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

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
are there any plans to mount RWS on either the arjun or t-90...??
Dunno about Arjun but T-90 and T-90A don't need RWS, because both use powered cupola for TC, so he can still use his heavy machine gun from inside of vehicle.

Tanks with similiar cupolas are T-64 series, T-80 series, T-84 series, M1 and M1A1 series, AFAIK also Chieftain and Challenger 1 use such cupola type for TC.

sir still requires the gunner in the tank or it eliminates the need for 1...?
Gunner is still needed, TC operates CITV/RWS and gunner controls turret and main weapons.

However in NATO tanks TC if needed can over ride controls over turret and main weapon systems from gunner and use his sight systems to use main weapon systems (main gun, coaxial machine gun).

Best example of such tank is US M1A2SEP, where there are several sights.

Gunner have GPS (Main Sight), GAS (Auxiliary Sight), US (Unity Sight or periscope).
TC have GPSE (Main Sight Extension) and CITV that in emergency can be used as second Main Sight.
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
are there any plans to mount RWS on either the arjun or t-90...??

sir still requires the gunner in the tank or it eliminates the need for 1...?
T-90S does have a RCWS in form of AAMG, Arjun will have a RCWS based on Israeli RCWS..

Unlike in most Western tank their is a loader but in Russian and Ukrainian tanks their is a auto loaders, but it comes with its costs, So 4 in western tanks, 3 in Russian tanks..
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
It means it cannot be penetrated with morden ammo that is M829A3 at first shot, The era will drastically reduce the penetration, However once the large era tile blown off, It expose the damage frontal Armour for other Anti-tank weapon or the same or different tank from other or same angle, their are too many possibility in Active tank to tank battle..

But Its good for One shot at same place..
Generally speaking it is true but very simplified. However we will see estimation levels for M829A4 that soon will be fielded as standard APFSDS ammunition for US.Army.
 

Rahul Singh

New Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Israeli experts, what experts, any names? Why then all world use smoothbore guns if rifled guns are such better?

Why then Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 were inferior in gunnery trails to smoothbore guns armed tanks? Why these tanks beaten CR1 on CAT competitions if rifled is so good?

Why CR2 was beaten in Greek and Saudi Arabian tank trails? Why?!



Not true, rifled gun have the same range as smoothbore gun, and accuracy stand on smoothbore gun side, as I pointed out earlier, why rifled tank guns were beaten on comparrision trails in Greece, Saudi Arabia, why actually all countries use smoothbore guns if they are inferior? Why?!



Maybe then Indian Army should listen other armies with greater experience in real modern MBT's combat, all these armies use smoothbore guns.



DRDO data from tests is not worth of trust.
WoW you want me to trust your sources and you won't mine (DRDO tests)! Why even bother discussing?

Besides, it is other thing that Arjun defeated T-90 in every aspect that includes Gunnery, A Riffled Gun defeating A Smooth-Bore, if you will. Fact is Arjun Gun is every bit capable as T-90's gun, only difference is that its gun like any other riffled gun requires adapted shells as well as more maintenance in principle. Despite, Arjun Gun is yet to witness singe barrel bursting incident like many in T-90S. And please don't cry when i mention as per DRDO and pro-DRDO sources (obviously as per you).
 

Anshu Attri

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
1,218
Likes
679
Country flag
T-90MS "TAGIL": PROTECTION


Gur Khan attacks!: T-90MS "TAGIL": PROTECTION

After the successful launch of the new Russian tank T-90MS, the Internet, some are interested in the topic questions have been raised regarding the availability of armor units on the side of the projection of the tower and feeding device for an additional box of ammunition. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the schemes of the official prospectus (the developer KompyuterLend [email protected]) and our photos.
1. Dynamic protection.







As clearly seen in the diagram and photo, container armor there, hidden from prying eyes display a minimum thickness of 4-5 mm (the eye). The design is similar to RS blocks protivotandemnoy protection of combat vehicles of the light class, the development of SRI began. When attacking a turret or anti-tank RPGs in the early work latticed screens (armor steel 4-5mm), then a metal mesh screen in the form of baskets of things the crew and ammunition.

