Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

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

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 25 7.3%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 57 16.7%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 198 58.1%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 61 17.9%

  • Total voters
    341

Akim

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,353
Likes
8,645
Country flag
It is right that one cannot predict accurately the conclusion this soon though, I agree with Damian on the 3rd point which is infamous about these design all over the globe ..

Though, I don`t doubt the training but the tactics and how it has been implemented ..
And Western tanks had a direct collision with a normal ( not export) the Soviet tanks? With normal ammo? Not always a direct hit causes an immediate detonation of amunitions. In most cases, the crew manages to leave the tank.
 

Akim

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,353
Likes
8,645
Country flag
T-72B3 with Relikt ERA right? Can you share some insight whether there was any tank on tank confrontation between t-64s and 72? Also, did BM Bulat took part in any confrontation or was it just BVs and Bs?
Yes There were direct collision tanks. They were mostly T-64BV with Ukrainian crew and those that Russia was supplying for militants. BM Bulat was destroyed pre-5 pieces.
Tanks not used ATGMs. The transience of the battle, a small distance, a large fire storm. A lot of tanks destroyed by artillery and MLRS. Many used portable ATGMs, rocket launchers and flamethrowers. The militants were in direct contact combat. The Russian army direct contact combat can not stand, immediately retreats. However, they have a lot of artillery. So, tank duels between Ukrainian and Russian tanks are almost not there. It all depends on the skill of the crew.
The war is not yet over. Too early to draw conclusions.While conflicting evidence and to give the analysis is not correct on my part.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
@Akim, We operate similar kind of tanks, We know about its design limitations ..

And Western tanks had a direct collision with a normal ( not export) the Soviet tanks? With normal ammo? Not always a direct hit causes an immediate detonation of amunitions. In most cases, the crew manages to leave the tank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

313230

New Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
80
Likes
4
Russian-Ukrainian war pretty much change in the concept of using tanks.
Could you say more, what need to be changed? How should tank be used in future?

I saw some tanks pretty bad damaged, what damaged them, RPG, arty,?
 

Akim

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,353
Likes
8,645
Country flag
Could you say more, what need to be changed? How should tank be used in future?

I saw some tanks pretty bad damaged, what damaged them, RPG, arty,?
Until the end of the war, nobody "free analysis" will not give. I don't know himself. Defeat tanks different from RPG-18 and MLRS Smerch. Invulnerable tanks not. Blaze everything. Russian and Ukrainian tanks. In this war used a lot of anti-tank funds. As against tanks and against light armored vehicles. Especially many RPG and ATGM. In fact every Ukrainian soldier, the Russian militant and the Russian soldier has RPG-22 or RPG-26.
Work to improve the protect held. Some Ukrainian tanks received a new ERA, light armored vehicles - Spaced armour (anti-shaped screens). However, this is not a panacea.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Survivability improvement is very simple and is described as hollistic approach to the problem, which looks like this:

Don't be detected (multispectral camouflage sollutions) -> don't be hit (active protection systems and vehicle mobility as well as crew survivability) -> don't be penetrated (armor protection realized by different means like more modern special armors, more modern ERA and so on) -> don't be killed (if eventually all previous sollutions fail and projectile goes through the armor, you need to minimize damage it can make, this can be realized by ammunition isolation from crew and engine compartments, ammunition sorage should have blow off panels to release eventuall ammo combustion energy, gases and fire outside, if crew sits in it's own isolated and armored compartment, they have much greater chances to survive and so on).

So the above is a hollistic approach to vehicles survivability.

The problem with T tanks series is that during their development in Soviet Union, nobody ever bothered with what happens with crew and vehicle itself when projectile eventually defeats vehicle armor.

The main requirements were - good basic armor protection, reduced internal volume to reduce weight, good mobility and good firepower. These vehicles were not really designed to last during long service, or last long on battlefield, they were designed to be relatively simple, mass produced, and replaced as soon as their replacement was avaiable, however that replacement never shown up because Soviet Union collapsed and next generation main battle tank pogram was preatty much scrapped.

