Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Sovngard]

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?

Some tanks platoons were fully equiped with the DIVT-16 CASTOR thermal sight (unit cost at that time : 400 000 €) but many others units of AMX-30B2 were still fitted with infrared searchlight and only the platoon chief had his tank fitted with the DIVT-13 Low Light Level Television (LLTV).

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..

You also did not understand

Of course the sight on the mantlet will benefit from the vertical stabilization of the main gun (and the horizontal stab of the turret).

But when the fire control system will de-aiming the gun and the turret from your line of sight after lasing (for example : because the current target is moving at a far distance), the sight will also follow the the gun and turret movements.

So, keep the target in the center or your moving reticle will be less easy.

Before the M1A2, only the mirror head of the M1 Abrams gunner sight was stabilized on the vertical plane and that's why the reticle move horizontally (because the horizontal plane was not independently stabilized from the turret stabilization).

On the FV4030 Challenger II, the TOGS II reticle moves in any direction because it lacks a stabilized mirror which allows to be independently stabilized.
However, its gunner day sight is independently stabilized on the two planes.

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Methos , that sucks a little. I really would have liked to have seen a graph with all the NATO tanks on it. Would have been quite interesting how they officially measure up.

Anyway, here is an interesting picture:

 

[Damian]

You also did not understand

Of course the sight on the mantlet will benefit from the vertical stabilization of the main gun (and the horizontal stab of the turret).

But when the fire control system will de-aiming the gun and the turret from your line of sight after lasing (for example : because the current target is moving at a far distance), the sight will also follow the the gun and turret movements.

So, keep the target in the center or your moving reticle will be less easy.

I know this. Do not talk that I did not understand something when you don't know what I know.

Before the M1A2, only the mirror head of the M1 Abrams gunner sight was stabilized on the vertical plane and that's why the reticle move horizontally (because the horizontal plane was not independently stabilized from the turret stabilization).

On the FV4030 Challenger II, the TOGS II reticle moves in any direction because it lacks a stabilized mirror which allows to be independently stabilized.
However, its gunner day sight is independently stabilized on the two planes.

Do you really think I do not know this? Ha...

 

[Sovngard]

Really? And you concluded this how? Pfff.

What is wrong with you ?

In your opinion, the cavity in front of the transmission is not large enough to fit a state of the art composite armor...

Then you know nothing Jon Snow.

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

Guess what the Israelis has chosen for the development of a SPH in the 1980s.

It's always easier to make that determination than choosing between the Wildlings and the Night's Watch.

No, it is matter of logic.

Once again, your logic.

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

The designers had little choice if they wanted to keep the crew compartment in the middle of the FMBT.

I know this. Do not talk that I did not understand something when you don't know what I know.

You have claimed that the AMX-40's optics on its mantlet didn't have stabilization in horizontal. Which is not true.

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

And the French Army's website still claims that the Leclerc weigh 54 tonnes and has a fuel capacity of only 900 liters...

Or how many APCs have their own toilets onboard?

The FV 510 Warrior and the BMP-3.

« ballistic protection up to 14.5 mm also at 30° elevation »

artec-boxer.com: Armoured Personnel Carrier

I think that the basic Boxer model don't has the highest STANAG protection level.

 

[methos]

« ballistic protection up to 14.5 mm also at 30° elevation »

artec-boxer.com: Armoured Personnel Carrier

I think that the basic Boxer model don't has the highest STANAG protection level.

It is the same level of protection on all models bar the ones with raised roof. It does even say that it provides protection at 30° elevation against 14.5 mm. 30° elevation is the same than firing at the frontal armour without slope.
But if you rather like quotes from their website instead of taking the graph from a more reliable source (an article of a German officer written for a defence magazine), here is another one: "Highest protection level in its class - in terms of heavy machine guns, automatic medium calibre machine cannons, bomblets and artillery fragments".

 

[Damian]

What is wrong with you ?

With me nothing. However I have serious concerns about your ability to use logic.

In your opinion, the cavity in front of the transmission is not large enough to fit a state of the art composite armor...

