Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Austin]

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.

I would say dont understimate Kontact-5 its pretty effective against Western APFSDS specially the long slender one where effectiveness is better compared to the shorter but thicker APFSDS like the russians is what I have come across.

I think from Indian POV they would be more worried how T-90 Bhishma fares against Pakistan T-80 UD and Chinese latest design , I dont think US , Germany APFSDS penetration or non penetration is something that would worry Indian General , probably that would something that would worry the Russian but they would have something against it.

So as good as it would be to compare frontal armour of T-90 against the modern Western APFSDS it not really practically worrying to us.

Kornet AFAIK is quite effective as long as the operator knows where to hit it to get maximum damage , So ideally any smart ATGM operator would like to see his ATGM hit at enemy tank weaker spot ofcourse if there is not much choice then you would hit what you can hit and run away like the hizbollah might have done most of time.

Its similar to a person wearing a bullet proof vest and you are aiming a gun at him , you wont try to get him out by hitting at his vest but would rather try to get around it , I saw the latest Kornet-EM has top attack capability with pseudo Fire and Forget with auto tracker , atleast the top attack capability will be useful if you do not get opportunity to hit known weak spots.

 

[Damian]

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

Most lost tanks were old Merkava Mk2 in various subvariants, there were very small numbers of lost Mk3 and Mk4 tanks with more modern armor.

It is also not specified where hits that disabled or destroyed tanks occured, I susspect mostly hull and turret sides, also rear armor was attacked.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

[/URL]
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.

The red line is not perpendicular to the blue line, the blue line is the actual line of sight, that is the angle any shell or RPG will hit the tank, your going against the slope of the Armour. If the Red line was horizontal it would lead right into the modular Armour on top and does not hit the turret inside.

 

[militarysta]

Godless-Kafir

The red line is not perpendicular to the blue line, the blue line is the actual line of sight, that is the angle any shell or RPG will hit the tank, your going against the slope of the Armour. If the Red line was horizontal it would lead right into the modular Armour on top and does not hit the turret inside.

Key world- trajectory ATGM. It's not like blue line but allways like green line or red line. Modern ATGM -and especially Metis-M or Kornet hit in that angle "Sloper armour" or not - in that case have smaller thick then in western tanks.


Damian

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.

Im 80% sure that there in no integral armour


Austin

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

Oh much less then 52 tanks.

Mark IV losses:

1. 24th july - one Mk.IV hit by heavy ATGM (ner Bin Jubalij) TK- KIA, two - WIA
2. the same - one Mk.IV on BIG IED one KIA 6 WIA
0. 3th August - TK KIA (after big ATGM hit in turret, no perforation, TK died after hit by splinter) Tank wasn't destoyed or damege.
3. 2th August - Wada Saluki battle. For 24 Merkava Mk.IV 11 tanks were hit. In one tank TK was KIA, in second -ammo hull blow out all crew KIA, in third (Kornets and RPG-29) all crew KIA,

For all 18 hist Merkava Mk.IV only in 6 tank was perforated armour!
Only two Merkava Mk.IV was "tottal loss".

Mark II losses:

1. 12 july (near Lebanon border) big IED - all crew KIA
2. 9 august - big ATGM, amoo blow out - all crew KIA
3. 8 Augst - ATGM 2 KIA in tank

Mark III losses:

1. 12th august (near Atiri) propably ATGM - ammo blow out - all crew KIA
2. 3th August ATGM - 3KIA
3. about 10th August (near Al-Chijam) ATGM - one KIA (driver)
4. 13 August (near Kfar Kila) -?? - one KIA

So, "only" about 20-22 tanks was damege, But heavy damage was less then 10 tanks.

I would say dont understimate Kontact-5 its pretty effective against Western APFSDS specially the long slender one where effectiveness is better compared to the shorter but thicker APFSDS like the russians is what I have come across.

Well - Kontak-5 was tested in Germany, USA, and other after 1993r. The result was the development of M829A2in USA and not introduce DM43 in Germany. After that two new way of overcome russian protection was developed.

In USA heavy M829A3.
In Germany - longer L-55 and very mysterious DM53 LKEII
both of them was developed as a "answer" against russian tested heavy ERA.
Both of them are effective, and have amazing ability to overcome more then 750mm RHA plate...

Kornet AFAIK is quite effective as long as the operator knows where to hit it to get maximum damage , So ideally any smart ATGM operator would like to see his ATGM hit at enemy tank weaker spot ofcourse if there is not much choice then you would hit what you can hit and run away like the hizbollah might have done most of time.

