Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Pandora]

@Dazzler , seriously do you really exist in planet earth ? In Tank Biathlon ,there was no way they going to test armour.The competition was all about shooting,showing tank skills etc etc.Poland is much more developed than the whole south east asia,so keep your BS for yourself.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Source : Colonel Cassad - Бои за Новосветловку - Часть №2

Same weaknesses as all Chinese tanks. Very weak side hull and turret protection, which means you want to see this things burning with turrets flying? Aim at hull sides just under the turret where ammunition is stored, just like in T-72.

 

[Dazzler]

@Dazzler , seriously do you really exist in planet earth ? In Tank Biathlon ,there was no way they going to test armour.The competition was all about shooting,showing tank skills etc etc.Poland is much more developed than the whole south east asia,so keep your BS for yourself.

No, Poland is not more developed in this area, if they were, they would have shown better mbts than PT-91 series. Remaining projects are just that, paper projects with nothing concrete going on in them. Truth is, Poland do have an experienced arms industry with some interesting projects running but not all is sunshine there. They are certainly more advanced than most of south east asia, but not south asia.

 

[Dazzler]

Source : Colonel Cassad - Бои за Новосветловку - Часть №2

Theoretically yes, but only an event of war will show the outcome, all soviet/ russian/ ukrainian and chinese mbts with autoloaders may face the same issue. Unless there is bustle AL or some serious armour covering at hull sides.

However, hull side protection is weak in most mbts throughout the world.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Pics of blown up tanks with crew inside are not exercised in exercises, Don`t troll ..

M1A2 and Leo-A4/5/6/7 etc, design are better, I do not need to explain why so as it has been elaborated in this thread ..

Theoretically yes, but only an event of war will show the outcome, all soviet/ russian/ ukrainian and chinese mbts with autoloaders may face the same issue. Unless there is bustle AL or some serious armour covering at hull sides.

However, hull side protection is weak in most mbts throughout the world.

 

[militarysta]

Chineese tank Type 99A2 LOS armour (armour thickens) measured in two ways:

using wheel diameter:

using ERA casette lenght:

both give simmilar result, so propably those values +/- 5-7% are correct...

 

[313230]

What are those blocks on Type 99 turret? ERA or composite blocks?

 

[militarysta]

@UP
it's ERA whit casette lenght 330mm (what seems to be new standard in PRC Army) and under this we have special armour cavity + backplate.

 

[militarysta]

The biggest news here in Pakistan is the completion of Alkhalid-Improved, or simply, Alkhalid-2, being worked on at HIT, to be revealed by late 2014 at IDEAS 2014 exhibition. This tank incorporates 6-10 major changes compared to the original alkhalid mbt.

Changes include newly developed composite armour, slightly longer hull, additional frontal and side protection, ukrainian 6t-3 1500hp engine and multiple reverse speed transmission, auto transmission control, improved datalink and command and control features, indigenous 125mm smoothbore gun made by heavy mechanical complex, and a newly developed autoloader. To accompany this, POF and other related firms are working on new apfsds and HEAT ammos, also to be revealed at IDEAS 2014, by november this year.

God news!
Im looking for Al Chalid-2 for few yers.
In Novemver? I'm waiting

 

[Apollyon]

A country like Pakistan neither have technological base nor capability to develop Composite Armor. It's most likely re-branding of Chinese export armor by Islamic Republic of Pakistan Army for internal consumption and ego stroking.

 

[militarysta]

A country like Pakistan neither have technological base nor capability to develop Composite Armor. It's most likely re-branding of Chinese export armor by Islamic Republic of Pakistan Army for internal consumption and ego stroking.

I would be VERY CEARFULL whit sucht statsment.
First - Ukrainian industry seld to Pak. more then 300 very modern T-80UD whit seriously top armour in 1990s. Armour protection for T-80UD is not far from Leopard-2A5 or M1A1HA IMHO. What more - it's comfirmed that Ukrainian industry qive some help Pakistan industry. So here we have TWO option for acess to modern composite armour:
a) open and copied T-80UD "insert"
b) buy how-know from Ukraina directly
Second - Pakistani industry developed Al Chalid whit China industry. China industry is coping any posible soulution from west and est. Propably including armour.
So again:
a) simple copy chineese solutions (so russian or westrn copy)
b) buy how-know from China.
And the simplest way: Pakistan not copied Chineese armour but rescale and put T-80UD armour in to Al Chalid (so. ZTZ-96) armour cavity shape. Simple and good solution.

Waht more: While Indian army have constans problems whit MBT Arjun and it's more then 25 yers developmend phase, Pakistani just copied some Chineese solutions whit overal shape + Ukrainian solutions and some domestic frencht ones and developed rather good tank: Al Chalid-1.
In all analys avaible fo me Pakistan, pak industry and Al Chalid development is give as example how to do tanks in proper way. And Al Chalid-1 seeems to be really good tank - maybe not on "the wrost best class level" so Leclerc, M1A2, Leo-2A6, K2, but definetly it is a VERY good tank...

