Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

Destoryed on estern Ukraina T-64BM Bulat

 

[hitesh]

One noob question, does the tanks wheels made of composite armor (highly unlikely) or any type of armor to defeat AGTM as most of the tanks do not cover there road wheels

 

[militarysta]

One noob question, does the tanks wheels made of composite armor (highly unlikely) or any type of armor to defeat AGTM as most of the tanks do not cover there road wheels

No, just light alloys steel or rateher soft RHA plates. Wheels are not protection against anything.

 

[Damian]

Polish army tank crews have now 21 day long trening about Leopard-2A5 in Muster trening center in Germany.
All is conected whit taken next Leopard-2 from Germany.

few photos:

These are Leopard 2A6's, although the fact is, the only true difference between these and Leopard 2A5's is a longer gun barrel, so there is not much difference in training.

As for wheels, actually wheels give some additional protection to hull sides, and act as simple spaced armor.

 

[Damian]

Interesting, Merkava Mk4M with upgrade, small and hard to see but nontheless interesting, enlarged commander panoramic sight?

Also in the background we can see ARV, dunno if this is Nemera ARV on Merkava Mk4 chassis, or based on Namer HAPC?

Edit:

Better photos of enlarger commander panoramic sight.

Even Merkava Mk3's receiv these.

 

[militarysta]

Damage T-64BM <Bulat> from previous page - this time better photo.



Well, this tank is not destroyed, it's damage - not very hard to be honest. Interesting is lack of "Niz" (Knive) ERA casettes on tank turret top and marks after burned. IMHO this tank was hit by artilery or...ukrainian friendly-fire by air strike...
More or less - two weeks in repair plant and tank shoud be come back in service.

 

[militarysta]

Wonderfull life example of working APS - Trophy vs hamas ATGM



video analys:




Well - ATGM was destroyed by multi EFP formed form MEFP charge on Trophy. So APS again destroyed enemy ATGM

What is the most funny - Hamas propaganda posted this video propably without knowledge that this video shown completly ineffective (failed) attack, couse APS working.
ROTFL

 

[Damian]

Here you can see internal structure of the Merkava Mk3D turret armor.

 

[militarysta]

Taaaa

there is something what is conecting Cheftian Mk.5/2, Leopard-2, M1A1, Merkava Mk.3D and Merkava Mk.4.
All is based on NERA or NxRa armour + citadele after it...

 

[militarysta]

Finall verison

Merkava Mk.3D Dor Dalet armour:



Well -at least 3-4 NERA layers and after that circa 50-80mm RHA citadele.

 

[militarysta]

T-55 Enigma Haji armour.
Simple, primitive NERA layout

 

[militarysta]

And polish T-55AM armour thickens:



this tank whit BDD armour:










Effectivens of only BDD armour:

BDD armor (de-scribed as "metal-polymer block"), is credited with adding 120mm of protec-tion against APDS and 200-250mm of protection against HEAT or shaped-charge ammunition. In effect, the 60-degree frontal arc of a T-55 fitted with BDD armor was suddenly immune to tank-fired 105mm APDS and HEAT, as well as Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) ammunition.-

so BDD armour give aditional protection vs:
vs APDS 120mm RHA
vs HEAT 200-250mm RHA

 

[Sovngard]

Jaroslaw, what are your estimates regarding the level of protection of the turret side of this Merkava ?

 

[militarysta]

Jaroslaw, what are your estimates regarding the level of protection of the turret side of this Merkava ?

Good and very difficult question...

Well, now it's obvious that this armour consist (for most typical angle of attack) 3 -4 NERA layers in armour module + 50-80mm RHA citadele (turret "base").

NERA - especialy modern ones - are pretty effective agianst SC warhed,
the best example are M. Held tests:

double NERA layout give capability of the protection equal to CP=91% for SC warhed whit 950mm RHA penetration.

Is this mean that 3-4 NERA layers in Merkava Mk.3D Dor Dalet give ultimate protection?
Unfortunatly not.
SC warhed developers are not stupid and they used still better and better SC warheds. What more - they are using many precursors based on SC EFP or "non initiating jet" rules.
So in precursor they can by aditional SC, or EFP able to made big hole in ERA/NERA layer, or the most sophisticated "non initiating prcursors" - like in PzF-3T/IT600 or RPG-29 - when precursor hit ERA/NERA and "throwin" ERA/NERA layers mahing big hole for main warhed SC jet but without initialization ERA and NERA layers.
So it's not so simple.

Propably agaisnt single SC warhed without precursor this Merkava Mk.3D armour provide almoust ultimate protection - no metter how big will be single SC warhed (125-152mm etc).
In case modern SC warhed whit:
a) fast jets (more then 7 km/s)
b) sophisticated precursor
effectivnes sucht NERA armour will be smaller.
Propably sucht precursor will be able to dimount at least two NERA layers inside (so 2 form 4 or 2 from 3...)
Single NERA layer is effective (from other M. Held thesis) in circa CP=32%

So if Metis-M (900-950mm RHA penetration - present in Hezbollach) will hit sucht Mk.3D armour then we have two scenario lucky and unlucky.
Unlucky is when warhed hit in place whare are only 3 NERA layers and precursor will dismount (neutralize) firs two NERA layers.
The last one NERA layer will "eat" 32% from penetration so Metis will have still 612mm RHA penetration. So this hit will kill the tank IMHO.
But - typical scenario is when are present at least 4 NERA layers. So even if they will be saved only 2 NERA layers then SC warhed will lose this at least 90% of it's penetartion power. So residual penetration equal to <100mm RHA will be to small for most comon angles (when inner citadele 50-80mm will be doubled by thickenss - so 100-160mm RHA).
But you can see here how "on edge" is this scenario.