In Kornet-E You can't chose place where ATGM hit - especially when distance is greater then 2000m. Check how it is guided Kornet...

Only in Spike you can chose impact piont.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Godless-Kafir



Key world- trajectory ATGM. It's not like blue line but allways like green line or red line. Modern ATGM -and especially Metis-M or Kornet hit in that angle "Sloper armour" or not - in that case have smaller thick then in western tanks.

I agree most parts with you, modern ATGMs like Javelin do that but since they are very expensive i dont see them used by Guerillas like Hezbollah against MK-4! They use "Fagots" or "Kornets" as you suggested, the problem was when Israel invaded the Mountainous South, just like with the Soviets in Afghanistan where the Taliban used the mountains to ambush the tanks the Israelis feel for the same old mistake and ATGMs fired from mountains by default hit the angle you marked in Red. The problem was the terrain and not the ATGM itself, none of the older ATGMs work like the Javelin which does that "Cobra: move before hitting the tank.

In a way your right, that angle exposes an week link in the Armour but it wont work in a level playing field against the line of the slope armor!

This is also why India does not use Tanks in Kashmir, it takes advantage of its big army and uses the infantry, thats something Israel has learnt now.

 

[Austin]

Austin
Oh much less then 52 tanks.

Thanks for the break up but my source is the official Israel statement on tank loss

Defense establishment favors Rafael tank protection system - Globes

check the key part of that list

52 IDF Merkava tanks were damaged during the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon. 50 tanks were hit by anti-tank missiles and two were damaged by roadside bombs, according to the Ministry of Defense Merkava tank program administration.

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.

Well - Kontak-5 was tested in Germany, USA, and other after 1993r. The result was the development of M829A2in USA and not introduce DM43 in Germany. After that two new way of overcome russian protection was developed.

A good question to ask is does Kontak-5 development remain static since 1993 , if German and USlA developed APFSDS round that penetrated K-5 in 1993 then a K-5 developed in 2005 would have improved upon what was NATO penetration figures , its unwise to assume that APFSDS development would progress while ERA development would remain static

In Kornet-E You can't chose place where ATGM hit - especially when distance is greater then 2000m. Check how it is guided Kornet

Its a beam rider , so the limitation at maximum range is your magnification of EO device , the kornet will hit where the beam points but it will also be limited to operation EO device and conditions , a well trained operator would always try to pick a weak spot to hit and use his skill to try and make a hit at maximum effective range.

Only in Spike you can chose impact piont.

I was talking of latest Kornet-EM which has top attack capability. probably using their new proximity sensor that new version has

KBP, News

• 'fire-and-forget' principle which allows to increase crew survivability by giving an opportunity to leave firing position after a launch (salvo);
• capability to hit targets' most vulnerable top projection.

 

[Damian]

Im 80% sure that there in no integral armour

Both Merkava Mk3 and Mk4 use modular armor, in Mk3 as we see in photo there is integral armor cavity, it is unwise to think that there definetly is no integral armor cavity in Mk4 turret. And this is good design solution. Modular armor is some sort of NERA or NxRA mostly, so acts as low density dynamic protection, for side turret surfaces there is n need for thick integral armor, but for front armor there is such need, so to overcome problem of low density of modular armor, they are using as backplate, rather moderate thick integral armor cavitys, so overall frontal protection is similiar to NATO, Russian, Ukrainian and other top line MBT's.

 

[militarysta]

Damian:




There is no "integral armor cavity". You just have cavity in inner citadele!

 

[Damian]

Hmmmm, it seems You are right, but in such situation it means that front armor modules have higher density than side armor modules, if not then Merkava indeed have lower protection levels than most modern NATO and Russian/Ukrainian MBT's...

 

[militarysta]

Hmmmm, it seems You are right

Propably both of us have right. Merkava Mk.IV have wery thick inner citadele - beetwen 60 to 260mm LOS (!)
It's obvious that there is RHA plate-plates (60mm?) and something beetwen it. In my opinnion accessories or anti Radiation layer - smth. like "Podboj" or "Naboj" in russian tanks - so it's not armour, but part od tank protection.


