Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Andrei_bt]

, behind main sight is ~600-650mm...

what I said.

Maybe in Your fantasy world measure is a manipulation made by evil CIA!

You better go and prepare home work for shool, don't waste my time by you trolling

 

[Damian]

As vell as Leopards-2, Abrams and most others.

Yes, of course. Typical ignorant opinion of Yours, do You know that armor of these tanks were upgraded at least 6 times? Yeah You know, but You will not say this, it will completely ruin Your propaganda.

By the way new produced PT-91 in polland have even less protection than T-80B, but they a produced in 2000.

And where did I say that PT-91 is some sort of wunderwaffe?

You are primitive Andrei, You think that all people will do what You are doing? A primitive propaganda and comparrision "my dick is bigger then yours because it more my than yours".

Of course you are. A famous polish fakemaster, I seen you pictures on other forums.
Living in a fairy tales about invincible western tanks is very funny, I suppose.

And these are a words of person that is still beliving that Leopard 2 armor is 60cm thick max.

Yeah, I want 2x drink that what You are drinking.

Even Russians have interesting opinion about You, prime propagandist of KMDB.

Show me, one single quote, where I said that western tanks are invincible!

what I said.

Yes yes, and You just copied one, one single proper estimation to the whole turret frontal protection.

"Proffesional"!

You better go and prepare home work for shool, don't waste my time by you trolling

And You think that You will make any impression on my by calling me troll?

You? You call me fakemaker? You? Look at Your own work about western tanks.

Look about Your idiotic and primitive approach to everything. You are capable only to compare design on only one principle, "size of dick".

Who is more childish here then? I do not say that Soviet, Russian or Ukrainian tanks are bad designs, no, for a long time I'am saying that they are comparable to NATO designs.

It is You saying that one design is definetly better than other design.

"Proffesional, independent, expert"... pfff good joke!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Both of you are Good debaters..

Try to focus on subject rather personal attacks..

 

[Storm shadow]

You two PLEASE continue fighting so that we can learn more.LOLZZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Damian]

I need to correct one thing.

Incident with AGM-114 (version not known), a man that seen tank after this incident (tank crew member) said that front turret was only penetrated to approx half of it's physical thickness, tank was most probably M1A1HA.

It was more than half (50%) of turret physical thickness, something around 80-85% of turret physical thickness (0 degrees ~900-960mm, 30 degrees ~800mm), angle of hit unknown, sorry for not too much specified information, I was writing from memory.

Maybe later Militarysta will wrote more.

 

[Austin]

Damian , can you provide more details and reference/source of incident where a Kornet was fired at Merkava 4 front armour and it could not penetrate it ?

 

[militarysta]

@Austin

About Lebanon and Merkavas and Kornets there are some problems:

1) to many propaganda BS in both sides
2) it was very difficult to identify what ATGM hit tank.

But even Kornet and Methis can't perforated Mk.IV armour in all conditions. All was dependent about LOS of Mk.IV shape. The problem is Mk.IV armour "triangular" shape:

For blue line armour LOS is beetween 1200mm LOS (!) in front and 1100mm LOS for turret sides. It's the biggest value for all IIIgen. MBT, and in that "blue" case (as I know) Metis/Kornet with ~1000mm RHA penetration was to little. For me it's very possible.
But problem is for "green" and "red" cases - Merkava LOS for that ("green) is only 700mm LOS. For "red" line LOS is tragic -only 450-500mm.
For western tanks (Leo2, M1A2, etc) frontall LOS is smaller (840 in Leo2A4, ~960 in M1A2) but the LOS is bigger for sides (+/- 30.) - for Leo2A4 - 740 - 660mm for M1A2 800-720mm. It's much better then in Merkavas IV.

Of course LOS it's not armour protection, but it is quite important. Without any doubt multi-layers armour with many ACTIVE layers (Burlinghton, german solution, etc) have very high efficiency vs. HEAT warhead.

Some facts to just thing about it:

About more interesting - test:
1) Germany tested they DM-12 against erly Leo2 armour.
Normally DM-12 can penetrate ~600-650mm RHA. On this "special" armour it can penetrate only ~400-450mm deep.
This info I have fom friend for army. First I thought -fake, but now I think that is true.
2) After German unification they tested ex DDR tanks and ammo. Acording polish military press/book publishing - 3BM15 and 3BM22 was not able to penettated erly Leo2A4(2A3) turret armor even on very close distanse. The same HEAT (3BK18?). Of course this ammo is not modern.
It's not suprising but for that we know that Leo2A3 and erly 2A4 should have more then 550mm vs HEAT (SC) and about 400-450mm vs AFSDS (for less then 500m range how is proper penetration value for 3BM22??)
3) acording to polish military press about Leopard2A4:

Pancerz czołowy w zakresie +30. od osi wzdłużnej kadłuba chronił w latach 80.całkowicie przed przebiciem pociskami kumulacyjnymi kal.125mm, a przez pociski podkalibrowe z rdzeniami wolframowymi tegoż kalibru mógł być przebity z odległości poniżej 1000m. Pociski podkalibrowe z własnej armaty nie przebijały jego pancerza z odległości większej niż 1-1,5km.