So understimated Pak. tank industry and Al Chalid seeems to be danger for India IMHO...

 

[bose]

I would be VERY CEARFULL whit sucht statsment.
First - Ukrainian industry seld to Pak. more then 300 very modern T-80UD whit seriously top armour in 1990s. Armour protection for T-80UD is not far from Leopard-2A5 or M1A1HA IMHO. What more - it's comfirmed that Ukrainian industry qive some help Pakistan industry. So here we have TWO option for acess to modern composite armour:
a) open and copied T-80UD "insert"
b) buy how-know from Ukraina directly
Second - Pakistani industry developed Al Chalid whit China industry. China industry is coping any posible soulution from west and est. Propably including armour.
So again:
a) simple copy chineese solutions (so russian or westrn copy)
b) buy how-know from China.
And the simplest way: Pakistan not copied Chineese armour but rescale and put T-80UD armour in to Al Chalid (so. ZTZ-96) armour cavity shape. Simple and good solution.

Waht more: While Indian army have constans problems whit MBT Arjun and it's more then 25 yers developmend phase, Pakistani just copied some Chineese solutions whit overal shape + Ukrainian solutions and some domestic frencht ones and developed rather good tank: Al Chalid-1.
In all analys avaible fo me Pakistan, pak industry and Al Chalid development is give as example how to do tanks in proper way. And Al Chalid-1 seeems to be really good tank - maybe not on "the wrost best class level" so Leclerc, M1A2, Leo-2A6, K2, but definetly it is a VERY good tank...

So understimated Pak. tank industry and Al Chalid seeems to be danger for India IMHO...

The Arjun Mark - II is not something that can be pushed over by specially Soviet / Ukrainian or Chinese Cheap copies like Al Khalid's ...

For your information 118 numbers of Arjun's have been ordered very recently... more to come...

Another Point to be noted ... The same Pakistanis came with Patton Tanks supplied by USA in 1965 / 1971 and were very sure to get Delhi in less than a day... If you come to India by any chance I will be happy take you to the place of Pakistanis Patton tanks graveyard...

 

[militarysta]

The Arjun Mark - II is not something that can be pushed over by specially Soviet / Ukrainian or Chinese Cheap copies like Al Khalid's ...

Till now knowed facts are opposide to this sentence...

For your information 118 numbers of Arjun's have been ordered very recently... more to come...

After how many yers developmend phase? 25?

And hom wany Al Chalid where produced after ~8 yers? Over 400?

 

[jouni]

Could somebody smart here tell me what is the level of performance of Leo 2A4 & A6 against modern russian tanks? Also what is the view of experts about NLAW ? Just briefly is enough.

 

[Apollyon]

I would be VERY CEARFULL whit sucht statsment.

Did I say any thing about the Al-Khalid or T-80 ? No.
I said that Pakistan neither have technological base nor capability to develop "Composite Armor".

Subject Area: Materials Science.
Period: 1996-2013.

• Subject Category: Ceramics and Composites - Country Rankings
• Subject Category: Materials Chemistry - Country Rankings
• Subject Category: Metals and Alloys - Country Rankings

Waht more: While Indian army have constans problems whit MBT Arjun and it's more then 25 yers developmend phase,

Indian Army just recently put a order for 118 Arjun Mk-II for $1.1 billion. Let's see how things go from here.

So understimated Pak. tank industry and Al Chalid seeems to be danger for India IMHO...

Who am I to underestimate anything.

 

[militarysta]

Could somebody smart here tell me what is the level of performance of Leo 2A4 & A6 against modern russian tanks? Also what is the view of experts about NLAW ? Just briefly is enough.

in hurry (copied from polish forum when I had posted this) -use google translator I will translate this layter...

Kolejna "zagadka"

NLAW:

i tutaj mamy nie EFP (jak w predator SRAW) ale...pojedynczą głowicę SC (HEAT)!
wtf?

Kaliber części nadkalibrowej wynosi 150mm zaś głowica kumulacyjna ma średnicę wkładki około 102mm.
Ok, są cuda wianki i można mieć penetrację równą ponad 8 średnic wkładki ale czy to wystarczy? Dajmy nawet 8,5 średnicy wkładki:
102mm x 8,5 = ~870mm RHA max ma NLAW.
I tutaj pytanie -co za magia w środku ma być, że nie zdecydowano o prekursorze?
Predator SRAW i EFP rozumiem - samo EFP jest wysoce odporne na większość ERA zaś amerykanie mają technologię produkcji dwóch-trzech zbitków EFP z jednej wkładki co powinno załatwić kwestię ERA na wieży czołgu -nawet tego nowoczesnego.
Ale pojedyncza głowica kumulacyjna w NLAW?!
Albo jest coś o czym nie wiem (bardzo możliwe), albo...albo ktoś policzył, że "na chama" i tak przejdzie.
ERA mają skuteczność redukcji pojedynczego ładunku kumulacyjnego różną:
ERAWA-2: 94-96%
Relikt: 90%
Nóż: ponad 96%
ale to dla warunków dość optymalnych
przy czym im kąt bliższy prostopadłemu tym gorzej dla ERA -NLAW będzie uderzać w kość ERA pod katem 60-90. (lub 0-20.) jak w takich warunkach radzi sobie ERA?
Źle.
ERAWA-2 dla kąta 90. (lub zero) trafiona Fagotem puszczała ale tak, że zostawało 120mm penetracji szczątkowej zaś dla 10 stopni (lub 80) około 100mm. Fagot przebija około 400mm - 500mm RHA zależnie od źródeł zatem zdolność ochronna ERAWA-2 dla zakresu kątów 0-10. (lub 90-80) wynosiła:
CP= 70-76% do 75%-80%
Oczywiście to wynik rewelacyjny jak na kąt prostopadły w stosunku do ERA (lub prawie prostopadły).
Czyli nasz NLAW po spotkaniu z ERAWA-2 dla takich kątów z przebijlaności 870mm RHA zostawi sobie około 260-170mm RHA.
Jak na strop czołgu w teorii wystarczy.

