Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

@Wiedźmin

кто нибудь что нибудь слышал/читал про это ? ну т.е требования больше похожи на интернетовские сказки.p

If You want You can translate just that:

 

[Austin]

Interesting piece of information on T-90S for Indian readers link ,

"The situation in the domestic tank building, truth and fiction" issue 2006/11 by Col Tarasenko, S. Tupitsyn page 10-15

http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/T/''Tehnika_i_voorujenie''/_''Tehnika_i_voorujenie''_2006_.html#0611

9) Semiactive baffle plates and ceramic layers with high tensile proprieties are employed in T-90. Even more advanced fillers was implemented in the welded turretts of domestic T-90 and on export T-90S for India .

10) In several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign munitions of the M829A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in reactive armor the turrett resulted completely impentrable !! (that can give an idea of the level of protection reached by modern russian 10 layer composite passive/semiactive armour in the frontal sector and aid us also to avoid to remain surprised in front of the figures for armour level -850 mm against APFSDS and 1200 against CE - provided for frontal sector of the new export T-90MS ).

That absurd resiliency to enemy fire (systematically proved by Russian MBT any time live tests was conducted in the past on any not-monkey model specimen....with good peace of ignorant claims of "tanks not designed to sustain hits" !!! resulted ,at the end, as one of the most crucial selling point for T-90S MBT to India.

11) Even only their physical thickness of T-90 turrrett armor is in the range of 70-95 cm ,with 45 cm in the firing port area, a Leopard -2A5 show a physical thickness for the same area of 65 cm and 35 cm in the area of gun mantlet

 

[Austin]

It looks a bit more complex.

Sight itself is placed on turret roof (but very low and close to front armor), however main sight components go through "chimney" in front armor to crew compartment.

I was highlighting more about the issue of sight/optics being very low and close to front armor , even if the main sight component goes through the chimney ( perhaps using mirrors to reflect like you would use in Submarine periscope where the optics are high but main sight is down below ) , having sensitive optics so close and low to the frontal turret means they would be more prone to splinters effect of either APFSDS or even HEAT , that would defeat the purpose keeping the main sight further ahead via chimney becuase a damaged optics is no good for sight , that was the point i was trying to highlight.

A optical sight further ahead would have done more good than harm.

The Side turret of Leclerc seems well protected by thick armour.

Here is something fishy, the official reports say only about M829, but even no one word about M829A1, however it was definetly tested.

They would certainly test the then best and all available APFSDS against the K-5 , obviously it makes sense not to revel if its A1 or A2 for opsec reasons.

Both Soviet and NATO tanks were designed for manouver warfare but with different philosophy in mind.

How was the philosophy different from Soviet and NATO ? AFAIK they both designed their tanks for manouver warfare any bit more information on the finer nuances ?

However Arjun using western design principles is not designed with western experiences and thus have weak points, forget for a moment about front turret face weak zones, these are normal for all MBT's, there is a problem with side armor.

Experience is the mother father brother and sister of every thing you learn , there is no way to leap frog without getting through your own share of failures and success and learning from it as you move , thats the key differentiation factor between well know design houses with many armoured vehical designs under their belt and with new players.

You only learn with experience and get better with time , I am sure Arjun Mk2 will learn from Mk1 experience and will get better.

Solution is very simple, side turret armor need to be angled in such way that they will be covered by front armor.

So turrets look this way:




So here we are small, lightweight turret with good frontal protection and side protection weak but with maximized as much as possible probability of hit.

Yes thats correct , but with the new T-90MS design they have beefed up the side and rear turret protection level to Western Standards although the side turret is still protected by frontal turret which was the case with older T-90 design

Maybe we should start with general view. Because turrets are big and looks from top view like big rectangle, there is no possibility to cover side turret armor behind front turret armor, how to solve this problem? By using thick composite armor over turret side armor.

Yes thats correct but the problem with such beefing up is the turret get heavier , may be they should move to a integral Composite + ERA approach to keep the top weight lower with no compromise in protection level.

Such solutions gives more vehicle survivability because composite armor not only protects crew compartment but also ammunition stored in turret bustle magazines.

UK (Europe) - Europeans had different view on this problem. They were thinking that bustle protection is not nececary, so only crew compartment need composite armor protection. Of course CR2 stores HESH and propelant charges in hull below turret ring, but same philosophy in Leopard 2 where turret bustle is only protected by thin RHA armor.

Between the two design approaches in practical combat so far which tank has proven to be more survivable and crew managed to stay alive after being hit ?

Back to Arjun, as we seen on photos, crew compartment is only partially protected by composite armor and rest is thin RHA plate covered with storage boxes.