2. Box for extra ammunition.







"In developing the UBM into account a very important aspect of a significant increase in survival of the crew, UBM and the tank in general. According to studies, the distribution of lesions shells in azimuthal angle ± 35 ° is almost a linear relationship, and the number of hits in the vertical plane has a tendency to increase hits tower. Studies show the least amount of hits PTAs have on the bottom of the tank.
For this reason, the placement of automated BC compartment in the stern of the tower, communicating with the military department under load the gun type, realized in the Omsk KBTM ROC "Burlak" dramatically increase the deadweight losses of tanks and crews, in fact, leads to a very low tank survivability. The fighting in Iraq 2003goda fact clearly demonstrated virtually 100% of the deadweight losses of tanks M1 "Abrams" with the defeat of combat pack, located in the turret and separated from the crew locked bronezaslonkoy. The upper panel of expelling practiced normally, BC detonation was observed. Thus, q To ensure better survivability ammunition (BC), the tank gun should be placed on the bottom of the tank - at least infestation of affected area.
To this end, BC on the gun-type modernized tank T-90 is divided into three groups of pilings. The two groups are placed inside the tank at least the targeted areas: BC mechanized conveyor placed in the automatic loader AZ185M2 at the bottom of the housing (22 pieces), non-motorized - in the septum Logistics (8 pieces). The third group of ammunition (10 rounds) is moved to the crew compartment isolated from the bay - an armored box, located at the stern of the tower. This ammunition is used to replenish the transporter A3 and non-mechanized boeukladok at bus stops outside the battlefield.
Here it should be noted that the original designers of the Ural sends tanks, was completely abandon the idea of non-mechanized laying BC, leaving him only the carousel AZ. On the one hand, such a proposal to reduce the transportable BC shocking, but on the other hand, consider that the increased power of weapons and especially the possibility of MSA on virtually guaranteed of hitting the target first shot, it can do so without loss of combat effectiveness. Combat experience, and special studies indicate that the T-72B in BC shooting 45 rounds in the light TOUR affects 14-17 goals a modernized T-90 tank is capable of 22 shots to hit 20-21 bronetsel guaranteed, and for significantly less time. At the same time, the Defense Ministry insisted that the tank Ammunition BC T-72/T-90 type must be at least 40 shots. For this reason, it took with the third additional stowage box for an armored turret " . "T-90M-break in a new quality" journal "Arsenal" â„– 5 (29) 2011.
Additionally, you can say that the most dangerous part of ammunition - a partially combustible cartridge with a charge located in the middle compartment boxes, covered with so yet and offices with less flammable projectiles. interesting design department itself - charges arranged vertically in steel canisters, cases with a gap inserted in the tray, which is in turn inserted into an armored box. So properly achieved separation barrier. The space gap, in a combat situation can be filled with liquid, gelatinous or inert bulk or extinguishant. Lid box is designed so that when an excess pressure of certain parameters, it is cut and cover works as expelling the panel. It should also be add that in the same box Ukrainian tank armor BM "Hold-M" with comparable dimensions is only 5 shots, the rest space is filled with blocks of electronic equipment that Ukrainian designer could not zakomponovat in the amount of the old tower. The design of an armored box on the BM 'Hold-M "A lot simpler and not structurally provides secure storage of ammunition, protection board projections towers and additional ammunition is not provided by the tandem of ammunition.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
My, My. That's a lot of ammo for a tank. That would mean a total 75 shells in a tank. 45 inside the tank with 30 in the ammo storage compartment.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
My, My. That's a lot of ammo for a tank. That would mean a total 75 shells in a tank. 45 inside the tank with 30 in the ammo storage compartment.
Of course not :)

In orginal:

"При разработке УБМ учтен весьма важный аспект по значительному повышению живучести экипажа, УБМ и танка в целом. Согласно проведенным исследованиям, распределение поражений снарядами в азимутальном угле ±35° имеет практически линейную зависимость, а количество попаданий в вертикальной плоскости имеет тенденцию к увеличению попаданий в башню. По результатам исследований наименьшее количество попаданий ПТС приходится в нижнюю часть корпуса танка.
По этой причине, размещение автоматизированного БК в кормовом отсеке башни, сообщающимся с боевым отделением при заряжании пушки по типу, реализованному омским КБТМ в рамках ОКР «Бурлак», резко увеличит безвозвратные потери танков и экипажей, фактически приводит танк к очень низкой живучести. Боевые действия 2003года в Ираке наглядно показали факт практически 100% безвозвратных потерь танков М1 «Абрамс» при поражении боеукладки, находящейся в кормовой части башни и отделенной от экипажа закрывающийся бронезаслонкой. При этом верхние вышибные панели отрабатывали штатно, детонации БК не наблюдалось. Таким образом, для обеспечения лучшей живучести боекомплект (БК) танковой пушки должен быть расположен в нижней части корпуса танка - в наименее поражаемой зоне.
С этой целью БК пушки на модернизированном танке типа Т-90 разделен на три группы укладок. Две группы размещены внутри танка в наименее поражаемых зонах: механизированный БК размещен в транспортере автомата заряжания АЗ185Ðœ2 в нижней части корпуса (22 штуки), немеханизированный - в районе перегородки МТО (8 штук). Третья группа боекомплекта (10 выстрелов) вынесена в изолированный от боевого отделения отсек – бронированный короб, размещенный на корме башни.
-22 in autoloader
- 8 in the crew compartment but separated from the crew, at the height of "carousel"
- 10 in a separate rack, attached behind turret.

I understand why is better solution (keepin all ammo low in hull) but in my opinnion sulution for Ob.640 as better (discarded in case of fire, ammo rack/autolader behind turret)
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
BTW:

The Russians carefully "directed" "leak information" when some engeener says to Putin that T-90MS have on turret:
~850mm RHA vs KE
~1200mm RHS vs HEAT

Of course, microphones "accidentally" captured it. And it leaked to the media.

By chance you can get pregnant, and not reveal this information. Therefore, it is a deliberate marketing plot.

But...
If it's true we can seriously think about the resistance of earlier versions of T-90 ...
especially if truth is writing on NI STALII pages about Relickt and Kontakt-5 ERA.

Relikt give 1.5 more protection.
Kontakt-5 1.2 more protection.
Od course working hevy ERA depends on meny factors.
But:
теперь все становится на свои места с уровнем защищенности. Если с реликтом уровень 850мм по БПС то без него гдето 570ии а с К5 680мм
(...)
без него 600-650, с К-5 720-780, как вы 570 то получили ? с учетом того что в инет утекает не пойми что, и 850 и НИИ сталевская табличка могут быть фейком, уж Путину то можно было сказать хоть "3 метра" разница то
(...)
Я тупо взял и тупо поделил 850 на 1.5 (заявленная эффективность работы реликта по БПС ) получил 567 потом так же тупо умножил на 1.2 (заявленная эффективность к5) получил 680мм
It's looks funny when we realize that this values are for LOS thickest value (~840mm).

If T-90S with Relikt have 850mm vs KE then the T-90A with Kontakt-5 should have about 720-750mm RHA, and "nacked" T-90A turret should have about 600-650mm RHA.

think about this valuse not for 840mm LOS but for (more offten) 650mm LOS (perpendicular to the turret at an angle of 30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower)

And DM-53LKEII (1999) "accidentally" have about 750mm RHA for 2000m :)


Of course in my opinnion russian havy ERA works on more sophisticated way, and you can not count it like "base armour" x1,5 etc.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Of course in my opinnion russian havy ERA works on more sophisticated way, and you can not count it like "base armour" x1,5 etc.
Heavy ERA like 4S22 Kontakt-5, 4S23 Relikt and ChSCzKW-19/ChSCzKW-34 Knife are damaging and destryoing projectile before it will made contact with main armor, so these are not adding something like RHAe protection to armor, but by damaging projectiles are just decreasing penetration levels of attacking projectiles.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, A. Khlopotov said that T-90MS turret composite armor inserts are same as in T-90A and T-90S (with welded turret).
 
