Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Austin]

@Austin


As I said - it was carefully directed marketing ploy, and should not be this suggest about the real level of armour protection

Yes it was a marketing event , No different from the event when Putin was briefed on PAK-FA.

So its not a leak but simple sales man ship. No secret or confidential information was released and many Military Observers were allowed to have a closer look at the tank , I saw some Indian delegation too on the tank.

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.

Like I said the open source info on Relikt is it affords twice as protection as K-5 , K-5 has also evolved with time since the time they were introduced in late 80's , so its really a speculative and guessing game to know real figures but just gives you the trend

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.

Yes , the ERA just reduces the effect for APFSDS for it to make it less effective against base armour.

NRxA or NERA propably

Yes Most likely

What is most interesting of T-90MS program is that it managed to afford the same Western Level of protection from all sides of heavier tank 60 + ton ( based on designers comment ) while keeping the Weight of T-90MS to 48 T , the higher volume to Armour ratio ( specific armoured mass to surface index ) and new armour albeit with slightly more heavier weight does the trick.

 

[p2prada]

@militarysta

I don't see why armour rating should be announced publicly in order to attract buyers. The Russians have excellent lobbyists in all their client states.

There are quite a lot of "secret" info leaks about Russian weapons in public like Pogyoson or someone saying the PAKFA will have an RCS of 0.3-0.4m2, same as the F-22. I don't know what they are trying to achieve but it would not be prudent to believe them without debate.

 

[militarysta]

@UP

I don't see why armour rating should be announced publicly in order to attract buyers.

Because it is strictly secret?

Even for stupid Leo2A4 from 1985r we have probem. Like for M1A1HA.


BTW: about Armour - two interesting facts:

1) DM-12 HEAT can penetrate up to 700-750mm RHA, but the same DM-12 can penetrated only 450mm erly Leopard2A4 armour.

2) during ODS one M1A1HA was hit by AGM-114 in front turret armour. Hellfire penetrated only ~70cm deep.
Penetration AGM-114 is more then 1000mm RHA.

So You can imege how modern armour is resistant against HEAT warhead...
For tipical Western tak it looks like beetwen 1.3-1.5x LOS vs HEAT.


And now Leo2A5-A7 have NERA NRxA "wedges". It's mass efficiency is about 4-4.5. One weighs 500kg.

 

[militarysta]

And now Leo2A5-A7 have NERA NRxA "wedges". It's mass efficiency is about 4-4.5. One weighs 500kg.
So active working NERA/NRxA pannels propably give protection like ~4000kg additional armour.
When we realize that armour mass on Leoard-2A4 turret is ~8900kg we can image how increased protection of Leo2A5 armour with this "wedges".

 

[Austin]

@militarysta

I don't see why armour rating should be announced publicly in order to attract buyers. The Russians have excellent lobbyists in all their client states.

There are quite a lot of "secret" info leaks about Russian weapons in public like Pogyoson or someone saying the PAKFA will have an RCS of 0.3-0.4m2, same as the F-22. I don't know what they are trying to achieve but it would not be prudent to believe them without debate.

People in the game know what is exactly secret and what is not , so no one will ever revel secret be it Russian , US , Israel , India or any body , those country that are in game to export product will revel some figures for public consumption or marketing purpose , the real figure of says RCS of aircraft or Armour strength of tank or APFSDS penetration figure of latest model will remain secret.

We should not look too much into those figure be too happy or sad about it.

From what I see those marketing figures are meant to appeal customers who would want to buy these tanks or trade magazines interested in specs of new tank that we have arrived as far as protection level goes comparable to them ( read west ) and that we have enough protection against western armament.

Either ways if we leave this protection debate aside , almost all specs are known about this tank from the designer themself and is for every one to see.

 

[Austin]

BTW: about Armour - two interesting facts:

1) DM-12 HEAT can penetrate up to 700-750mm RHA, but the same DM-12 can penetrated only 450mm erly Leopard2A4 armour.

2) during ODS one M1A1HA was hit by AGM-114 in front turret armour. Hellfire penetrated only ~70cm deep.
Penetration AGM-114 is more then 1000mm RHA.

So You can imege how modern armour is resistant against HEAT warhead..