In most scenario ( except in urban warfare ) they would get more hits on front of turret then on side or rear ,but hopefully they would rectify with Mk2

 

[Austin]

@Wiedźmin



If You want You can translate just that:

I can tell you most of the polish pages that you post will be difficult for us to read becuase no one understands that language and using translator for a jpg file is not possible , A web link or a brief translation of what you post will help. Thanks

 

[p2prada]

Well, T-90S was rejected becouse it was worse then PT-91MZ in any parameter - except bacisk armour (it's better in T-90S). Of course we can not mistake and compare T-90S to T-90SA. T-90S (erly) was worse in most parameter then PT-91MZ (firepower, FCS, engine, BMS, engine transmission, etc.) but T-90SA is just beeter in most parameter then PT-91MZ (maybe except FCS and engine with transmission...).

Not bad. You would know better as we don't have many sources highlighting the competition in English, only Malay and Polish.

Which version of the T-80 was tested in Malaysia?

Ok and maybe some of moderators kindly do something with this troll, really I want only a nice, good discussion on high level, not a trash talk with little boys that are not understand what tey see, what they read and what other people try to say them.

Damian he is only trying to bring you down to his level and argues with nothing but stupidity. I have learnt to ignore him completely. He is the same guy who claims Plastics are invisible to Microwaves in Microwave ovens.

Do what I do, completely ignore the troll. It does not matter what he brings to the table, just pretend as though he does not exist.

 

[Damian]

10) In several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign munitions of the M829A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in reactive armor the turrett resulted completely impentrable !! (that can give an idea of the level of protection reached by modern russian 10 layer composite passive/semiactive armour in the frontal sector and aid us also to avoid to remain surprised in front of the figures for armour level -850 mm against APFSDS and 1200 against CE - provided for frontal sector of the new export T-90MS ).

Complete absurd and manipulation.

M829 APFSDS series of ammunition were never exported, nor for tests, nor for normal use, these rounds are exclusive only for US Armed Forces.

On the other hand it actually can be proof that modern composite armors are giving more protection than any estimations points out.

Or it is just pure marketing.

11) Even only their physical thickness of T-90 turrrett armor is in the range of 70-95 cm ,with 45 cm in the firing port area, a Leopard -2A5 show a physical thickness for the same area of 65 cm and 35 cm in the area of gun mantlet

This is obvious lie.

We have messures made on real Leopard 2 tank, front armor on the left side of turret is at least 800mm, armor behind main sight is 650mm + 200mm in front of main sight in Leopard 2A5/A6 tanks, below sight we again have ~800mm.

I was highlighting more about the issue of sight/optics being very low and close to front armor , even if the main sight component goes through the chimney ( perhaps using mirrors to reflect like you would use in Submarine periscope where the optics are high but main sight is down below ) , having sensitive optics so close and low to the frontal turret means they would be more prone to splinters effect of either APFSDS or even HEAT , that would defeat the purpose keeping the main sight further ahead via chimney becuase a damaged optics is no good for sight , that was the point i was trying to highlight.

In this point You have right.

The Side turret of Leclerc seems well protected by thick armour.

IMHO it is 300mm not 250mm, but because of TC hatch placement and design it is hard to guess where armor ends.

They would certainly test the then best and all available APFSDS against the K-5 , obviously it makes sense not to revel if its A1 or A2 for opsec reasons.

A bit of history.

US.Army (TACOM, TARDEC) definetly tested M829 and newer M829A1 against 4S22 Kontakt-5, after this they started R&D on interim ammunition that can be used against heavy ERA and composite armor combination. This is how M829A2 was designed.

US also obtained Knife ERA on Ukrainian T-80UD's (at least one of them in T-84U standard), after extensive R&D they developed M829A3.

Currently in last stage of R&D is M829E4 that after standarisation will be designated M829A4.

How was the philosophy different from Soviet and NATO ? AFAIK they both designed their tanks for manouver warfare any bit more information on the finer nuances ?

Main niuance is that NATO was aware that with Soviet superiority in numbers, there is no way to effective counter actions without heavy looses. So now we know that big tank can have bigger + and - main armament elevation angles. This permitts to use more effectively terrain. You heard about such combat positions like "Hull down"?

Of course Soviet tanks can used it the same but in limited way, while NATO tanks don't even need to use prepared positions, You have some small hill crest and voila.

Also manouver warfare means not only advancin forward but manouvering from one position to another so NATO tanks could go in reverse ~30 km/h, something beyond range of Soviet designs.