Czyżby zatem NLAW był zaprojektowany na zasadzie "i tak przejdzie na chama"?
IMHO ryzykowne podejście bo jakiś cwaniak może zaprojektować ERA tylko na strop czołu. Zresztą w Korei Płd takie rpace już trwają. I co wtedy? Albo obłożyć dodatkowym pancerzem ceramicznym strop czołgu...

 

[militarysta]

Could somebody smart here tell me what is the level of performance of Leo 2A4 & A6 against modern russian tanks?

Yep:

Leopard-2A4 > T-72B, and T-72BA, T-72B3 in any aspects...
Leopard-2A4 = T-80U = T-72B model 1989 = T-90S (erly) whit better fire power in Leo-2A4 and better thermal camera, Hunter-Kilelr mode etc, and mucht better mobility in heavy terrain
Leopard-2A5/A6 = T-90A2 whit better mobility in case Leopard-2A5/6. Firepower is simmilar here whit porpably slighy better accuracy in Leo-2A5/A6

Generally only T-90A/A2 in Russian army is seriously modern and danger tank...

 

[Meriv90]

Yep:

Leopard-2A4 > T-72B, and T-72BA, T-72B3 in any aspects...
Leopard-2A4 = T-80U = T-72B model 1989 = T-90S (erly) whit better fire power in Leo-2A4 and better thermal camera, Hunter-Kilelr mode etc, and mucht better mobility in heavy terrain
Leopard-2A5/A6 = T-90A2 whit better mobility in case Leopard-2A5/6. Firepower is simmilar here whit porpably slighy better accuracy in Leo-2A5/A6

Generally only T-90A/A2 in Russian army is seriously modern and danger tank...

Thanks militarysta, if I'm not asking too much could you put in the table the rest of the western tanks? Abrahm, Leclerc,Ariete and Challenger?

 

[Dazzler]

Did I say any thing about the Al-Khalid or T-80 ? No.
I said that Pakistan neither have technological base nor capability to develop "Composite Armor".

Subject Area: Materials Science.
Period: 1996-2013.

• Subject Category: Ceramics and Composites - Country Rankings
• Subject Category: Materials Chemistry - Country Rankings
• Subject Category: Metals and Alloys - Country Rankings

Indian Army just recently put a order for 118 Arjun Mk-II for $1.1 billion. Let's see how things go from here.



Who am I to underestimate anything.

ADVANCE ARMOUR SYSTEMS RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATION & INFORMATION CENTRE (AARDIC)

To analyze chemical properties of ferrous & non ferrous material and assess numerically the fundamental mechanical properties of material.

1. SPECTROMETER

"¢
29 software programs for ferrous and non-ferrous materials.
Quick and accurate result.
Greater investigative flexibility and simple operation.
Improved analytical performance.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
MAXIMUM SIZE OF ANALYSIS SAMPLE
Width of sample
17 MM
160 MM
Standards sample dimension
Length of sample
45 MM
320 MM
Height of sample
1 MM
80 MM
PRODUCT SUMMARY

Material Analysis of ferrous & Non-ferrous Material.

2. ULTRASONIC FLAW DETECTO

High-energy, precision pulser allowing optimum testing result to be obtained by matching the pulse width to the pro characters.

Pulse- echo flaw detection.
Transmit- receive flaw detection.
Time of flight measurement contact or immersion methods.
Angle beam (Shear wave) testing.
Angle beam (surface wave) testing.
Crack diffraction methods.
Depth of flaw measurement.
Single transducer / probe thickness measurement.
Double transducer / probe thickness measurement.
Indirect measurement of sound velocity in materials.
Time measurement in micro seconds.
Face change display in un rectified mood.
Through transmission testing.
Creep wave testing
PRODUCT SUMMARY

Determines the surface or sub surface defect in raw material or processed parts

LIST OF IMPORTANT FEATURES

Analysis of ferrous & Non-ferrous Material.
NDT analysis of Fe/Non Fe material

there are others too that work in composite and materials, will share if you like.