Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[Kunal Biswas]

This Imageshake account must belong to Damian

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

Yes, but not in serial production.

Andrei, do you have a journal of your own ?

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

This Imageshake account must belong to Damian

Got it in GOOGLE

 

[Andrei_bt]

Andrei, do you have a journal of your own ?

Танковая мощь - Сталь и Огонь: современные и перспективные танки
andrei_bt
+ published media

 

[Andrei_bt]

Armour behind the EMES 15 sight is 60 - 65 cm thick.

So 60 or 65?

 

[Andrei_bt]

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..

On Type99 current mod it is even less Inclined then on Leo-2

http://s40.radikal.ru/i088/1112/99/89d517a0e40f.jpg

LEOA4 had Problem with 2/3rd of the turret to be a weekened zon, realy fine :cool2:

 

[Kunal Biswas]

On Type99 current mod it is even less Inclined then on Leo-2

LEOA4 had Problem with 2/3rd of the turret to be a weekened zon, realy fine :cool2:

??

How LEOA4 ?, you didn't get the Idea..


LEOA4, 2/3 turret is that include mantlet and Sight ? what else ?

 

[Andrei_bt]

almost all left turret side because of sight+gun mask.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

almost all left turret side because of sight+gun mask.

Side is very well protected...

 

[Andrei_bt]

note, that not only the area of EMES-15 mirrot is weekened, but also behind it -

 

[Andrei_bt]

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

Gur Khan attacks!: "Армата" в резерве

It is joke...

 

[Andrei_bt]

+ gun mask

 

[methos]

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

I don't have any clear picture material, but I may try to contribute what I find in the moment.

Two different measurements of the mantlet module have been done by Damian/militaryasta or some other Polish guy. They only measures the outside of the armour and the image above might include a part of the "mantlet roof" (some part connected to the mantlet where no armour is below, so that the gun can depress) or it might not include all armour and the "mantlet roof" starts further behind. But at least 40 cm seem to be armour, whereas the part and pictured above is from my point of view unknown.

The weapon system, i.e. gun, mantlet (and obviously some steel after that without armour below), recoil system and such.

Interior of the Leopard 2A4. There is some steel (maybe not armour steel quality*) which is increasing total thickness by some centimeters, even if it is elevated by 0°.

*[In case of the World War 2 Tiger tank two ~10 cm thick steel bars where located behind the 12 cm mantlet armour holding the gun/mantlet, but they were made of mild steel and increased the protection only small]

_____

[...]

I don't have something against you posting images/texts from other forums, but it might be usefull if you also post, at least partial, the critics/comments on these entries. The above shown image has been posted in at least another forum where I am registered and I did a lot of commenting there regarding both protection and penetration levels shown in these images. While most datas can be seen as roughly correct, there are quite a few total errors inside (like the 120 mm DM13 penetrating the same amount of armour as the first 105 mm APDS or the fact that the Leopard 2A3 is reported to have the same armour as the previous models). While protection levels can be seen as "roughly correct" there has been much discussion regarding penetration values.

This image is not even connected to the topic as it shows a T-55AM(2) located in a tank museum.

 

[methos]

LEOA4 had Problem with 2/3rd of the turret to be a weekened zon, realy fine :cool2:
​

You are exaggerating. First of all based on the dimensions of sight's unit and mantlet actual "weakened zone" will be less than 50% (sloped roof and turret side walls are also part of the turret!). Secondly it is the tank used in Cold War and more modern variants with no/less weakend zones exist. The Leopard 2 entered service 1979 just like the T-72A and if we compare these tanks, the Leopard 2 will have thicker armour in nearly every aspect. Then we don't know wether the armour in the thinner areas is not more thickness efficient as the base armour. If you consider these still pretty thick parts of the armour as significantly "weakened zone", then I got bad news for you: The hull armour of every tank is also a weakened zone then, as they normally do not exceed 60 cm and are even thinner than the sights unit.
You have just shown a very one-sided view, now let me tell you something:
The Leopard 2 has greater composite armour coverage than any T-Xy tank, T-72A/B and early T-90. In the Leopard 2 only the sloped roof and the ammunition/turret drive compartments are not covered by composite armour, on T-Xy tanks the armour cavities are only covering 70% of the horizontal profil and also not the roof parts. Even late T-90s with welded turret's lack composite armour in the mantlet area. The T-Xx's tanks have very funny side-armour covering only half of the crew-compartment, which is at the same time the ammunition compartment...
That the EMES-sight would weaken the other armour is another myth. Take a look at the dimensions, take a look at the exact angles of fixture and at the compositions of the sight.

So 60 or 65?
​

~65 cm is the thickness between weld-lines in most areas (small hint: the sight is not parallel to the turret front), but at the right side is a small sighting mirror included, which may reduce total armour thickness their by ~ 3 cm there. On Leopard 2A5 armour is reinforced by adding normal steel/composite armour at the front and by adding the wedge-shaped add-on armour module so armour thickness will then range from 84.5 cm to 97.5 cm (lower bound estimate).

 

[Andrei_bt]

~65 cm is the thickness be

I have this funny photo of the "65" ruller is crooked, pointed almost inside the commander sight ))))

 

[Andrei_bt]

l "weakened zone" will be less than 50% (sloped roof and turret side walls are also part of the turret!).

i'm talking only about protection at 0 degrees angle. Half of the turret side on Leo-2 is weakened zone because of sight installed? another - gun mask.
If wee look at +-35 degree arc the situation will be even worth for leopard-2.