Yes thats correct , but with the new T-90MS design they have beefed up the side and rear turret protection level to Western Standards although the side turret is still protected by frontal turret which was the case with older T-90 design

Well I belive that combination of ERA and composite armor is good choice but ERA alone and thin RHA plate in my opinion would not serve outstanding protection at hit angles of 90 degrees. IMHO NATO designs here have more capabilities because they can also use ERA over their composite armor.

Yes thats correct but the problem with such beefing up is the turret get heavier , may be they should move to a integral Composite + ERA approach to keep the top weight lower with no compromise in protection level.

My opinion is such.

If we (NATO) stay with classic turrets for longer time we should do several things.

1) Reduce crew in turret to 2 crewmembers, so there will be less space inside to be protected and overall armor will be densier.
2) Composites optimalization, so for front armor we can use very dense and heavy armor, and sides would use less dense lighter composites or even more different option.

Front and side armor over crew compartment will use densier and heavier composite armor, while turret bustle can be protected only by thinner less dense composite armor or even thin RHA plate, and turret will be designed in such way that we can mount modules of ERA over front, sides and top.

Between the two design approaches in practical combat so far which tank has proven to be more survivable and crew managed to stay alive after being hit ?

So far both proved to provide good crew survivability.

In most scenario ( except in urban warfare ) they would get more hits on front of turret then on side or rear ,but hopefully they would rectify with Mk2

Unfortunetly even in normal combat this is a weak spot because of safe manouvering angles principle.

In most scenario ( except in urban warfare ) they would get more hits on front of turret then on side or rear ,but hopefully they would rectify with Mk2

T-80UD or T-84.

 

[Austin]

Complete absurd and manipulation.

M829 APFSDS series of ammunition were never exported, nor for tests, nor for normal use, these rounds are exclusive only for US Armed Forces.

On the other hand it actually can be proof that modern composite armors are giving more protection than any estimations points out.

Or it is just pure marketing.

Possible , some one suggested that they obtained a Gun and APFSDS from Egypt , it was a tungsten rod not DU.

We should never understimate the ablities of Agency of this country to buy stuff from other countries covertly but lets leave conspiracy theory aside.

We have messures made on real Leopard 2 tank, front armor on the left side of turret is at least 800mm, armor behind main sight is 650mm + 200mm in front of main sight in Leopard 2A5/A6 tanks, below sight we again have ~800mm.

Ok lets take it that way.

In this point You have right.

Well i was just trying to point the obvious fault in that design but obviously there would be something that French would know that I wouldnt , so just take it french known more then i do

IMHO it is 300mm not 250mm, but because of TC hatch placement and design it is hard to guess where armor ends.

Thickness is fine it has its own strength , but so is armour composition .......so lets not underestimate armour composition here on which we known nothing.

US.Army (TACOM, TARDEC) definetly tested M829 and newer M829A1 against 4S22 Kontakt-5, after this they started R&D on interim ammunition that can be used against heavy ERA and composite armor combination. This is how M829A2 was designed.

US also obtained Knife ERA on Ukrainian T-80UD's (at least one of them in T-84U standard), after extensive R&D they developed M829A3.

The US tested on K-5 T72 or T-80 with M829A1 and went ahead and developed the A2 model to says defeat it but you see it also tells you that at that point in time the Soviet had something that could defeat M829A1 which was the best availabe to them then , isnt it.

But ERA has moved on and so has composite armour technology , there is no gurantee that M829A3 or A4 will be able to defeat the frontal armour of T-90 Bhishma with modern K-5 tiles .... unless the US knows the exact armour composition of T-90Bhishma and knows the capability for modern K-5.

A longer rod is not a solution to all problems armour unless you know the armour composition and ERA composition.

Currently in last stage of R&D is M829E4 that after standarisation will be designated M829A4.

Well good for them , I dont take M829E3/4 as some gold plated standard that can deal with every armour out there.

Main niuance is that NATO was aware that with Soviet superiority in numbers, there is no way to effective counter actions without heavy looses. So now we know that big tank can have bigger + and - main armament elevation angles. This permitts to use more effectively terrain. You heard about such combat positions like "Hull down"?

Of course Soviet tanks can used it the same but in limited way, while NATO tanks don't even need to use prepared positions, You have some small hill crest and voila.

Also manouver warfare means not only advancin forward but manouvering from one position to another so NATO tanks could go in reverse ~30 km/h, something beyond range of Soviet designs.

Frankly speaking i take this NATO vesus Soviet/Russian fight as acedemic discussion , even if NATO or Russia was to superior were to each other , if a war is to break out neither the Abrams or Leopard or T-90MS or Armata will win that for them , it would be Nuclear missile flying at each other and for the same reason there wont be any war between West and Russia.