On the other hand NATO tank designing philosophy, especially in late 70's and early 80's was completely different - the goal was to design a vehicles without compromises if possible, which means high survivability, high mobility, high firepower in one design. Vehicles were designed to serve as long as possible, to be easy modernizable, to last as long as possible on battlefield, to have much higher survivability o their crews and their own. Of course in some designs some of these ideas were realized only partially due to many reasons, but that philosophy is one of several reasons why NATO members overall, don't have problems with their MBT's and also other vehicles.

The cost for this however is that NATO AFV's in general are much larger and heavier than their Soviet counterparts, which means they tend to have lower strategic mobility (which means they are more difficult to transport).

Of course there is a "small" to the hollistic survivability and protection approach realization, it is cost of such system, but in general it tends not be a cost of vehicles themselfs, because ground combat vehicles tend to be cheap, compared to air forces combat systems or navy combat systems (compare a cost of a single modern MBT and a single modern fighter jet and a single modern navy vessel), and is more connected to general economic problems most nations face today.

On the other hand in the late 80's and early 90's, many nations, like USA, FRG and so on, were very close to field a next generation ground combat vehicles as program were pending, however collapse of soviet union and buget cuts based on a very optimistic faith in future, ended with cutting these programs, which in my opinion was a mistake, thus a development for a next generation ground combat vehicles today is more expensive and is problematic, because literally we need to start again from 0.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202

From Malyshev factory in Kharkiv.

It seems that next batch of T-84BM "Oplot" tanks is manufactured for Thailand.


T-64B1M a modernization of T-64B1 i T-64B1V, it can be called a simplified T-64BM "Bulat" which itself is modernization of T-64B and T-64BV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Recently USA Military is increasing training activity of it's heavy armor mechanized forces.

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjkT570Ed_s&list=UUd4W_0_E64eeP-o1ZOqVN2A[/video]
[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK1eNcH5IlU&list=UUd4W_0_E64eeP-o1ZOqVN2A[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zebra

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
Norinco reveals new features on MBT-3000 - IHS Jane's 360

Christopher F Foss, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
11 September 2014

China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) has released more details of the latest version of its MBT-3000 main battle tank (MBT) being offered on the export market.

The latest version of the MBT-3000, which is also known as the VT-4, has composite armour over the frontal arc. Officials have also revealed that the side skirts are made of rigid composite armour to which explosive reactive armour (ERA) can be added.




 

Apollyon

Führer
New Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
3,136
Likes
4,582
Country flag
My Tryst with Indigenous Armour Development (by Dr T. Balakrishna Bhat)

In 1967, I joined the B.Tech programme at IIT Madras. Here, I concentrated totally on understanding the principles and deeper aspects rather than on securing grades. This quest made me read a large number of books and to some extent journals available in the Institute library where I would often sit up until it closed late in the night. After B.tech, I secured admission with scholarship to do PhD at Washington State University, but, when I learnt that USA had sent its 7th fleet in readiness to attack India during the Bangladesh conflict, I changed my mind:clap:. Instead, I went to IISc Bangalore to study M.E from where DMRL recruited me.

At DMRL, for the first six months or so, I visited all the groups and glanced through all the books and journals and generated hundreds of research ideas. Initially I worked on TEM and intermetallic alloy systems. One day, Dr. V.S. Arunachalam, who had joined as our new director called me aside and in his characteristic excited way asked me whether I prefer to work on pure science and maybe hope to get a Noble prize one day, or work on an important development work. Because of the training at IIT, proud to be an engineer, I immediately chose the latter path. Next day Dr. Arunachalam called me to his office and excitedly explained the scattered notings in his little diary about the Chobham armour trials shown in a hazy way in England to the visiting Chief of Army Staff and asked me if we can quickly develop and demonstrate a similar one. Though I knew nothing, I sensed that every atom in my body was excited.