Last edited:

Storm shadow

New Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
60
Likes
34
Country flag
Heavy ERA like 4S22 Kontakt-5, 4S23 Relikt and ChSCzKW-19/ChSCzKW-34 Knife are damaging and destryoing projectile before it will made contact with main armor, so these are not adding something like RHAe protection to armor, but by damaging projectiles are just decreasing penetration levels of attacking projectiles.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, A. Khlopotov said that T-90MS turret composite armor inserts are same as in T-90A and T-90S (with welded turret).
So basically there is nothing much new in these MS.Well,that should be a reason good enough to stick to the Arjun MkII instead of inducting T 90MS.
By the way,I thing I wonder that T 72M1s,T 90s of IA and Al Khalid/AK Is,T 80UDs of PA has almost same silhoutte structure.So won't it be a big problem during a conflict to recognise friendly or enemy tanks....especially while looking through thermal imagers??Won't there be high chance of large numbers of friendly casualties??
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
Damian - You have PM on Militarium. All about T-90MS/T-90A and armour.
Rather important ;)

ps.
Heavy ERA like 4S22 Kontakt-5, 4S23 Relikt and ChSCzKW-19/ChSCzKW-34 Knife are damaging and destryoing projectile before it will made contact with main armor, so these are not adding something like RHAe protection to armor, but by damaging projectiles are just decreasing penetration levels of attacking projectiles.
Kontakt is damaging "rod" DURING penetration process. explosion of EDZ results variables causes stress, and bending already penetrating "rod".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ocb2zU2iR4&feature=related

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
So basically there is nothing much new in these MS.Well,that should be a reason good enough to stick to the Arjun MkII instead of inducting T 90MS.
T-90MS use more advanced ERA.

And there are many things in T-90MS.

By the way,I thing I wonder that T 72M1s,T 90s of IA and Al Khalid/AK Is,T 80UDs of PA has almost same silhoutte structure.So won't it be a big problem during a conflict to recognise friendly or enemy tanks....especially while looking through thermal imagers??Won't there be high chance of large numbers of friendly casualties??
There is some probability... especially high if IA tank crews are not teached how to recognize different types of vehicles.

Proper identification was so big concer in US.Army and USMC that tank crews are teched how to recognize different types of vehicles, friendly tanks are equipped with combat identification panels that are clearly visible in night vision or thermal vision and the last addition is FBCB2 and BFT systems.

Kontakt is damaging "rod" DURING penetration process. explosion of EDZ results variables causes stress, and bending already penetrating "rod".
Yeah, so this means that ERA don't adds protection but just limits penetration capabilities of rod or shaped charge jet.
 
Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
So basically there is nothing much new in these MS.Well,that should be a reason good enough to stick to the Arjun MkII instead of inducting T 90MS.
??

By the way,I thing I wonder that T 72M1s,T 90s of IA and Al Khalid/AK Is,T 80UDs of PA has almost same silhoutte structure.So won't it be a big problem during a conflict to recognise friendly or enemy tanks....especially while looking through thermal imagers??Won't there be high chance of large numbers of friendly casualties??
identification panels - every civilized army should have them.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
US armed forces also install new FCS in MBT's, so besides basic 3x and 13x zoom, they got 25x and 50x zoom for identification and egnagement, and it is really easier in night or day using 2nd gen. FLIR with 25x or 50x zoom to identify and engage target, but still currently standard is 3x and 10x zoom in tank FCS.
 

Austin

New Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
BTW:

The Russians carefully "directed" "leak information" when some engeener says to Putin that T-90MS have on turret:
~850mm RHA vs KE
~1200mm RHS vs HEAT
It was not a leak as such the media was present and what he said was the T-90MS has a protection range of 850 mm RHA vs KE , 1200 mm for CE and 550 CE from side and back.

These are not accurate figures but more of what it is capable of , since what he said to Putin was they ( means they West ) have nothing that can penetrate and we have protection against them.

You must know that T-90MS is an export type and they would be more then happy to dangle a figure for an exhibition that is primarily targeted for export.

Of course, microphones "accidentally" captured it. And it leaked to the media.
No accidental , the press was present in full force and the chief designer was doing a presentation for putin.

By chance you can get pregnant, and not reveal this information. Therefore, it is a deliberate marketing plot.
Yes what would you expect out of marketing event like that , dont go by those figures as accurate thats a trend and it gives you an idea where they stand real figures will be classified but wont be much higher for an export tank , the T-90AM would have higher protection level

If it's true we can seriously think about the resistance of earlier versions of T-90 ...
especially if truth is writing on NI STALII pages about Relickt and Kontakt-5 ERA.