Well I belive that combination of ERA and composite armor is good choice but ERA alone and thin RHA plate in my opinion would not serve outstanding protection at hit angles of 90 degrees. IMHO NATO designs here have more capabilities because they can also use ERA over their composite armor.

If NATO uses ERA they would just get heavier for already heavy tank becuase ERA was not something they designed from scratch.

Unfortunetly even in normal combat this is a weak spot because of safe manouvering angles principle.

Yes I am aware may be they can go for bolt on ERA like K-5 ,ok it may make it heavier but they can apply it cautiously

T-80UD or T-84.

I mean Opolt-M

 

[Damian]

Possible , some one suggested that they obtained a Gun and APFSDS from Egypt , it was a tungsten rod not DU.

We should never understimate the ablities of Agency of this country to buy stuff from other countries covertly but lets leave conspiracy theory aside.

If they obtained gun and ammunition from country different than US, then it was definetly not any variant of M829 series of ammunition.

So no conspiracy here.

Thickness is fine it has its own strength , but so is armour composition .......so lets not underestimate armour composition here on which we known nothing.

Of course, I'm not underestimating armor qiality itself.

The US tested on K-5 T72 or T-80 with M829A1 and went ahead and developed the A2 model to says defeat it but you see it also tells you that at that point in time the Soviet had something that could defeat M829A1 which was the best availabe to them then , isnt it.

It looks that way.

On T-72M1 they tested Kontakt-5 against old M829, nowhere is mentioned M829A1. US also obtained T-80U from Russian army stocks or old Soviet stocks (it is not certain), originally tank was obtained by UK and then send to US.

In early XXI century (2001-2003) US also obtained 4 T-80UD's from Ukraine, some modernized to T-84 standard (with Knife ERA?).

Results of these tests were M829A2 as interim solution, M829A3 as long term solution, and now is M829A4 as second long term solution.

But ERA has moved on and so has composite armour technology , there is no gurantee that M829A3 or A4 will be able to defeat the frontal armour of T-90 Bhishma with modern K-5 tiles .... unless the US knows the exact armour composition of T-90Bhishma and knows the capability for modern K-5.

Of course, progress is true to Russian/Ukrainian designs as western and other designs.

A longer rod is not a solution to all problems armour unless you know the armour composition and ERA composition.

It looks this way, long rod better penetrates composite armor, while is more vurnabale to ERA, US after tests found a solution, a very long rod, actually the longest rod used in standard ammunition up to this day, M829A3 use 800mm long rod. But to make it less vurnabale to ERA, they also increased diameter to 20-25mm, also it seems that ERA like K-5 will not detonate if there is not enough pressure or something like this, this is why M829A3 is actually slower than other modern APFSDS ammunition, thanks to this there is possibility that ERA will not detonate or will detonate unproperly.

Well good for them , I dont take M829E3/4 as some gold plated standard that can deal with every armour out there.

This is rather obvious, however not much is known about new ammunition, there is possibility that new penetrator will be segmented type.

If NATO uses ERA they would just get heavier for already heavy tank becuase ERA was not something they designed from scratch.

How much more weight will add ERA? 2 more tons? 4? It is not much, especially if we will replace some heavy vehicle components with lighter ones, like suspension.

Yes I am aware may be they can go for bolt on ERA like K-5 ,ok it may make it heavier but they can apply it cautiously

Yes of course, this can be cheap and effective solution.

 

[militarysta]

2wiedźmin

2 militarysta

если читаете этот форум чего не зарегистрируетесь ?

I am very seriously considering registering on otvaga - now it's propably on of the best tank forum in internet.
But I have a big problem - my russian is powerade by google.translator.
If will not be a problem that I will use translator, or write in English - I can register on otvaga

BTW: There is something interesting for You, in better quality:















I know, it is in polish, but as I remember scout can translate this. In artickle You have full analysis Polish Armored Corps, and many about Anders and new Wilk/Maczek. It can be usefull.

 

[Damian]

@Wiedzmin, it seems that You are reading this forum, so from me as You can see, demands for Wilk/Maczek are not someones fantasy but real demands of MoD.

Other thing is industry and designers are abale to design vehicle under such high demands.

 

[militarysta]

Austin:

11) Even only their physical thickness of T-90 turrrett armor is in the range of 70-95 cm ,with 45 cm in the firing port area, a Leopard -2A5 show a physical thickness for the same area of 65 cm and 35 cm in the area of gun mantlet

Pfff....WTF?!