​

Source: Andrzej Kiński, "Jadą leopardy...", Nowa Technika Wojskowa, marzec 2002,s.11

ressume:
-in 80. Leo2 frontal turret armour (+30.from the longitudinal axis) was tottaly immune against 125mm HEAT
- this armour can be perforated by Soviet APFSDS with TUNGSTEN rod from less then 1000m
- Leo2's 120mm APFSDS can perforated Leo2 frontal armour from 1-1,5km.

Well as I know (from test) Leo2A3-A4(erly) is tottaly immune against 3BM15 3BM22 and 3BM18HEAT(?) even on less then 500m...
So propably this part is about: 3BM26 or 3BM42 (tungsten rod). German DM-33A1 for 2000m have 470mm RHA, for 1000m should have about 530-550mm RHA.
How about BM42? According to this: 3BM42 -P0:580 P2500:460 for less then 1000m it should be simmilar value (540?).
Again: Leo2A3(erlyA4) turret armour can withstand smth. with about 500mm RHA + penetration (KE).

4. In Poland there was test PT-91 125mm ammo vs Leo2A4 and Leo2A4 120mm ammo vs. PT-91. As I know - the resultat was like in 2).

It's all about tests.

About this:
3. ratio Leo2A4 LOS and armour generation to nex Sovier/Russian AT weapons and it's penetration capabilities

As I remember it was posted here by You and it was translated.

About this:
"1. knowledge of the armor layer in erly 80. (of course armour in leo2 is not Burlinghton, but smth.simillar) "
It's big big thema.
In very very short -
1) erly burlinghton was 3x better against SC (HEAT) then RHA block with the same weight(mass).
2) Germans rejected Burlinhton becouse it was no better against KE (APFSDS) then RHA monoblock, and they made their own solution - simmiliar to the Burnghton but better against KE. This solution gives for frontal Leo2A4 amour immunity against most soviet SC warheat. Of course it's dependend on LOS at angles (+/-30.)
For Leo2 it is:
front: 840mm LOS
front for 30. 740mm LOS
turret sides for 30. ~650mm LOS (330mm at 30.)
And for erly Leo2 this gave an estimated armour protection about ~700-800 to 650mm RHA vs HEAT. Of course we are talkin about early years 80. For late 2A4 it was propably beetwen 1000-1100 and 800-900mm.

btw; During ODS one M1A1HA was hit by AGM-114 (version not known) in turret front, armour was panetrated on about 70cm+ for ~80cm LOS. AGM-114 have about 1000mm RHA penetration. So, You can image how modern tanks (end of 80.) was immune vs. HEAT.
This M1A1HA survived hit by AGM-114.

 

[Damian]

Damian , can you provide more details and reference/source of incident where a Kornet was fired at Merkava 4 front armour and it could not penetrate it ?

Well if You will search for a while You maybe find a good, high resolution photo of Merkava Mk4 with highly damaged frontal turret armor... but crew was alive and tank seemed to be fully operational. Extended damage of armor module suggests that it was hit by rather powerfull CE warhead, most probably Kornet.

And another Merkava Mk4, also hit by something bigger than RPG.

Also Militarysta should have interview (Polish military magazine) with Israeli officer (colonel or general) that was about Merkava Mk4 performance, and he talked also about Kornet.

What left from T-80BW after ammunition cook-off... "safety of such type autoloading system:

As we can see, projectiles are stored horizontal, so they are preatty low and hard to hit, propelant charges are stored vartical, so high and very exposed to enemy fire... effects can be seen above. Such autoloader type is used in T-64, T-80 and T-84 series.

But T-72/90 are also not that safe:

However their type of autoloader have such advantage it stored projectiles and propelant charges horizontal, thus lower and harder to hit.

Both however are not safe if ammunition will start to cook-off. The same problem is with 99% of other designs (besides M1 Abrams series with trully safe ammunition storage system... and some prototypes made here and there).

 

[Austin]

Damian , Hizbollah used Metis-M , Kornet , Konkurs , Tow and Fagot against Israel tank all can be classified as heavy weapons that can do damage , so its difficult to say which heavy weapon hit Merkava , ofcourse Kornet is just one of the candidate.

 

[militarysta]

Also Militarysta should have interview (Polish military magazine) with Israeli officer (colonel or general) that was about Merkava Mk4 performance, and he talked also about Kornet

Yes, I'll try post it tomorrow.

@Austin

It's not so difficult - If You know when and where Kornets/Metis where captured by IDF after battle
Wadi Saluki - it's Kornets/Metis performance. Rest -tomorrow.

 

[Damian]

Damian , Hizbollah used Metis-M , Kornet , Konkurs , Tow and Fagot against Israel tank all can be classified as heavy weapons that can do damage , so its difficult to say which heavy weapon hit Merkava , ofcourse Kornet is just one of the candidate.