First I made a quick dash to TBRL, ARDE and weapons related laboratories studying all available reports and papers to understand the nature of the threats and their operating principles and mechanisms. To find some solution, I went into a contemplativeenquiry mode and scanned the rather difficult journals such as "Journal of Applied Physics" at the libraries in IISc and TIFR to look for sound principles based on which one can construct appropriate armour materials on our own ab initio. Various ideas such as Konda's effect, deflection of shockwaves, splitting of the jets, avoiding momentum multiplication, using extremely high viscosities of glass like substances, facilitating lateral dispersal of momentum and energy, breaking up the projectiles or deflecting the projectiles etc. were conceived. Appropriate tailor made materials and structures were thought of. It was realized that while in most engineering materials and applications we need to maximize strength, sometimes strength and toughness, in armour we need to maximize the product of strength, ductility and the volume that participates in energy absorption. Increased speed of plastic wave and increased homogeneity of strain that accompanies it is critical. These are unique requirements. Further, it was observed that while homogeneous deformation is key for maximizing energy absorption, inhomogeneous flow is desirable for momentum absorption such as in the case of HEAT and for turning or breaking the shots. For dissipatingor absorbing shocks, layered structures should be preferred. Accordingly, many new materials and structures were conceived and made.

The first results of the trials on the HEAT rounds came within a few months and, may be for the beginner's luck, were truly fantastic. Soon, larger samples were made and tested at PXE Balasore. The plates not only defeated the HEAT rounds but also withstood the KE, APDS rounds. The round was trapped inside. To see what happened to it, the plate was brought to DMRL. It was cut open the same night to see what actually happened to the shot. I and Dr. Arunachalam walked from Lab Quarters to DMRL at well past midnight to examine the plate from inside. To our shock, the shot was not inside, hiding, but had actually broken up to fine dust!

It was an exciting beginning. A comprehensive and confident programme thus began at DMRL. Using a variety of starting materials such as ceramics, hard steels, tough composites, and energetic explosives, the armour programme advanced in many directions to meet a host of challenging requirements. Success after success came in the form of armour system for MBT Arjun and its continuously improving features. For T-72 Ajeya and for T-90 the required armour technology was developed indigenously. Armour for light vehicles, helicopters and many other applications like lancer helicopter, Vijayanta tank, ICV-Abhay and Mi-17 helicopters also emerged out of the programme to meet the requirements. It gives great satisfaction and excitement to me and my research team.

More than 20,000 tonnes of various armour materials have been produced to meet the various requirements. An Armour Technology Centre has beenset up in the 700 acres of land specially acquired for the purpose.
 

hitesh

New Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
942
Likes
527
One question always pops in my mind that why i always see those big infrared light on russian/soviet tanks only & not on the western tanks , the infrared would easily give away your position if enemy is using night vision device to scan the area .
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
One question always pops in my mind that why i always see those big infrared light on russian/soviet tanks only & not on the western tanks , the infrared would easily give away your position if enemy is using night vision device to scan the area .
Because thermal sights are expensive compared to active IR night vision system.

These T-64B1M are designed as cheap tanks, on the other hand Ukrainians have tank designs with thermal; sights like T-64BM "Bulat" and T-84BM "Oplot".
 

Dazzler

New Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
318
@militarysta

some interesting things regarding Alkhalid-2 i found

few things i overlooked the first time, here are some observations. Perhaps we are looking at the first CAD model of Alkhalid 2 mbt. Here is why..

look at the early Alkhalid, notice the turret is smaller compared to the CAD models, also note marked differences in CAD images.. In the first image, we see....

1. Thicker gun mantlet compared to current Alkhalid

2. Thickened frontal composite armour

3. Most noticeable feature, thickened composite on turret sides, also notice the turret basket installed AFTER the turret side armour, the original Alkhalid only has high hardened sheets at turret sides so side armour is indeed there

4. Notice turret roof armour is also thickened, notice the shadow behind the Dog house (gunner sights)

5.More noticeable is the engine compartment, longer than the current compartment, suggesting a bigger engine as mention by HIT chairman in his interview.

6. Notice longer turret and longer barrel, perhaps 52 calibre this time instead of the original 48 calibre






Another view of the same model, same changes like a longer turret, longer gun, and bigger engine compartment are visible





For comparison, here is the original Alkhalid turret..

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Articles

Top