Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Dazzler]

some "unspecified" types of composites, carbides being produced at ARDE...

125mm gun chamber being made through electro slag refined steel..

 

[313230]

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.

Do you know terminal velocity of Smerch? Since it is 300mm it should be a big target for AA, but it is ballistic missile so it should be hi speed.

 

[313230]

Does anyone have estimation of Leopard 2 Revolution add on side armor thickness? (especially militarysta, could you do it?)

It seems the longest LOS armor of Leopard 2A6 is ~ 1.8 to 1.9 meter. Here is a good vid of Leo 2 Revolution, wonder if it is thicker than Challenger 2 quoted at 4.2m
Rheinmetall Defence - Leopard 2 MBT Revolution [1080p] - YouTube

 

[Dazzler]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

We have to keep this in mind that Arjun use single piece ammunition unlike T-tanks use double piece ammunition, Even if someone change Arjun to smooth-bore 125mm it won`t bring any major change than what it is now ..

Switching to 120mm smoothbore will allow Arjun to opt for a variety of smoothbore rounds available in the market, including German DM-33 and above, American KEW-1, 2 and even Korean 120mm smoothbore rounds etc, which are much sophisticated compared the currently fielded round, also, these rounds give a higher penetration value at 2000 m @ 0 degree, 60 degrees.

Arjun having single piece ammunition with manual loader is an advantage over T-tanks two piece ammunition as Arjun ammunition APSDFS does not have length limitation unlike in T-tanks the length has certain limitation to fit in auto-loader, So in case of Arjun APSDFS round can evolve where in present T-tanks in IA does not ..

At the moment, the highest piercing IA apfsds round is a two piece ammo, the IMI based mk-2, followed by bm-42 mango.

Further, If IA has any issue with 120mm rifled gun, It would have been changed in MK2 but as it is not we have to admit there are no issues with Rifled Gun in IA, It is IA wish to keep Rifled gun and Sight placement in Arjun as it is ..

Rifled gun wears much quickly compared to smoothbore, and the accuracy increment has been proven wrong on many occasions. Current 120mm and 125mm smoothbore guns, even Russian 2a46M4 and Ukrainian KBA-3 series, are very accurate and powerful.

=====================
=====================

Arjun MK1 FCS Origin >>

=================
=================

Arjun`s FCS is customized as per need with help of Eblit and DRDO & Manufactured by BEL, The FCS Arjun use is very sophisticated it is also use in other tanks with smoothbore guns

Savan-15 is also fielded on PT-91 Pandekar (Malaysia)

 

[Dazzler]

BM Oplot being tested in Thailand..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnXr0GZxNr4

 

[Akim]

Do you know terminal velocity of Smerch? Since it is 300mm it should be a big target for AA, but it is ballistic missile so it should be hi speed.

MLRS Smerch shoot various projectiles. So there may be anti-tank and anti-personnel mines and slaughter elements (several thousands of finished fragments). Documented cases of defeat tanks rockets S-8, which is installed on the Russian and Ukrainian (helicopters and attack aircraft).

 

[Akim]

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 .

This tanks for Africa. What was requested - and supplied. Russian tanks are currently being modernized and get the camera (Sosna-U). Ukrainian designers also have the imager (Buran-Catherine-E), but they were not installed due to the poverty of the defense budget.

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

MBT 3000
what is that?

 

[militarysta]

MBT 3000
what is that?

It's spare track segment.

 

[militarysta]

@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

Yes, it's very possible that Al Chalid-2 will have slighty longer barrel, better protected gun mantled mask (in chineese tanks this part sucks) and what is the most important - finnaly protected turret sides. It's logical step ahead - Al Chalid-2 will be weight circa 3-4t more but protection will be significant better.
We will see in october? ;-)
btw: god found!

 

[militarysta]

Does anyone have estimation of Leopard 2 Revolution add on side armor thickness? (especially militarysta, could you do it?)

It seems the longest LOS armor of Leopard 2A6 is ~ 1.8 to 1.9 meter. Here is a good vid of Leo 2 Revolution, wonder if it is thicker than Challenger 2 quoted at 4.2m

Well IBD armour is rather lighweight solution, in fact IMHO Leo-2 Revolution is not trully better then KMW version's. Polish army had decide do mods our Leo-2A4 isung KMW mads (2A6,2A7) couse better "duel" abilities.

 

[Dazzler]

We will see in october? ;-)

btw: god found!

In November, at IDEAS 2014 Karachi, i will try to go there and take a few snaps

 

[AprilLyrics]

Yes, it's very possible that Al Chalid-2 will have slighty longer barrel, better protected gun mantled mask (in chineese tanks this part sucks) and what is the most important - finnaly protected turret sides. It's logical step ahead - Al Chalid-2 will be weight circa 3-4t more but protection will be significant better.
We will see in october? ;-)
btw: god found!

"better protected gun mantled mask (in chineese tanks this part sucks)"

we cannot see much defference between an outside shield or an inside shield.maybe you think chinese tanks dont have a gun shield,like its apperance?

but doesnt poland make russian kind tanks? you dont know that?

 

[Damian]

we cannot see much defference between an outside shield or an inside shield.maybe you think chinese tanks dont have a gun shield,like its apperance?

but doesnt poland make russian kind tanks? you dont know that?

Chinese tanks have very similiar design of gun mantled to Russian/Ukrainian tanks. In all these designs, gun mantled protected is by thin steel armor, which offer significantly less protection than western tanks designs that use relatively thick special armor shields (or masks) that protect gun mantled.