As Damian said:

As I said:
(total fake) http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/l21.jpg
or:
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/leo3.jpg

In reality it's look this:

 

[militarysta]

@Wiedzmin, it seems that You are reading this forum, so from me as You can see, demands for Wilk/Maczek are not someones fantasy but real demands of MoD.

Other thing is industry and designers are abale to design vehicle under such high demands.

Of course not (not polish industry..)

Propably "Wilk" or "Maczek" will be polonized license of Leo2A7, or Leclerck Seriee XXI, or smth else...
But not our "homemade" tank.


BTW: until 2018 in Polish Armoed Corps will be have only:

128 Leopard-2A4
196 upgraded PT-91 in latest wariant.
about 320 T-72M1 in reserve (store mobilization in time of war)

 

[Damian]

I would rather see Wilk as something similiar to M1A2SEP, or rather this way.

Two man turret with autoloader in turret bustle, there should be at least 30 rounds in autoloader cassettes (for M1A1/A2 turret bustle designers were abale to design autoloaders/semi autoloaders with 34 and 36 rounds capacity, with completely new build turret it is possible for even more ammo.

Hull should have driver placed in its center axis with crew storage on both of it's station sides. Hull ammunition storage should be isolated and placed between turret and powerpack compartment.

Both hull and turret ammunition magazines should be equipped with blow off panels.

Powerpack should be as compact as possible (MB883, or MB890?).

Suspension for less weight and for more space inside hull should be in form of outside mounted hydrogas suspension system.

CITV should be combined with RWS not as two seprate devices.

This is basic view on how such vehicle should look like. It can be used as a basis for any country R&D program for new MBT.

 

[Austin]

If they obtained gun and ammunition from country different than US, then it was definetly not any variant of M829 series of ammunition. So no conspiracy here.

Its very difficut to say what kind of APFSDS was obtained and from where it was obtained or what kind of series of test were done in front of Indian deligation , since Internet is my source and I personally cannot read that Russian article in full to give you more details though I wished I could since it has many details but I had to rely on some one who translated who said it was a M829 round.

But some one the the same forum said it was a tungsten round and the gun was obtained from Egypt , so I cannot add more to it or take away from it.

If you can read that russian article that i linked before or translate it fullly then perhaps we will have better information , I dont have a acrobat reader that can extract text for me to translate.

Of course, I'm not underestimating armor qiality itself.

One of the critical value to come to some right conclusion and for all practical purpose armour composition and true potential of modern armour remain classified.

On T-72M1 they tested Kontakt-5 against old M829, nowhere is mentioned M829A1. US also obtained T-80U from Russian army stocks or old Soviet stocks (it is not certain), originally tank was obtained by UK and then send to US.

You can be assured if the US obtained any thing from Russia it would be vetted by FSB or only degraded model will be sold.

In early XXI century (2001-2003) US also obtained 4 T-80UD's from Ukraine, some modernized to T-84 standard (with Knife ERA?).

Can any body voch if what was sold by Ukraine was not a downgraded or export model ? it would be foolish for Ukraine to sell any thing thats not downgraded as for any export customer that buys from ukraine would know that US has developed something that can defeat the armour hence would loose credibility or they might just decide to buy from some one other like Russia or Poland.

Some times a country would like to look much beyond armour and look into other qualities of tank , for eg US has also obtained many Mig-29 from other countries but these planes have old radar which were of export quality and Russia has nothing to loose selling them but at the same time you can learn about flying qualities of Mig-29 for US to understand the strength of aircraft based on these qualities , which is one factor of the many that an aircraft would have.

US could have bought tanks from ukraine and others to learn other qualities of T-80 or T-72 or even to learn its good and not so good points without compromising its war fighting qualities like its true armour strength or ERA strength.

Results of these tests were M829A2 as interim solution, M829A3 as long term solution, and now is M829A4 as second long term solution.

Difficult to know if these solutions work on modern Russian Tanks like T-90 bhishma with updated ERA , AFAIK US never had any exposure to T-90 even in its export form.

It looks this way, long rod better penetrates composite armor, while is more vurnabale to ERA, US after tests found a solution, a very long rod, actually the longest rod used in standard ammunition up to this day, M829A3 use 800mm long rod. But to make it less vurnabale to ERA, they also increased diameter to 20-25mm, also it seems that ERA like K-5 will not detonate if there is not enough pressure or something like this, this is why M829A3 is actually slower than other modern APFSDS ammunition, thanks to this there is possibility that ERA will not detonate or will detonate unproperly.

