Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Damian · May 5, 2014

I think what Militarysta wanted to say is, if in 1968 during tests, one of "Burlington" prototypes with thickness of 200mm was capable to stop shaped charge jet capable to defeat 340-380mm of RHA, it is justfied to assume that more modern armor with similiar thickness might be capable to stop shaped charge jet capable to defeat 600+mm RHA in the same or similiar scenario and at the same hit angle.

Andrei_bt · May 6, 2014

Damian said:
I think what Militarysta wanted to say is, if in 1968 during tests, one of "Burlington" prototypes with thickness of 200mm was capable to stop shaped charge jet capable to defeat 340-380mm of RHA, it is justfied to assume that more modern armor with similiar thickness might be capable to stop shaped charge jet capable to defeat 600+mm RHA in the same or similiar scenario and at the same hit angle.

Something like fantasy, nothing to proove this incluing 1968 Burlington tests.

Damian · May 6, 2014

Yeah, right Andrei, we all know that everything developed in the west is considered by you as completely inferior. This is typical "homo sovieticus" style of thinking.

313230 · May 6, 2014

Andrei_bt said:
Something like fantasy, nothing to proove this incluing 1968 Burlington tests.

Hi Andrei,

The below image shows AMAP where the armor stop RPG 29 equivalent with precursor. The problem is German estimate rpg 29 as 800mm, and they estimate STANAG 4569 lvl 3 is 25mm RHA, because there is 7.62 tungsten core with 20mm penetration. So it is a safe strategy to overestimate the threat, but the passive armor is still much less than RHA in both volume and weight (99% it is semi active armor, no passive armor can achieve this)

AMAP claims 8-10 times the weight equivalent of RHA against shaped charge, near ERA level. At least they claim leo2 evolution is protected from rpg 29, and there is no reason their German version Leo2a7+ Urban config is not protected from the same threat. All the later Leo 2s are kept at ~4m width, so there is only a 25cm side armor.

Quoted from that presentation:
"IBD developed a spezial track skirt applied for example at the Leopard 2 A4 Evolution. The module is designed to erode the slug. Combined with a base armour of e.g. a ceramic protection it is able to defeat even the most dangerous shaped charges used in theatre"

This might even mean large caliber ATGM

militarysta · May 6, 2014

313230 said:
Hi Andrei,

The below image shows AMAP where the armor stop RPG 29 equivalent with precursor. The problem is German estimate rpg 29 as 800mm, and they estimate STANAG 4569 lvl 3 is 25mm RHA, because there is 7.62 tungsten core with 20mm penetration. So it is a safe strategy to overestimate the threat, but the passive armor is still much less than RHA in both volume and weight (99% it is semi active armor, no passive armor can achieve this)

AMAP claims 8-10 times the weight equivalent of RHA against shaped charge, near ERA level. At least they claim leo2 evolution is protected from rpg 29, and there is no reason their German version Leo2a7+ Urban config is not protected from the same threat. All the later Leo 2s are kept at ~4m width, so there is only a 25cm side armor.

Quoted from that presentation:
"IBD developed a spezial track skirt applied for example at the Leopard 2 A4 Evolution. The module is designed to erode the slug. Combined with a base armour of e.g. a ceramic protection it is able to defeat even the most dangerous shaped charges used in theatre"

This might even mean large caliber ATGM

Have you orginal source - very interesting part you posted!

militarysta · May 6, 2014

Andrei_bt said:
Something like fantasy, nothing to proove this incluing 1968 Burlington tests.

Andiej - I sent you few months ago both articles about orgins of the Burlinghton - you can even ask the Author on TankNet.
Simple.

Andrei_bt · May 6, 2014

Note the size of amap module ... very big one. Is it 25 cm?:shocked:
The length of projectile semms to be 600+ mm, so this may be not hull side protection, but frontall.

Andrei_bt · May 6, 2014

I read a "burlington files" source and did not notice such data. It is not enought to me read somobodies assumptions without tests results.

313230 · May 6, 2014

militarysta said:
Have you orginal source - very interesting part you posted!

I can't upload attachment, this forum seems don't have that function. So PM me your email address, I will send it to you.

313230 · May 6, 2014

Andrei_bt said:
Note the size of amap module ... very big one. Is it 25 cm?:shocked:
The length of projectile semms to be 600+ mm, so this may be not hull side protection, but frontall.

That why I just guess, not know exactly.

militarysta · May 6, 2014

Andrei_bt said:
Note the size of amap module ... very big one. Is it 25 cm?:shocked:
The length of projectile semms to be 600+ mm, so this may be not hull side protection, but frontall.

militarysta · May 6, 2014

Andrei_bt said:
I read a "burlington files" source

In GB or this avaible in old GSPO forum?

and did not notice such data. It is not enought to me read somobodies assumptions without tests results.

Autor of both articles had full declasiffated data -not only those photos from GSPO

And there is full bibliography in this thesis. So there are sources not "assumpsions"

Andrei_bt · May 6, 2014

militarysta said:

so it is 600+ device required to protect against PG29 type varheads and it is definetly not side armor module, rather front turret.

militarysta · May 6, 2014

Andrei_bt said:
so it is 600+ device required to protect against PG29 type varheads and it is definetly not side armor module, rather front turret.

Spz Puma sides...

btw: how tick are Oplot-M sides modules whit Kinfe?

Andrei_bt · May 6, 2014

You are shure Puma has (http://www.platforms-mil.de/Bilder/SPz_Puma_Bundeswehr.jpg) 635 mm sides?

Sovngard · May 6, 2014

Andrei_bt said:
You are shure Puma has (http://www.platforms-mil.de/Bilder/SPz_Puma_Bundeswehr.jpg) 635 mm sides?

Andrei_bt · May 6, 2014

So nobody notice some strange things )))) Like burlingthon (1960-s) more effective then modern german armor ? And strange about 100 mm armor plate before main PG29 charge )))) looks like staged tests like it is!

Andrei_bt · May 6, 2014

militarysta said:
Spz Puma sides...

btw: how tick are Oplot-M sides modules whit Kinfe?

They are with Duplet, but it's better to compare with light AFV modules like

noz-L or Rocketka

Kunal Biswas · May 7, 2014

That`s all i asked for, Thank you ..

Damian said:
Here is one of the simulators types used by US Army.

Damian · May 7, 2014

Thread starter	Similar threads	Forum	Replies	Date
W	Pakistan show interest in Ukraine Oplot main battle tank	Pakistan	0	Jun 11, 2021
	T-80UD Main Battle Tank - A Pakistani Perspective	Defence Wiki	0	Apr 19, 2020
W	Taiwan will purchase 108 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks from U.S.	Land Forces	6	Aug 17, 2019
W	Pakistan Procuring 300 T-90 Main Battle Tanks from Russia.	Pakistan	68	May 3, 2019

Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

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

Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

More options

Damian

Andrei_bt

Damian

313230

militarysta

militarysta

Andrei_bt

Andrei_bt

313230

313230

militarysta

militarysta

Andrei_bt

militarysta

Andrei_bt

Sovngard

Andrei_bt

Andrei_bt

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011

Damian

Articles