 

[AprilLyrics]

Chinese tanks have very similiar design of gun mantled to Russian/Ukrainian tanks. In all these designs, gun mantled protected is by thin steel armor, which offer significantly less protection than western tanks designs that use relatively thick special armor shields (or masks) that protect gun mantled.

well,prove it.
1. chinese tanks with thin steel armor.
2.that design is worse than western tank.(which western tank?)

 

[Damian]

1. chinese tanks with thin steel armor.

Exactly the same gun mantled design, which is logical because Chinese 125mm ZPT-98 gun is a direct copy of Russian 2A46M.

Besides this you can read the whole thread, I am tired of repeating the same stuff all over again for ignorants without aby knowledge in this subject...

2.that design is worse than western tank.(which western tank?)

All western tanks of the 3rd generation have better protection and higher survivability.

Of course you can still believe that a tin can like ZTZ-99 is "better" completely ignoring facts like ammunition storage identical to the T-72/T-90 series, which means this in case of armor perforation:

Or the lack of heavy ballistic skirts or ERA protecting hull sides, over crew compartment where also ammunition is stored, which leads us back to the result shown in the above photo... and Russian tanks use ERA to protect these areas, but even then danger for crew is completely unacceptable for any NATO standards.

And we can talk th whole week about weaknesses of Chinese tanks.

 

[AprilLyrics]

Exactly the same gun mantled design, which is logical because Chinese 125mm ZPT-98 gun is a direct copy of Russian 2A46M.

Besides this you can read the whole thread, I am tired of repeating the same stuff all over again for ignorants without aby knowledge in this subject...



All western tanks of the 3rd generation have better protection and higher survivability.

Of course you can still believe that a tin can like ZTZ-99 is "better" completely ignoring facts like ammunition storage identical to the T-72/T-90 series, which means this in case of armor perforation:

Or the lack of heavy ballistic skirts or ERA protecting hull sides, over crew compartment where also ammunition is stored, which leads us back to the result shown in the above photo... and Russian tanks use ERA to protect these areas, but even then danger for crew is completely unacceptable for any NATO standards.

And we can talk th whole week about weaknesses of Chinese tanks.

exactly.....chinese tanks = copied T72 s ╮(╯▽╰)╭

hey,um...have you seen videos of VT4(mbt3000) ? do you think that its color raised its battle rate？

 

[Damian]

exactly.....chinese tanks = copied T72 s ╮(╯▽╰)╭

Only ZTZ-98, ZTZ-99, ZTZ-99G and ZTZ-99A1 can be considered as direct "copies", however they are not direct copies, they use only some ideas and components copied from T-72 series, like general front hull design and autoloader + ammunition storage design. Suspension can also be probably considered as inspired by T-72.

Also Type 90 series from which Al Khalid and MBT-2000/3000 are derived are inspired by T-72 series.

However the ZTZ-96 series which are the most numerous tank in PLA service, should be rather considered as further evolution of ZTZ-59 series which were copy of Soviet T-54. The ZTZ-96 however use some design ideas and components from T-72, like autoloader.

And then there we have that new MBT popularly called ZTZ-99A2 although it's actuall official designation code is not known yet (I heard rumors about designation code being ZTZ-08). And this tank actually have more in common with ZTZ-96 than ZTZ-99, for example driver placement to the hull left side, not in the hull center longitudinal axis.

Of course all these tanks share some common components like main gun, autoloader, probably suspension general design, also electronics are probably common, engines are different tough, most likely reason is that PLA was disatisfied with large dimensions of the ZTZ-99 engine which was a direct copy of the German MTU diesel, thus decided that different, more compact engine will be a better sollution, thus hull can be shorter and saved weight can be used elsewhere or not used at all.

Overall these tank designs represent just limited capabilities of Chinese designers that lack experience and knowledge of other nations more experienced in designing and combat usage of armored fighting vehicles.

hey,um...have you seen videos of VT4(mbt3000) ? do you think that its color raised its battle rate？

I am not impressed by MBT-3000. It's just like any other Chinese tank, the only novelty is remotely controlled weapon station for commander, but this is nothing special by NATO standards, RWS's are used here for a long time, they are usefull, but as I said, nothing special.


And then there is also question about quality of these vehicles. Peru I my memory serves well, choosen Chinese MBT-2000 variant as their new MBT, simply because it was the cheapest, and then they quickly give them back to manufacturer after initial tests, because quality of these vehicles was terrible.

I also seen photos of the MBT-3000 prototype interior and... seriously, a fresh prototype and rust inside?! I wonder if in China there exist such thing as quality control in factories...

 

[militarysta]

"better protected gun mantled mask (in chineese tanks this part sucks)"
we cannot see much defference between an outside shield or an inside shield.maybe you think chinese tanks dont have a gun shield,like its apperance?

No...I was talking about that gun mantled mask in Chineese tanks (and in soviet ones whit cast steel turret) is relativly thin, and without special armour.
This part can be perforated by all quite modern APFSDS and most ATGMs and hand hel AT weapons:

This area:

including coaxial MG and gun pivot this area is even thinner.
agian the same:

the same problem have soviet tanks whit cast steel turret.
Here on Ob.219 (T-80U prototype)

exatly the same problem have chineese tanks

 

[militarysta]

and the same in Leo-2A4:

and: