchangable, you can't convert Merkava Mk4 in to Namer, and Namer in to Merkava Mk4. Vehicle builded in original configuration, serves it's whole servicelife in this configuration.

But it still not in service in the Polish land forces. Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

It was example. Besides there was a typo. But the fact is a fact. Our MBT will be modernized Leopard 2, while lighter vehicles that are obsolete will be replaced with tracked UMPG that will supplement MBT's.

It's because its hull is made of steel instead of aluminum.

Empty weight :

VPC* : 22 900 kg
Boxer : 25 000 kg


*(command variant of the VBCI without the Dragar turret)

Using steel was good decision, and no, using steel does not makes it unnececary heavy, it is that idiotic modular fashion.

Why should they change constantly mission modules ? Nevertheless, the Boxer provides significant development potential.

Is there a concrete feedback about the performances of the Boxer in Afghanistan ?

Because changing mission modules is the whole point of that absolute modularity insanity?

And no, there are no good and detailed informations, at least I didn't seen any.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/images/smilies/kiddingme.png

Yes I am serious. Ask crews of hit US tanks in Iraq.

You didn't answer to my question.

I did.


@Dazzler

yes this is the one, and this is only photo I seen of T-80BV with such ERA configuration. Very unusual.

 

[methos]

The reason why the Boxer is heavier than other APCs is not it's modular design, but rather the fact that it is currently the most protected wheeled AFV in existance.

 

[Damian]

The reason why the Boxer is heavier than other APCs is not it's modular design, but rather the fact that it is currently the most protected wheeled AFV in existance.

I would be carefull with connecting protection with vehicle weight.

As far as I know, the main reason is (over)modularity, that is unnececary as I said. Mission modules are not needed.

In Poland we use modified Patria AMV, KTO "Rosomak". We do not have mission modules, each vehicle is build in single configuration which it's spend through it's whole service life.

Weight of basic variant is 22 metric tons, "Rosomak" M1M which is uparmored variant weights around 26-26,3 metric tons if not slightly more. Offers good protection against RPG's, 14,5mm AP ammo for it's frontal and side surfaces. Boxer weights 25,2 metric tons.

 

[methos]

I would be carefull with connecting protection with vehicle weight.

As far as I know, the main reason is (over)modularity, that is unnececary as I said. Mission modules are not needed.

No, the mission module design allowed to design and produce many different variants in a very brief amount of time. I think it is too early to make any judgments about the usefullness of this design, given the fact that it hasn't entered service fully.
The weight is completely normal for a vehicle of the given protection level and size. It does not weigh much more than an uparmoured Patria AMV, but has larger usable volume and a more powerful engine/transmission combo.

 

[Sovngard]

And this is proof to what?

It proves that the frontal armor cavity is large enough to accommodate a composite module that offers a decent protection level.

Not only my. And believe me, I know what I am talking about.

You can't convert Merkava Mk4 in to Namer, and Namer in to Merkava Mk4. Vehicle builded in original configuration, serves it's whole servicelife in this configuration.

The Namer production model was built on a Merkava Mk. IV hull.

The main difference with a rear-engined tank is that it will be easier to convert it into a HAPC or SPH since the engine compartment is already at the right place.

Using steel was good decision, and no, using steel does not makes it unnececary heavy, it is that idiotic modular fashion.

Once again, it's a matter of military doctrine.

Yes I am serious. Ask crews of hit US tanks in Iraq.

You didn't understand me.

When moving cross-country, the crew will be less shaken once they will be closer to the tank's center of gravity, which is in the middle of the tank.

I did.

Could you please give more details to your answer ?

the fact that it is currently the most protected wheeled AFV in existance.

Mine blast : only STANAG 4569 level 3a

Why ?

 

[methos]

Mine blast : only STANAG 4569 level 3a

Why ?

 

[Damian]

It proves that the frontal armor cavity is large enough to accommodate a composite module that offers a decent protection level.

Really? And you concluded this how? Pfff.

The Namer production model was built on a Merkava Mk. IV hull.

Then you know nothing Jon Snow.

Namer use dedicated hull design partially based on Merkava Mk4 hull and it's components.

Once again, it's a matter of military doctrine.

No, it is matter of logic.

You didn't understand me.

When moving cross-country, the crew will be less shaken once they will be closer to the tank's center of gravity, which is in the middle of the tank.

This has nothing to do with engine placement, but how balanced is vehicle.

Could you please give more details to your answer ?

There is enough details... at least for people that can think with using logic.