Look at it this way if Long Rod works better for Composite armour and dont for ERA , Short but larger diameter rod works for ERA but not for Composite , its also possible that longer thicker rod might just not work well for ERA and Composite , its not a case of 1+ 1 adding to 2 , its a question of getting the optimum L/D ratio for a certain armour and era composition to make it work effectively.

I have my own doubt about APFSDS , if long thick rod was a solution to all armour problem you can be assured that Russia would have developed a long thick rod by now , its not so hard for them to do this and they can always modify the autoloader to fit longer rod.

Therefore i feel it has to do more with optimium L/D ratio and not just long and thick and that optimium L/D ratio would work exceptionally well for certain ERA/Armour compostion but would not work that well for other ERA/Composition and unless one is dead sure of the nature of armour composition and ERA you cant develop a effective armour , imagaine if long and thick is the solution then the best a weapons designer has to do to deal with next generation armour is to develop a more longer and thicker rod and problem is solved , I have zero experience in designing a APFSDS but hey i already know how to defeat next generation armour , so some one should hire me I dont think the solution is as simple as that.

BTW do you know the length of actual sabot length of M829E3 , I read in another forum though the length of E3 is some ~ 950 mm the actual sabot is ~ 700 mm while the next russian sabot of 740 mm size for T-90MS its actual sabot lengh is 600 mm.

Do you have some technical document on M829E3 sabot ?

How much more weight will add ERA? 2 more tons? 4? It is not much, especially if we will replace some heavy vehicle components with lighter ones, like suspension.

Would depend on the area they want to protect , but Western tanks are already heavy so they will surely add weight , its much like saying Russia can double the armour protection from ERA but making it double thicker or just figure out a way to add 2 era , but they will add weight to the tank and one cannot run away from that even if the weight might be 2 ton more for say a smaller russian tank or 4 ton more for bigger western tank.

 

[Damian]

Its very difficut to say what kind of APFSDS was obtained and from where it was obtained or what kind of series of test were done in front of Indian deligation , since Internet is my source and I personally cannot read that Russian article in full to give you more details though I wished I could since it has many details but I had to rely on some one who translated who said it was a M829 round.

But some one the the same forum said it was a tungsten round and the gun was obtained from Egypt , so I cannot add more to it or take away from it.

If you can read that russian article that i linked before or translate it fullly then perhaps we will have better information , I dont have a acrobat reader that can extract text for me to translate.

Austin, I'am 100% sure that it was not M829, the only 120mm APFSDS allowed and even specially designed for export by US is only KEW (KEW, KEW-A1, KEW-A2). I susspect that someone confused types because KEW-A1 is based on M829A1 and KEW-A2 probably on M829A2.

You can be assured if the US obtained any thing from Russia it would be vetted by FSB or only degraded model will be sold.

If something was obtained legally, I think it is not needed to remind You that after collapse of SU economic situation was not good, and for money people can do many things.

Can any body voch if what was sold by Ukraine was not a downgraded or export model ? it would be foolish for Ukraine to sell any thing thats not downgraded as for any export customer that buys from ukraine would know that US has developed something that can defeat the armour hence would loose credibility or they might just decide to buy from some one other like Russia or Poland.

We don't know if T-80UD's were downgraded, but I highly doubt that.

US could have bought tanks from ukraine and others to learn other qualities of T-80 or T-72 or even to learn its good and not so good points without compromising its war fighting qualities like its true armour strength or ERA strength.

UK and US obtained standard T-80U. Besides this South Korean T-80U's are from Russian Army stocks, because of close relationship US probably also tested them with South Korean specialists.

Difficult to know if these solutions work on modern Russian Tanks like T-90 bhishma with updated ERA , AFAIK US never had any exposure to T-90 even in its export form.

We don't know.

BTW do you know the length of actual sabot length of M829E3 , I read in another forum though the length of E3 is some ~ 950 mm the actual sabot is ~ 700 mm while the next russian sabot of 740 mm size for T-90MS its actual sabot lengh is 600 mm.

M829A3 is 800mm long DU alloy penetrator, M829A2 is shorter, probably ~700-750mm long.

The M829A3 is proposed for the next generation KE tank cartridge. It completed type classification standard in March 2003 and is currently in full rate production for the US Army. The M829A3 cartridge has a total weight of 22.3 kg and length of 892mm. It uses 8.1 kg of RPD-380 stick propellant, accelerating a 10kg projectile to a muzzle velocity of 1,555m/sec. The penetrator uses depleted uranium; the sabot is built of composite materials.