IMHO Hezbollah were not fools, and they used best weapon they have (Kornet) against the most dangerous tanks, Merkava Mk4, rest was used against older tanks.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

However their type of autoloader have such advantage it stored projectiles and propelant charges horizontal, thus lower and harder to hit.

Both however are not safe if ammunition will start to cook-off.

This is a very common issue known, Are their any types of Upgrades done to minimize the chances of ammo penetration in lower hulls..

Also

Till today any mine protecting upgrade done for T-72/90S ..

 

[Damian]

This is a very common issue known, Are their any types of Upgrades done to minimize the chances of ammo penetration in lower hulls..

Hull sides can be upgraded with heavy ballistic skirts (composite array) but these are rather heavy weight, especially if these are very thick, or rubber skirts with ERA.

But these are still not perfect solution. This design is just, well You can't do much about it.

Also

Till today any mine protecting upgrade done for T-72/90S ..

As far as I know, nothing similiar to the belly addon armor for western MBT's.

 

[militarysta]

t"brillant" amo storage in T-72 and T-64/80:

quite better (Leo2):

the best (M1):

Of course turret without any ammo in Sowiet and ex-Sowiet tanks is very, ery good idea becouse about 70-75% all hits is in turret, but when we have choose "tank survive" and "tank crew survive" the best opton is ammo separate from the crew (like M1). Even Leo2A4 and Leclerck are better then ex Soviet tank with hulls full of ammo. The "carosuelle" in T-72A is very good, but rest ammo in hull is therible -and this additional ammo is true problem.

 

[Payeng]

militarysta so how it would be for automatic loader version not to have the ammo in the hull, is it so that one with ammo on turret got to have a manual loading?

 

[Damian]

No, just install autoloader in turret bustle like in Leclerc, Type 90, K2. And Russians and Ukrainians were experimenting with such autoloaders, on T-72-120, T-84-120 "Yatagan", Object 640, Burlak turret etc.

Also isolated magazine can be installed in hull. Look at M1, hull magazine, it is also isolated and have blow off panels like turret bustle magazines, so it is not entirely immposible to instal such magazine in hull.

Also vehicles (prototypes) like Object 195, TTB with unmanned turrets and crew in hull capsule, have hull ammunition magazine and autoloader isolated from crew and probably equipped with blow off panels/service hatches.

 

[Austin]

IMHO Hezbollah were not fools, and they used best weapon they have (Kornet) against the most dangerous tanks, Merkava Mk4, rest was used against older tanks.

Ofcourse i dont say they are fools or smart any thing like that. I am more keen on the evidence aspect of the picture you showed is hit by Kornet or some other missile which the hizbollah had , some times you might use what you have at that point in time in that enegagement provided a target of opportunity.

Ofcourse i havent heard of any Israel sources like their military claiming that Kornet hit the front and it didnt cause any damage , not that Kornet is some mythical missile and Merkava is a non penetratable tank , i am more looking at the evidence pov. Hope that clarifies

 

[Austin]

Of course turret without any ammo in Sowiet and ex-Sowiet tanks is very, ery good idea becouse about 70-75% all hits is in turret, but when we have choose "tank survive" and "tank crew survive" the best opton is ammo separate from the crew (like M1). Even Leo2A4 and Leclerck are better then ex Soviet tank with hulls full of ammo. The "carosuelle" in T-72A is very good, but rest ammo in hull is therible -and this additional ammo is true problem.

The problem is if it hits your turret and it perforates your turret then your crew is at best badly injured or worst dead , even a single dead crew in the tank will mean a mission kill , a badly injured ones means the same ,the tank itself wont be available for further mission with a new crew as you will have to patch the turret or just replace it.So any way we have a mission kill

Ofcourse if a tank does not blow up due to burning ammo or if some of your crew gets an opportunity to get out of the tank in a classic tank battle then its good.

 

[Austin]

No, just install autoloader in turret bustle like in Leclerc, Type 90, K2. And Russians and Ukrainians were experimenting with such autoloaders, on T-72-120, T-84-120 "Yatagan", Object 640, Burlak turret etc.

The turret bustle is as fool proof as what it hits it , you could easily get hit by a 155 Artilery with a smart anti-tank round from topin a battle which in a classic tank battle will be supported by such artillery , the anti-tank round would hit your bustle and blow up your tank , if you have a bustle thats part of the turret then the explosive will simply end up entering inside your turret due to spontanous or sympathetic detonation.

In a classic tank hit consider your self lucky if the bustle blow up but does not damage the turret in any way even with blow up panels.

 

[Payeng]

noob question,

Ammo in Autoloader arrangement, when hit is equivalent to a hit where a tank ammo is stored inside the hull, as loaded ammo would be in the lower part of the turret in the hull area exposed to the tank crew, in both scenario the damage or causality should be more then a hit taken by a tank who stores its ammo outside the hull.

Is it so?