No, the mission module design allowed to design and produce many different variants in a very brief amount of time.

And it is done? No, so it is useless creation of useless fashion of the FCS era.

I think it is too early to make any judgments about the usefullness of this design, given the fact that it hasn't entered service fully.

Boxer per se is very good wheeled APC, but these mission modules makes design unnececary complex.

The weight is completely normal for a vehicle of the given protection level and size. It does not weigh much more than an uparmoured Patria AMV, but has larger usable volume and a more powerful engine/transmission combo.

If Boxer have larger internal volume, then this further increase my doubts if it is better protected than uparmored AMV with smaller internal volume.

 

[Saumyasupraik]

Quick questions about the export Vickers Mk.7/2 and AMX-40, how were their night-fighting capabilities comparable to the M1A1 Abrams and Leopard 2A4? As far as I know AMX-40 has the CASTOR TI along with LLTV or does it only have one of them and which one? I am not even sure if the Mk.7/2 could mount the TOGS, so what exactly did it use? IR sights or LLTV?

Also what's the sight on Mk.7/2 on loaders position?

The AMX-40 has the CASTOR in the box on the right of the turret, where is the LLTV and LRF situated?

 

[Damian]

The AMX-40 has the CASTOR in the box on the right of the turret, where is the LLTV and LRF situated?

Everything is packed in this large gun mantled.

As for Vickers Mk.7/2, it had thermal sight integrated with day sight, in that cut out in front turret armor.

Also what's the sight on Mk.7/2 on loaders position?

Probably some sort of test configuration to check different sight placements.

 

[methos]

It's because its hull is made of steel instead of aluminum.

The Boxer is not produced like a conventional vehicle with steel hull. Instead they use what has been described as "Thin Metal Bending Technology" (see Rolf Hilmes, "Kampfpanzer Heute und Morgen"). On conventional armoured vehicles (be it tanks, APCs or IFVs) the steel hull always serves as part of the armour and thus has to be made of ballistic steel. On the Boxer the hull is made from steel providing a very high amount of structural stiffness, so the overall thickness of the steel chassis is lower. Furthermore the steel is not welded, but on most places bend into shape, which eliminates weakspots and allows to reduce the plate thickness even more.

Empty weight :

VPC* : 22 900 kg
Boxer : 25 000 kg


*(command variant of the VBCI without the Dragar turret)

According to Nexter the VBCI and the "VBCI armoured infantry fighting vehicle - variant version" have an empty weight of just 20 tonnes.

Is there a concrete feedback about the performances of the Boxer in Afghanistan ?

Yes, it did very well. There are a lot of posts from German army members in forums and official reports/documentaries about it's performance. However a lot of people would have liked to see the German army to buy some IFV modules for fire support operations.
I think that would have been a bad idea.

I
In Poland we use modified Patria AMV, KTO "Rosomak". We do not have mission modules, each vehicle is build in single configuration which it's spend through it's whole service life.

Yes, and you already made a mistake doing so. You started buying versions with reduced armour and once it was used in Afghanistan, you started buying some with heavier armour.
The Boxer was designed to replace the TPz Fuchs and the MTW M113. There are currently 17 Fuchs variants on the 1A8 level and some more which weren't upgraded, because these weren't deployed in Afghanistan. There are more than a dozen M113 variants in service.
But there is not a single scenario bar the Cold War were all of these different versions are needed at the same time. Hence designing a modular vehicle makes a lot of sense.

I
Weight of basic variant is 22 metric tons, "Rosomak" M1M which is uparmored variant weights around 26-26,3 metric tons if not slightly more. Offers good protection against RPG's, 14,5mm AP ammo for it's frontal and side surfaces. Boxer weights 25,2 metric tons.

You are comparing apples to bananas. The 22 tonnes and 26 tonnes are in both cases the combat weight. The 25,2 tonnes are the empty weight of the Boxer. The combat weight will be larger, but it depends on the exact version.

Boxer per se is very good wheeled APC, but these mission modules makes design unnececary complex.

Why? It is not a very complicated, it is a very easy interface between mission module and basic vehicle.

If Boxer have larger internal volume, then this further increase my doubts if it is better protected than uparmored AMV with smaller internal volume.

I did not write that the internal volume is larger per se. I wrote the usable internal volume is larger (14 m³ vs 13 m³). On the high-roof version (which is less armoured) it is even 17.5 m³.
I think just from appearance and dimensions, I think the total volume of a Patria AMV should be similar large - if not larger - than the volume of a Boxer.