I will correct you here. Not large enough to fit enough of this armor. There must be enough of this armor to actually provide protection.

Guess what the Israelis has chosen for the development of a SPH in the 1980s.

And the program had been cancelled.

Once again, your logic.

There is no such thing as my logic, logic is logic, common sense is common sense.

The designers had little choice if they wanted to keep the crew compartment in the middle of the FMBT.

Nope. Take out engine from front, actually engine they wanted to use was too big, find something more compact, place it free space at rear, move crew and turret slightly to the front. Empty space at front between crew compartment and front armor edge, fill with special armor, voila.

You have claimed that the AMX-40's optics on its mantlet didn't have stabilization in horizontal. Which is not true.

And they have? You are sure? If you have a proof show me.

 

[Blood+]

Hey @Damian,can you give me some info about the automatic transmission set used in Arjun like the model and the total associated weight of the transmission set??
Besides,what is the approximate weight of the MTU 1400hp diesel engine used in Arjun??

And lastly,what is the transmission and how much does it weigh that Ukraine is offering for Arjun upgrade??

Thanks........

 

[Damian]

Hey @Damian,can you give me some info about the automatic transmission set used in Arjun like the model and the total associated weight of the transmission set??
Besides,what is the approximate weight of the MTU 1400hp diesel engine used in Arjun??

Isn't such data provided on manufactrer internet site?

And lastly,what is the transmission and how much does it weigh that Ukraine is offering for Arjun upgrade??

Transmission is taken from BM "Oplot" tank. This transmission is not integrated, it means that there are two transmission blocks for each sprocket wheel.

This type of transmission weight approx 1,5 metric tons.

 

[Sovngard]

can you give me some info about the automatic transmission set used in Arjun like the model and the total associated weight of the transmission set??

Renk RK 304S : 2300 kg (dry)

Besides,what is the approximate weight of the MTU 1400hp diesel engine used in Arjun??.

MTU MT 838 Ka 501 : 1920 kg (wet and without the cooling system)

And lastly,what is the transmission and how much does it weigh that Ukraine is offering for Arjun upgrade??

6TD-5 engine : 1920 kg

On the T-64, each planetary gearboxes weighed around 700 kg and around 880 kg for the two T-72 transmission units.

Those which work with the new 6TD-5 engine will probably weigh more in order to deal with the stronger engine output (1800 hp at 3200 RPM).

 

[Broccoli]

What is that sensor above the gun?

 

[Soviet Sniper 762]

I can mistake, but i think that is a laser rangefinder, because it isn't installed on the top of the smooth-bore gun.
Maybe the thermal-visor that the commander can use too. I discovered that the Type 99 has also a jamming system, the JD-3 (probably derived by the Shtora-1).

 

[Damian]

It is not laser range finder. This is MRS system or muzzle reference sensor. It is because most tanks designed in former soviet union or china (if not all) do not have MRS integrated with their main sight but is installed as separate device on gun mantled and gun tube, while NATO tanks have MRS installed on gun tube and integrated with gunner primary sight.

 

[Broccoli]

Where is it in T-90?

 

[Damian]

Where is it in T-90?

Which T-90? Standard T-90, T-90A and T-90S does not have such device. Newest T-90SM have such device.

T-90SM you can see MRS components on gun barrel at the muzzle and at gun mantled.

T-90A and T-90S lacks MRS system, no components visible.

 

[Dazzler]

What is that sensor above the gun?

muzzle reference system chinese style

 

[Soviet Sniper 762]

Sorry for my ignorance... But why aren't MSRs installed yet on orient tanks?

 

[Damian]

Sorry for my ignorance... But why aren't MSRs installed yet on orient tanks?

Which orient tanks?

 

[Soviet Sniper 762]

Which orient tanks?

For example T-90A or Type 99.

 

[Damian]

For example T-90A or Type 99.

Lack of such requirement, engineers didn't took enough attention to it, lack of technology, many possible reasons. It was however never trully explained in literature.

 

[Soviet Sniper 762]

Maybe because replace a MRS disunited from the main gun is easier than a built-in one. And it's cheaper...