Your example is one good reason why we should not take RHA figures as gospel truth but more of trends ( good , better ,worse etc ) since what would really matter is armour composition , thickness ,angle and similar true figures of HEAT penetration at ideal angle and not so ideal condition

 

[militarysta]

Yes,it's true.

For the other side - meny, even reputable sources contains erroneous data.

For example:

In this sides:
Tank Protection Levels
120 mm DM 33A1 and DM 43A1 APFSDS-T rounds (Germany) - Jane's Ammunition Handbook

DM-33A1 have: ~560mm RHA for 2000m

It's strongly overestimated the value of penetration.
Afters tests in Poland we know that DM-33A1 penetration is ~470mm RHA* for 90. plate.

* for L-44 Leopard2A4 tank

 

[militarysta]

BTW:

In my opinnion late cold war NATO Tanks (Leopard2A4, CR1, M1A1HA) was simply immune against Sowiet ATGMs and RPGs with HEAT warhead. Of course im talking about turets for +/-30. for longitudinal axis of turret.

Even Konet and Chrizantiema seem to be too weak to perforate frontal turret armour Leo2A5 or M1A2...

 

[Austin]

BTW:

In my opinnion late cold war NATO Tanks (Leopard2A4, CR1, M1A1HA) was simply immune against Sowiet ATGMs and RPGs with HEAT warhead. Of course im talking about turets for +/-30. for longitudinal axis of turret.

Even Konet and Chrizantiema seem to be too weak to perforate frontal turret armour Leo2A5 or M1A2...

From what I understand Frontal Turret of all modern NATO and modern Russian ( T-90,80 ) are immune to any known anti-tank weapon be it heat or APFSDS. They just have different approaches to achieve it.

How ever side and back turret is vulnerable depending on the weapon , I saw a video of RPG-29 blowing the side turret of Abrams fired by some jihadi.

here is the video LiveLeak.com - RPG-29 vs M1A2

another one hitting the frontal chassis i think LiveLeak.com - Unrealised strange attack for Kta'ib Hezbollah Hitting Abrams tank with RPG-29 in Umm Al-Kebr area in Bagdad 13.05.2008

 

[Austin]

AFAIK Frontal turret of most modern tanks of West ( Leopard 2 ,Abrams , Chally and Leclerc ) and Soviet/Russian/Ukranian ( T-90 ,T-80 and T-80UD ) are immune to any APFSDS and HEAT.

Side/Rear turret of Western and Eastern tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank weapon , Saw video of RPG-29 blowing Side of Abrams turret
LiveLeak.com - RPG-29 vs M1A2

Kornet and Chrizantiema I would probably not say with confidence mostly it shouldnt , there was an instance where Kornet penetrated the frontal armour of Chally 2 in iraq , export model are advertised with 1300 RHA penetration capability.

 

[militarysta]

AFAIK Frontal turret of most modern tanks of West ( Leopard 2 ,Abrams , Chally and Leclerc ) and Soviet/Russian/Ukranian ( T-90 ,T-80 and T-80UD ) are immune to any APFSDS and HEAT.

Well, it's not so easy. Many depends on angle, place were APFSDS hit, distance, type of rod, etc.

In my personal opinion T-90A basick armour (without hevy ERA) is about:
for 840mm LOS about ~650mm RHA
for 650mm LOS about ~500mm RHA.

It's much less than other estimates assume, but I have certain conditions to make such a claim. Except that I leave some things for myselves

Of. course this 500-650mm RHA for basick T-90A means that tank have very good protection.
All because active working ERA can reduce (Kontakt-5)
DM53 for 700-750mm to only 560-600mm RHA pnetration, and in case Relikt to only ~450-500mm RHA. So in theory T-90A turret can withstand even modern amo. Of course with Relickt, not old Kontakt-5.

It looks worse when we take M829A3 -this APFSDS should pass 600-640mm RHA after Kontakt-5, and ~500mm RHA after Relikt.

Of course the above is my speculation. I may be wrong. But as I said - I have my reasons to believe so.

there was an instance where Kornet penetrated the frontal armour of Chally 2 in iraq

As I know there was no any Kornet in Iraq. And no Kornet fire against CR2 or M1A2 in Iraq. Can You tell me where did You hear about that?


ps. Even stupid Merkava Mk.IV with less LOS thickness (And armour mass)then western tanks, was able to withstand Meris-M and Kornet in some turret areas...