120mm Tank Gun KE Ammunition

I found also such pic:

Would depend on the area they want to protect , but Western tanks are already heavy so they will surely add weight , its much like saying Russia can double the armour protection from ERA but making it double thicker or just figure out a way to add 2 era , but they will add weight to the tank and one cannot run away from that even if the weight might be 2 ton more for say a smaller russian tank or 4 ton more for bigger western tank.

Depends, there are ways to decrease weight and increase protection, it's not easy but possible.

BTW Austin, something to read: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=18511

 

[Austin]

Austin, I'am 100% sure that it was not M829, the only 120mm APFSDS allowed and even specially designed for export by US is only KEW (KEW, KEW-A1, KEW-A2). I susspect that someone confused types because KEW-A1 is based on M829A1 and KEW-A2 probably on M829A2

I am more inclined to believe your argument but never say you are 100 % sure becuase you should be the one present in the test if it is to be 100 % sure

If something was obtained legally, I think it is not needed to remind You that after collapse of SU economic situation was not good, and for money people can do many things.

Yes they did but the world has moved on since then , they have moved to much advanced AD system and much improved tanks and so on and so forth , I am sure like any alert people they would be aware of the loss or claimed loss and figured out a way to minimise its damage if it indeed had happened.

We don't know if T-80UD's were downgraded, but I highly doubt that.

I would rate it in export model unless Ukraine is hell bent on committing sucide and loosing export base.

UK and US obtained standard T-80U. Besides this South Korean T-80U's are from Russian Army stocks, because of close relationship US probably also tested them with South Korean specialists.

Well considering Russian do not want to pursue the T-80 any longer and dont even intend to upgrade it they are better of selling to US or any one who wants it , they have moved on to T-90 and most of the export customer uses or will buy T-90.

M829A3 is 800mm long DU alloy penetrator, M829A2 is shorter, probably ~700-750mm long.

Ok Thanks , I am yet to hear about DU rounds on Russian tanks but considering they are so secretive about the APFSDS development we would never know where they stand with DU rounds but Gur Khan was mentioning that 740 mm Tungesten round will be available for export for T-90MS soon.

Depends, there are ways to decrease weight and increase protection, it's not easy but possible.

Its never easy or hard its always trade off and the perfect solution is on the drawing board.

On a serious note some day if that was ever possible i would sit with the Arjun designer to ask what was the trade off they tried to get with the Arjun turret geometry what was their in their mind , becuase a designer would have answers to some questions that to a observer like you and me looks serious issues but may not be , it could well be a trade off or just something else , similar i would ask the French leclerc designer on why they kept the optics so close to turret and what was the though process and the trade off they did it for.

I am sure no tank designer is a fool they known the +ves and -ves of every design but sometimes they are limited by their own industry ability , their own design team experience or lack of it , lack of customer support and enthusiasm for innovative out of box solutions or even financial limitations , we should not pre judge them unless we hear their pov which becomes very difficult if not impossible to do.

 

[Damian]

I am more inclined to believe your argument but never say you are 100 % sure becuase you should be the one present in the test if it is to be 100 % sure

Well, there is no evidence in DSCA documents that M829 ammunition was exported, and I'm belive them more than someone who probably don't know how to see difference between M829A2 and KEW-A2.

Yes they did but the world has moved on since then , they have moved to much advanced AD system and much improved tanks and so on and so forth , I am sure like any alert people they would be aware of the loss or claimed loss and figured out a way to minimise its damage if it indeed had happened.

Of course, I agree completely.

I would rate it in export model unless Ukraine is hell bent on committing sucide and loosing export base.

When the deal was made, Ukraine indeed was "hell bent on committing sucide and loosing export base". You know, Ukraine have financial problems, so any deal is good for them.

Well considering Russian do not want to pursue the T-80 any longer and dont even intend to upgrade it they are better of selling to US or any one who wants it , they have moved on to T-90 and most of the export customer uses or will buy T-90.

Yes but still, there are more T-80's than T-90's in the fleet.

Ok Thanks , I am yet to hear about DU rounds on Russian tanks but considering they are so secretive about the APFSDS development we would never know where they stand with DU rounds but Gur Khan was mentioning that 740 mm Tungesten round will be available for export for T-90MS soon.

Russians had DU round but overall decision was made to pursue Tugnsten alloys instead of DU alloys.

Its never easy or hard its always trade off and the perfect solution is on the drawing board.

On a serious note some day if that was ever possible i would sit with the Arjun designer to ask what was the trade off they tried to get with the Arjun turret geometry what was their in their mind , becuase a designer would have answers to some questions that to a observer like you and me looks serious issues but may not be , it could well be a trade off or just something else , similar i would ask the French leclerc designer on why they kept the optics so close to turret and what was the though process and the trade off they did it for.