The way how the internal volume is used is somewhat questionable in the Boxer. Or how many APCs have their own toilets onboard?

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Is there also a STANAG Agreement for the protection of heavily armored vehicles ?

 

[Saumyasupraik]

Everything is packed in this large gun mantled.

It has both LLTV and TI?

As for Vickers Mk.7/2, it had thermal sight integrated with day sight, in that cut out in front turret armor.

Isn't that area a bit too small to integrate both gunners day sight and TI sight?

 

[methos]

Is there also a STANAG Agreement for the protection of heavily armored vehicles ?

As far as I know there is none.

 

[Sovngard]

Quick questions about the export Vickers Mk.7/2 and AMX-40, how were their night-fighting capabilities comparable to the M1A1 Abrams and Leopard 2A4?

During the firing trials in Saudi Arabia (july 1987), the EE-T2 Osorio and the M1A1 Abrams have scored better results than the AMX-40 (and the FV4030/4 Challenger Mk. 2) mainly because their respective thermal sight had an independently stabilized two-axis line of sight (only the vertical axis for the M1A1).

As far as I know AMX-40 has the CASTOR TI along with LLTV or does it only have one of them and which one?

The AMX-40 had the same optics and fire control system as its predecessor (the AMX-32 from 1979) but it included the DIVT* 16 CASTOR* thermal sight instead of the DIVT 13 LLLTV.

The gun was stabilized on the two planes but the M581 day sight and the DIVT 16 thermal sight were slaved to the main gun, since they were mounted on the gun mantlet.

The image filmed by the DIVT 16 thermal sight was displayed on two small cathode ray tube monitors (one for the gunner and another for the commander).

where is the LRF situated?

The CILAS APX M550 laser rangefinder being part of the M581 sight (x10 magnification).

The commander had a M527 (x2 and x8) panoramic sight which also included a night channel (image intensifier). Unlike the gunner sight, it was independently stabilized on the two planes.


*Which means beaver in French and is also the acronym of CAméra Standard Thermique d'Observation et de Reconnaissance, in English : standard thermal camera for observation and recognition.

*Which is the acronym of Dispositif d'Intensification pour la Visée et le Tir = intensification device for aiming and firing.

I am not even sure if the Mk.7/2 could mount the TOGS, so what exactly did it use? IR sights or LLTV?

Also what's the sight on Mk.7/2 on loaders position?

It's the Philips UA9090 thermal imager, the Brazilian EE-T2 Osorio was fitted with the same model.

It was built under licence by Raytheon.

 

[Saumyasupraik]

During the firing trials in Saudi Arabia (july 1987), the EE-T2 Osorio and the M1A1 Abrams have scored better results than the AMX-40 (and the FV4030/4 Challenger Mk. 2) mainly because their respective thermal sight had an independently stabilized two-axis line of sight (only the vertical axis for the M1A1).

Thanks, a really interesting and informative post. So the AMX-40s scored less due to the CASTOR not being stabilised on the two planes? Also AMX-30B2 and BRENUS both were refitted with DIVT-16 or had retained the DIVT-13?

 

[Damian]

It has both LLTV and TI?

No, day sight + TI or day sight + LLTV.

Isn't that area a bit too small to integrate both gunners day sight and TI sight?

Depends on size of thermal sight.

So the AMX-40s scored less due to the CASTOR not being stabilised on the two planes?

Nah, there is small misunderstanding here. If sight is placed inside gun mantled, then it will have vertical stabilization because the gun and gun mantled is stabilized. However it will not have stabilization in horizontal, thus it will have floating reticle, just like in case of older sights for M1 tanks, or Challenger 2's TOGS-2 thermal sight have.

Yes, and you already made a mistake doing so. You started buying versions with reduced armour and once it was used in Afghanistan, you started buying some with heavier armour.
The Boxer was designed to replace the TPz Fuchs and the MTW M113. There are currently 17 Fuchs variants on the 1A8 level and some more which weren't upgraded, because these weren't deployed in Afghanistan. There are more than a dozen M113 variants in service.
But there is not a single scenario bar the Cold War were all of these different versions are needed at the same time. Hence designing a modular vehicle makes a lot of sense.

But armor on Rosomak is modular. Actually any standard Rosomak can be modified to heavy uparmored M1M variant, and vice versa M1M can be modified to standard variant.

Just our army see nececity to have lighter vehicles that have amphibious capabilities, but also heavy variants with better armor protection.

Our engineers are also working on some solutions that can give us both capabilities in single vehicle. I seen these solutions last year on MSPO exhibition.