Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Andrei_bt]

The Problem we all can see, The inclined roof..

Putting ERA is an answer ?.

inclined roof.. - on Leopard-2? - no - it is not main problem of this ill designed turret.

Regarding LEO deign, we know.

Show what you know.

 

[p2prada]

It has more WEIGHT , not armor.

In hull? Not in turret?

Andrei. Don't answer posts that are so old. No point.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

A leaked video of the T-90...


[video]http://www.military.com/video/logistics-and-supplies/russian-equipment/leaked-footage-of-russias-t-90-tank/1275195695001/ [/video]

 

[Austin]

Why are you posting 3 years ago old "news"?

May be because i saw it yesterday

Can you tell us how good are those Al-Khalid post upgrade done with Ukranian assistance ?

What kind of APFSDS and HEAT round does Ukraine provide to Pakistan for T-80 and upgraded AL-Khalid and how good are they ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

inclined roof.. - on Leopard-2? - no - it is not main problem of this ill designed turret.

Show what you know.

Your Translator is problematic..

I said Inclined roof of Type-96/98/99 MBTs not LEO..

LEOA4 had Problem with its sight arrangements rest is fine..

 

[Austin]

According to this the frontal protection of T-90 is in the range of 1150-1350 мм

Gur Khan attacks!: "Армата" в резерве

hull and turret of the T-90 is estimated taking into account the dynamic protection armor of 1150-1350 mm.

 

[methos]

Your Translator is problematic..
LEOA4 had Problem with its sight arrangements rest is fine..

Sights arangement is as problem overrated (not to mention that newer 2A5/2A6 have solved this problem). It is not the best, but a suitable solution. The main sight has a height of ~25 cm and a width of ~45 cm. That means when you aim directly in the middle of the sight unit, only ~60 % of shoots will hit it at two kilometers and only ~ 30% at three kilometers (with current generation rounds, which have a accuracy of 0.2 mrad (a circle which diameter increases by 20 cm per 1000 m). During Cold War, when the tank was designed, the accuracy of tank rounds was worse (0.3 - 0.4 mrad), therefore it was even less likely to be hit. Behind this sight unit there is still pretty strong armour, more than on some contemporary tanks. But noone will ever directly aim at the sight's unit, because it is very close to the turret roof, i.e. hits that will miss the sight are likely to not even hit the tank. So the aimpoint should be located slightly below the center of the turret roof, which means that the probability of hits on the sights will be reduced, but the probability to hit the turret will be increased.
That's all still very theoretcial and will probably never happen in a real fight, as both participants in a tank-vs-tank combat will very probable move - therefore you don't have the time to directly aim at a "small" sights unit - instead the center of the turret is the "typical target" (and there is the mantlet armour which is thin in every tank), which means that the probability to hit the turret is the greatest. If you aim from two kilometers directly at the middle of the turret front (and have a APFSDS with an accuracy of 0.2 mrad) you won't be able to hit the sight (it is located outside of 40 cm diameter), at three kilometers the probability to hit it will rise to 1-2 % (one corner is partial in the circle) and at four kilometers it will still be below ~5% (sight unit still not totally in the circle). And that is the maximum probability to hit the EMES 15 when firing at the turret front. The area covered by the sight will stay the same from now on, but the circle in which the APFSDS/HEAT round will hit will increase.

It is not the best solution, but also not the worst. Mantlet armour of the Leopard 2 (or on the Arjun) is thinner than the armour located behind the sight (and the mantlet is more likely to be hit), so even this "reduced amount of armour" might be enough for taking out contemporary APFSDS/HEAT rounds. The designes might just have taken per-thickness-more-effective armour, which is less effective per given weight than the main armour at the turret front.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Sights arangement is as problem overrated (not to mention that newer 2A5/2A6 have solved this problem). It is not the best, but a suitable solution.

That's all still very theoretcial and will probably never happen in a real fight, as both participants in a tank-vs-tank combat will very probable move - therefore you don't have the time to directly aim at a "small" sights unit

It is not the best solution, but also not the worst. Mantlet armour of the Leopard 2 (or on the Arjun) is thinner than the armour located behind the sight (and the mantlet is more likely to be hit)

Its a vulnerable zone, Though not to be taken easily..

In 1965 and 71 war we know here, M-48/47 were knock out by precious hits on sides of the tanks by PT-76 gun, You cannot deduced the angle of attack in a battle zone it can be anywhere at different instance..



Mantlet is a weak zone but how much thin is not known as i haven't seen yet..

 

[methos]

Its a vulnerable zone, Though not to be taken easily..

Mantlet is a weak zone but how much thin is not known as i haven't seen yet..

Mantlet of Leopard 2A4 is 40 cm "armour box" and up to 10 cm other steel (part of the mounting, doesn't have to be armour quality steel, but could be). Armour behind the EMES 15 sight is 60 - 65 cm thick.

For the Arjun we can simply take a look at images posted previously:

I would guess from these pictures that the mantlet of the Arjun is also ~ 40 cm thick.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Can you give me more clear picture of mantlets of LEO2a4 to understand its structural deign ?

Thnx..

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

The estimates are based on several considerations:

1. Known structure of the armor of tanks, especially T-72, T-72A/M1, T-72B, T-80U
2. Ratio beetwen penetration of AT weapons (APFSDS, HEAT warhead, ATGM ') and LOS thickness and Known structure of the armor of tanks,
3. Known armor tests:
T-72 Ural
T-72A/M1 (Meppen, in Poland, etc)
T-72B
ec
4. Numerous discussions with the tank crews and instruktors.
I've done personally of course.
5. Known literature - mainly Polish and Russian

In general, came out something like this:
(the first value - turret front for 30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower -This value gives the most about the armor protection because it most often occurs on the battlefield. Take one rather than the value.
second value - turret armour for 0 degrees (the thickest LOS value)

"Bok wieży pod kątem 30" - turret sides for 30. degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower

estimates:

T-72Ural:
APFSDS: 280-380mm RHA
HEAT: 280-410mm RHA

Leopard2A1:
APFSDS: 410 - 470mm RHA
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~380mm RHA
HEAT: 700mm - 800mm RHA
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~650mm RHA

T-72A/M1 wersja Układu Warszawskiego:

APFSDS: 420 -480mm RHA
HEAT: 480 - 500mm RHA

T-72B (bez K-1)
APFSDS: 470 - 540mm RHA
HEAT: 530 - 600mm RHA

Leopard2A3:
APFSDS: 480 - 550mm RHA
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~460mm RHA
HEAT: 900 - >1000mm RHA
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~830mm RHA

Leopard2A4:
APFSDS: 560 - 630mm RHA
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~520mm RHA
HEAT: 990 - >1100mm RHA
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~900mm RHA


T-80U bazowo bez Kontakt-5:

APFSDS: 540- 600mm RHA
HEAT: ?? z Kontaktem-5 ponad 1000mm RHA.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

leo22

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[sesha_maruthi27]