I am sure no tank designer is a fool they known the +ves and -ves of every design but sometimes they are limited by their own industry ability , their own design team experience or lack of it , lack of customer support and enthusiasm for innovative out of box solutions or even financial limitations , we should not pre judge them unless we hear their pov which becomes very difficult if not impossible to do.

Of course, and again I'm agree.

 

[Austin]

Well, there is no evidence in DSCA documents that M829 ammunition was exported, and I'm belive them more than someone who probably don't know how to see difference between M829A2 and KEW-A2.

Yes many russian sources says its KEW-A2

When the deal was made, Ukraine indeed was "hell bent on committing sucide and loosing export base". You know, Ukraine have financial problems, so any deal is good for them.

Well in desperate time people do desperate thing , so its possible but the only issue is we will never know.

Yes but still, there are more T-80's than T-90's in the fleet.

Yes there is but the Russian are not upgrading their T-80 any more and would probably let it go once Armata is available. Being a GT engine is any way a gas guzzler , they are upgrading their T-72 fleet.

I think if they are paranoid about US getting to know armour details of T-80 via Ukraine , then they can do some quick upgrade by installing the internal version of Relikt ERA that should give them some confidence.

Russians had DU round but overall decision was made to pursue Tugnsten alloys instead of DU alloys.

The problem with Russian is its very difficult to know what they have and what they dont , since they advertise only what they want to export and details about internal version of equipment is less likely to come by.

One of the issue identified in some studies with DU round is that it is genotoxic , if fine power of DU goes into human system via inhaling or other way it has the ability to cause genetic problem with offspring and there are also other issues found with DU round.

 

[Austin]

T-90MS FCS Kalina

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

 

[Damian]

Yes many russian sources says its KEW-A2

Yeah, most probably they just got KEW-A2 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

Some estimations:

US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm)
US M829A2 120mm DU 730mm at 2km (1994)
US M829A1 120mm DU 610mm at 2km (1991) (Russian estimate 700mm)
US M829 120mm DU 552mm at 2km (1987)
US M827 120mm tungsten 450mm at 2km (never fielded by US)
US/Olin GD120 120mm tungsten 520mm at 2km
US/Egyptian KEW-A2 120mm tungsten 660mm at 2km

So it is not as potent as later M829 variants.

Well in desperate time people do desperate thing , so its possible but the only issue is we will never know.

True, when I got some free time I will do some research on this issue.

Yes there is but the Russian are not upgrading their T-80 any more and would probably let it go once Armata is available. Being a GT engine is any way a gas guzzler , they are upgrading their T-72 fleet.

We will see, IMHO many countries would be happy with second hand T-80's and even T-64's or older T-72's, it would be wise to upgrade them to some level and sold to customers that are unabale to buy more expensive T-90 variants.

I think if they are paranoid about US getting to know armour details of T-80 via Ukraine , then they can do some quick upgrade by installing the internal version of Relikt ERA that should give them some confidence.

You mean external ERA right? Because it would be difficult to install internal ERA...

The problem with Russian is its very difficult to know what they have and what they dont , since they advertise only what they want to export and details about internal version of equipment is less likely to come by.

One of the issue identified in some studies with DU round is that it is genotoxic , if fine power of DU goes into human system via inhaling or other way it has the ability to cause genetic problem with offspring and there are also other issues found with DU round.

Hmm...


Russian 125mm BM-42M "Lekalo"? tungsten 600-650mm at 2km (200?)
Russian 125mm BM-46 "Svinets" DU 650mm at 2km (1991) (22:1 L/D)
Russian 125mm BM-42 "Mango" tungsten alloy 520mm at 2km (1986) (16:1 L/D)
Russian 125mm BM-32 "Vant" DU 560mm at 2km (1985) (13:1 L/D)
Russian 125mm BM-29 DU 470mm at 2km (1982) (12:1 L/D)
Russian 125mm BM-26 "Hope" (1983) tungsten alloy 450mm at 2km (extended BM-22 13:1 L/D)
Russian 125mm BM-22 "HairPin" (1976) tungsten 430mm at 2km (most common round in late 1970s/early 1980s)
Russian 125mm BM-17 (1972) steel 310mm at 2km (simplified export BM-15)
Russian 125mm BM-15/Yugo M88 tungsten carbide slug (1972) 340mm at 2km (version of BM-12 with extended projectile)
Russian 125mm BM-12 tungsten carbide slug (1968) 315mm at 2km
Russian 125mm BM-9 steel (1962) 290mm at 2km

So they had at least 3 APFSDS rounds with DU alloy penetrator.