In case Kornet (1100mm RHA penetration) sucht warhed will be pass this whole armour and kill at least 50-75% crew + whole tank propably.

End notice that in known Merkava Mk.4 module we have mucht more NERA layers then in Merkava Mk.3D modules.
So incarese number of the NERA layers was necessary.

You can conisder the fact in M1A1HA there is mucht more layers of NERA and this layout was ineffective for hit's on almoust 90. against RPG-29 and PG-7VR, but for angle close to 30. it was effective enought
Propably not only number of layers but also hit angle and "lenght" of the jet path between bulging NERA plates is important.

This M1A1 HA layouts:

for 90. up to 500-550mm RHA SC warhed
for 30 degree - able to stop almoust twice of that

and turret bustle:

obiusly less effective (less NERA layers) then in first scenario.


In Merkava Mk.3D there is one good think - smaller number of layers - only 3-4 (Abrams bustle at least 4-6, abrams crew comparmet 3 + 4-6) but angle is very good and sucht module is thick twice as in M1 Abrams (370mm LOS in m1 and more then 650mm in Merkava Mk.3D)

I hope that I answered.
So - IMHO Mk.3D module will stop KONKURS, Fagot, TOW, HJ-8, RPG-7 easly, for typical scenario (4x NERA) propably RPG-29, Metis-M, but both are possible to penetrate armour whit "lucky hit" and Kornet will definetly pass whole armour and destroyed the tank.

Amen.

 

[methos]

Good and very difficult question...
NERA - especialy modern ones - are pretty effective agianst SC warhed,
the best example are M. Held tests:

double NERA layout give capability of the protection equal to CP=91% for SC warhed whit 950mm RHA penetration.

Not every combination of two NERA layers is able to achieve such a high level of performance, this is pretty much "best case NERA". It uses very thick plates (30 mm at 65° angle = 70 mm thick layers) of semi-hardened steel (1200 N/mm² = approx. 355 HB) which according to Lakowski already offers 12 to 18% more protection than RHA. To this comes the usage of optimized materials developed by IBD and a very large distance to the witness plate (about 1 m?),

 

[militarysta]

Not every combination of two NERA layers is able to achieve such a high level of performance, this is pretty much "best case NERA". It uses very thick plates (30 mm at 65° angle = 70 mm thick layers) of semi-hardened steel (1200 N/mm² = approx. 355 HB) which according to Lakowski already offers 12 to 18% more protection than RHA. To this comes the usage of optimized materials developed by IBD and a very large distance to the witness plate (about 1 m?),

I wast thinking about this. Well - sucht layout (thickenss) is present in Leopard-2A5/A6 wedges. Simmilar thickenss seems to be present in known Mk.4
armour:

compare visible NERA(or other "RA") thickness whit those smoke luncher or other part -it's seems to be bigger then 30mm...
and in most known for me NERA layout we have rather bigger thickness then (Haji armour,)..

But anyway - single NERA layer is effetive in fluent ratio:

Capability of the Protection seems to be:

for interlayer material HE (so close to the ERA):
PETN: CP = 80%
RDX: CP = 65%



for interlayer material semi-HE (so rather SLERA)
mix GAP and Dottikonu: CP = 58%
mix rubber and Dottikon: CP = 47%

for interlayer material energetic but not explosing so NERA:
GAP + GZT CP = 27%
GAP +CaCo2 CP = 27%
GAP CP = 22%
rubber CP = 22%
foam CP = 11%


Ok, this SC was not big - 360mm is small value.

But how about doubled NERA layers? IMHO it's not linear value so 27% + 27% +27% =81% but rather diffrent way - nonlinear.

 

[methos]

I wast thinking about this. Well - sucht layout (thickenss) is present in Leopard-2A5/A6 wedges. Simmilar thickenss seems to be present in known Mk.4
armour:

compare visible NERA(or other "RA") thickness whit those smoke luncher or other part -it's seems to be bigger then 30mm...
and in most known for me NERA layout we have rather bigger thickness then (Haji armour,)..

From what I see some parts of the NERA of the Merkava IV follows a different layout, more similar to the T-72B's bulging plates. There are thick outer plates and thin inner plates.

Capability of the Protection seems to be:

for interlayer material HE (so close to the ERA):
PETN: CP = 80%
RDX: CP = 65%

for interlayer material semi-HE (so rather SLERA)
mix GAP and Dottikonu: CP = 58%
mix rubber and Dottikon: CP = 47%

for interlayer material energetic but not explosing so NERA:
GAP + GZT CP = 27%
GAP +CaCo2 CP = 27%
GAP CP = 22%
rubber CP = 22%
foam CP = 11%

I don't think that such assessments are correct. The relative protection provided by NERA (percentual values) is depending on the warhead. A very long HEAT jet will be affected less than a short one, because the bulging of the plates occurs around the same point of time (which is material dependent).

But how about doubled NERA layers? IMHO it's not linear value so 27% + 27% +27% =81% but rather diffrent way - nonlinear.

I'd agree with that.

 

[cobra commando]

Globes English - Anti-tank missile defense system makes debut

 

[Damian]

Globes English - Anti-tank missile defense system makes debut

Link does not work.

 

[Damian]

Globes English - Anti-tank missile defense system makes debut

Link does not work.