About Merkava IV armour - Yes, turret is therrible big, and weight 22,5tones. In Leo2 and M1A2 - you Konw:

 

[militarysta]

Austin

Thanks for the break up but my source is the official Israel statement on tank loss

Defense establishment favors Rafael tank protection system - Globes

check the key part of that list

Well Your source is from:

Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on August 30, 2006

my sources are just more fresh and propably better. There was no "tank sloterhause" in Lebanon. Mark IV operation was a big sucess. And desingne Merkava Mk.IV, and it's amrour save many many lives in IDF. But it's OT

 

[Damian]

About Merkava IV armour - Yes, turret is therrible big, and weight 22,5tones. In Leo2 and M1A2 - you Konw:

And this means that armor density on NATO and Russian/Ukrainian tanks is higher, hell M1A2 turret being smaller weight more than Merkava Mk4 turret! M1A1HA itself also have higher armor density.

 

[militarysta]

Well Soviet/Russian tanks are the best in armour density level ;-) But...it's not mean that they are better protected then western tanks.

In my opinnion western Burlinghton solution is better. Exspacially with external NERA/NRxA pannels - like in Leopard2A5-A7 or in armour like in M1A2.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In my opinnion western Burlinghton solution is better. Exspacially with external NERA/NRxA pannels - like in Leopard2A5-A7 or in armour like in M1A2.

It can be something like LEO-A4 evolution package ..

Basic tank of -50tons Up-Armoured on operation area..

IBD Deisenroth Engineering - IBD Contact

 

[Damian]

Well Soviet/Russian tanks are the best in armour density level ;-) But...it's not mean that they are better protected then western tanks.

In my opinnion western Burlinghton solution is better. Exspacially with external NERA/NRxA pannels - like in Leopard2A5-A7 or in armour like in M1A2.

Well there is issue of materials and whole armor architecture.

BTW Burlington in mid 1980's was outdated allready, this is why US designed it's own more modern composite armor and Germans from start were experimenting with their own solutions.

In the end NATO ended with composite armors with dynamic elements and high density heavy metal alloys with some materials as a support like graphite coating and different types of armor steel plates + ceramic tiles.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

@KB Well the Arjun weighs 58 tons and wont that constitute armour thickness at most part considering its over all dimensions are the same as other tanks in it class? Do we also know what the space inside the turret? Is the space inside more compared to other tanks, that it compromises Armour? The Army generals even removed the Air conditioning for the T-90s because General Malik thought it makes them less manly! Why would such a mind consider more room for its soldiers?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

And this means that armor density on NATO and Russian/Ukrainian tanks is higher, hell M1A2 turret being smaller weight more than Merkava Mk4 turret! M1A1HA itself also have higher armor density.

Higher compared to what, polish tanks?

 

[militarysta]

Higher compared to what, polish tanks?

Yes.
T-72M/M1 and PT-91, PT-91M1 and PT-91EX.
Maybe even Leopard2A4 form our 10Tk Bde. (Świętoszów).

After Sowiet Union fall Polish intelligence acquired on Belarus and Ukraina many interesting weapons system. They were tested in Poland and Germany and the U.S.

In Poland, we are very well known in the possibilities of Russian tanks. Besides we have a very good comparison with German Leopard2.

ps. as i remebmer Polish PT-91M was better then russian T-90S for Malaysia... ;-)

 

[Damian]

Well the Arjun weighs 58 tons and wont that constitute armour thickness at most part considering its over all dimensions are the same as other tanks in it class? Do we also know what the space inside the turret? Is the space inside more compared to other tanks, that it compromises Armour?

If there are photos of turret interior that shows turret front from loader or TC/Gunner perspective we can see where armor ends inside, however I susspect that it is similiar to Leopard 2, so front armor will go to more or less further half of gun mantle armor mask. So mask should be ~400mm thick and front turret armor on the loaders side ~800mm, right turret side front armor is a bit more complicated design due to main sight placement, but on the first look ti should be ~600mm behind main sight, problem starts with section under main sight, without good photos is hard to say how armor is configured there.

Higher compared to what, polish tanks?

Russian/Ukrainian tanks armor density is higher than other tanks due to their dimensions, this actually don't mean better overall protection, it actually means comparabale protection to tanks with thicker armor that is using probably more advanced materials.

It is not so easy issue, and please, don't write posts in a way that they sounds rascist.

 

[militarysta]

It is not so easy issue, and please, don't write posts in a way that they sounds rascist.

Nie psuj mi zabawy - właśnie miałem się po nim ostro przejechać. Niech sam się podłoży.


Oh, You know me