 

[Damian]

there was an instance where Kornet penetrated the frontal armour of Chally 2 in iraq ,

No such thing happend. One Challenger 2 was hit in lower front hull armor that is made from RHA plate with max thickness ~100mm, when this incident happend this area had additional protection of ROMOR-A ERA tiles, after this incident ROMOR-A was replaced with bolt on Dorchester composite armor module.

This Challenger 2 was hit by RPG-29.

Austin if You wish later I can try to assume where this hit was done and I will send You a drawing.

Side/Rear turret of Western and Eastern tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank weapon , Saw video of RPG-29 blowing Side of Abrams turret
LiveLeak.com - RPG-29 vs M1A2

It was hit near 90 degrees from turret center axis, so way above safe manouvering angles when turret side armor is providing higher protection level, so it should not be surprising that side turret armor was perforated, loader was KIA, gunner and TC were WIA, tank only slightly damaged, also tank that was hit on this video was old variant, M1A1HA or M1A1HC.

Even stupid Merkava Mk.IV with less LOS thickness (And armour mass)then western tanks,

Merkava Mk4 front turret protection is rather complex, besides modular outer armor there is also integral turret front armor that is rather thick and is definetly made from composites, otherwise it would be very heavy, also armor geometry is not that bad, this don't meant that armor is superior but comparabale to NATO tanks, just there are different solutions.

 

[militarysta]

Merkava Mk4 front turret protection is rather complex, besides modular outer armor there is also integral turret front armor that is rather thick and is definetly made from composites, otherwise it would be very heavy, also armor geometry is not that bad, this don't meant that armor is superior but comparabale to NATO tanks, just there are different solutions.

Damian, we count it many times... In theory shape of Mk.IV modular amrour is OK, but as You know this triangular shape have mucht less LOS for it's upper parts. It far less then in M1A2 or in even Leo2A4. Of course armour in Mk.IV is quite god, but You know...

 

[Damian]

I know what You mean, but under modular armor there is also rather thick (thinner than in NATO MBT's) integral composite armor.

Same for Merkava Mk3 and older variants, front turret armor goes much further inside turret.

 

[militarysta]

I know what You mean, but under modular armor there is also rather thick (thinner than in NATO MBT's) integral composite armor.

Where??

You have modular armour, and quite thick inner "citadele" for RHA plates...

This "red line case" just sucks... And in taht case Kornet and even metis-M canperforated Mk.IV armour. In rest western tanks You havent that.
Of course blue or even green "case" propably can hold Kornet/Metis warhead.

 

[militarysta]

ps.
Damian - look: Military & Defence - Armchair Travel for Virtual Travel (R) - virtual tours

 

[Damian]

Where??

You have modular armour, and quite thick inner "citadele" for RHA plates...

Here more or less is integral composite armor of turret front.



Only I need to find turret interior photo to show You where actually this armor ends, but it is close to what I draw.

 

[Damian]

Ah, here it is, photo of Merkava Mk3 turret interior, You can see in front of loader face integral composite armor cavity backplate, in Mk4 it looks similiar.

 

[Austin]

Yes sorry the Chally 2 hit was a RPG-29

 

[Austin]

Merk 4 certainly has a interesting turret shape and probably very think too and an well engineered one.

But I read that in Lebanon operation they lost many Merkava to ATGM including Merk 4 , total loss if i remember was 52 tanks

Defense establishment favors Rafael tank protection system - Globes

According to Merkava tank program administration figures, missiles penetrated 22 tanks, killing 23 crewmen. The missiles in these cases were heavy Russian-made RPG 29, Kornet E, Metis-M, and Concourse missiles, used by Hizbullah. These are tandem missiles, with a double warhead that can penetrate the Merkava's reactive armor and steel plates 70-90 cm thick. Tests conducted on the damaged tanks indicated that Hizbullah had full information needed to identify the Merkava's weak spots. 18 of the damaged tanks were the most modern Merkava Mark IV. Eight of the tanks were still serviceable, despite being hit.



The Merkava tank program administration said five of the damaged tanks cannot be returned to service, including two Merkava Mark II and one Mark III. The two tanks damaged by roadside bombs were a Mark II and Mark IV, which will not be returned to operational use. The Mark IV tank was equipped with underside armor, which prevented a large number of casualties among its seven-man crew; only the one soldier was killed.