Relikt give 1.5 more protection.
Kontakt-5 1.2 more protection.
Actually the most figures officially mentions Relikt having twice the protection ability compared to K-5 , unless they have downgraded Relikt for export . Any way the designer of NI STALI also mentioned in there that Relikt is thing of past we have something better to quote him fully

This is what NII Stali's President Valeriy Grigoryan mentioned at Nizhniy Tagil arms expo

After having exposed briefly the truly outstanding capabilities of Relikt ( among which capability to defeat multiple EFP and tandem warhead in an ERA with double the effciency of actual K-5 tiles !!) he mentioned


"For us, Relikt is something in the past.Completely new systems that do not utilize explosives are arriving. We are using completely new energy substances that are much more effective and much safer than explosives,"
is values are for LOS thickest value (~840mm).

If T-90S with Relikt have 850mm vs KE then the T-90A with Kontakt-5 should have about 720-750mm RHA, and "nacked" T-90A turret should have about 600-650mm RHA.

think about this valuse not for 840mm LOS but for (more offten) 650mm LOS (perpendicular to the turret at an angle of 30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower)
Probably yes , I have seen higher figures for K-5 for T-90 , remember RHA is a notional figure to go for , in reality the composition of the armour is what would really matter and how a combination of dynamic composite armour plus ERA will have an effect on any APFSDS would vary depending on composition of armour ,angle and speed
And DM-53LKEII (1999) "accidentally" have about 750mm RHA for 2000m :)
There is no gurantee it would penetrate say a 700 RHA becuase you dont know the exact composition of armour and real stuff like that ,
 
Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
@Austin

It was not a leak as such the media was present and what he said was the T-90MS has a protection range of 850 mm RHA vs KE , 1200 mm for CE and 550 CE from side and back.

These are not accurate figures but more of what it is capable of , since what he said to Putin was they ( means they West ) have nothing that can penetrate and we have protection against them.

You must know that T-90MS is an export type and they would be more then happy to dangle a figure for an exhibition that is primarily targeted for export.
As I said - it was carefully directed marketing ploy, and should not be this suggest about the real level of armour protection.

No accidental , the press was present in full force and the chief designer was doing a presentation for putin.

That was the irony :)

Yes what would you expect out of marketing event like that , dont go by those figures as accurate thats a trend and it gives you an idea where they stand real figures will be classified but wont be much higher for an export tank , the T-90AM would have higher protection level
Oh, I know that very well... Like beetween T-72B, T-72M1 (1989) for Warsw Packt and T-72M1 for Iraq :)

Actually the most figures officially mentions Relikt having twice the protection ability compared to K-5 , unless they have downgraded Relikt for export . Any way the designer of NI STALI also mentioned in there that Relikt is thing of past we have something better to quote him fully
You know -for me this talking about russian havy ERA is ussaly rubish...
Even polish simply ERAWA and ERAWA-2 can reduce for more then 30% some APFSDS. Of course Im talkig about BM-15 (3BM15). The same ERAWA can't reduce significantly more modern APFSD (DM-33, "Pronit" etc).

On the other hand - during test in Poland DM33 have BIG problem to perforate T-72M1 with ERAWA...

In my opinnion talking about 1,5 for Relikt is just wrong.

Rather better idea is finding that the possibility of penetration of the some type of rod (penetrator) is reduced for ~20% (kontakt-5) to 40% (Relikt) and after taht we have penetration base armour.
It's big diffrence.



So we can count not base armour x 1,5 (like in marketing stuff) but reduce penetation capabilities for 20-40% and afer taht thinking if rod with lower abilities can perforate base armour.

"For us, Relikt is something in the past.Completely new systems that do not utilize explosives are arriving. We are using completely new energy substances that are much more effective and much safer than explosives,"
NRxA or NERA propably


Even old (1990-1993) "wedges" in Leopard2A5 are this type of armour, so why russian should haven't this technology after few years?

There is no gurantee it would penetrate say a 700 RHA becuase you dont know the exact composition of armour and real stuff like that ,
There is big possibility that Dm53 for L-55 have mucht more then 700mm RHA for standard HB plates.
Even in poland was possible to developed 125mm AFPFSDS with 600-610mm RHA, and in simmilar penetration 120mm APFSDS with DM63 propellant charge technology. So talking about more then 700mm for german LKEII and L-55 may be true...
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top