The Leopard 2 entered service 1979 just like the T-72A and if we compare these tanks, the Leopard 2 will have thicker armor in nearly every aspect

It is more for the children painting books to discuss only the dimension painting some strange lines on the drawings.
The main question is weight of the armor (weight equivalent of frontal armor comparing to steel).

That the EMES-sight would weaken the other armor is another myth. Take a look at the dimensions, take a look at the exact angles of fixture and at the compositions of the sight.

Why germans try to partially solve this weakened zone in Leopard-A5 if everything was allfright.

he Leopard 2 has greater composite armour coverage than any T-Xy tank, T-72A/B and early T-90

I has less armor weight and density. more air - less armor.


It is not good such armor design used on Arjune tank.

 

[Damian]

@Andrei_bt

you have a good fantasy drawing some "assumed" abrams armor which does not exist.

Yeah right, are You capable to read in english? I wrote that small details like lack of weld marks on insert bolts and on armor cavity backplate, lack of mounting points on both, suggests that it is immposible to mount insert as You suggest.

You understand? Or You are unable and I need to explain it to You 100 times in hope that finally, maybe with a help of translator You will be capable to understand...

It is what it is, on photo.
Maybe you try and find your photo to support you fantasy, than it will worth something.

Oh yes, another silly pseudo argument of someone that belived in it's own fantasy about Leopard 2 turret armor protection... Contrary to You I'am looking on details, and these details are against Your statements. I do not have 100% certanity that my point is right, but You have neither.

Only because You seen something it doesen't mean that it is complete image if reality or it looks that way.

You knowladge about ERA is close to zero, so I don't consider this discussion deserving attention.

More likelly You have nothing to add, it is typical for Your stupid lyconic posts... and BTW "specialist" there is such thing as posts edition, You are making garbage from this forum by writing one post under another.

Outstanding style of measurment - try to bent the ruller more for better result

Ahh, yes, now ruller is bented, what will be next, ruller is CIA made? Moron...

may you provide me such "my" statements about "complete inferiority of western designs".

Why do I need to, everyone can read Your silly posts... not to mention that Your knowledge about western MBT's is limited... very limited.

It has more WEIGHT , not armor.

Actually M1 or any western tank have more armor, not definetly more protection but definetly more armor on it, especially composite. Let's sum it, we have composite armor over hull front, turret front and turret sides. Eastern designs have composite armor on on hull and turret front.

But we can't say definetly where protection is better, and most probably protection is comparable. But the fact remains fact. For example side turret protection of western MBT's offers more protection over wider variety of hit angles, this protection means not only non perforation of armor, but also minimizing effects of perforation. Also such side composite armor can also be supported by ERA and will offer superior protection than simple and thin CHA or RHA side turret armor of eastern designs.

In hull? Not in turret?

Weight increase of hull and turret suggest that DU was used in both.

I will post more later.

 

[methos]

I have this funny photo of the "65" ruller is crooked, pointed almost inside the commander sight ))))

Have you ever seen the Leopard 2's commander sight? There is a large metal ring arround the "hole" for increasing mounting/protection of sight. It has a larger diameter than the periscope - it partially covers the welding seams, but that doesn't mean that there are no welding seams. Behind the welding seams is by the way another steel plate. Just take a look at what you are talking about prior starting writing your myths!

i'm talking only about protection at 0 degrees angle. Half of the turret side on Leo-2 is weakened zone because of sight installed? another - gun mask.
If wee look at +-35 degree arc the situation will be even worth for leopard-2.

You are talking complete nonsense. In my calculations the mantlet is already increased as "weakened zone". If we take a look at the ±30 we will see the following:
Tank (date of introduction) max armour ------- 0° ---- 30° side shot
Leopard 2 (1979) --------------------------- 84 cm ----- 70 cm
T-72(A) (1979) ---------------------------- ~47 cm --- ~47 cm
T-80B (1978) ------------------------------ ~58 cm --- ~58 cm
T-72B (1985) ------------------------------- 82 cm ----- 82 cm
T-80U (1986) ------------------------------- 82 cm ----- 82 cm

So the Leopard 2 had thicker armour and better composite coverage than any Soviet tank for the next 6 years! Furthermore all T-Xxs available during Cold War were using cast armour (but India was clever enough to go for welded turrets), which offers 10% less protection then rolled steel plates.

It is more for the children painting books to discuss only the dimension painting some strange lines on the drawings.
The main question is weight of the armor (weight equivalent of frontal armor comparing to steel).

Are you making fun of yourself now? If density/weight would matter the moste, the most efficient armour in existence would be uranium or tungsten. And the Tiger tank would have stronger armour than the Leopard 2. You seem to have missunderstood the idea of composite armour. But that's all bullshit. Hardness and UTS are real phyisical properties of materials that matter. Composite armour is designed to offer more protection at less weight than steel. Soviet armour designers made the mistake and used thick steel turrets with comparatively few "composite" armour, which in the end was only one homogenous type of armour filling the whole cavity. The main amount of KE protection always resulted from the steel turret, only the newer T-84s and T-90s with welded turret's have changed that. On the Leopard 2 the basic steel turret has an outer and an inner layer of ~4 cm, which means that if they would design their turret the same way the Soviets did, the actual KE protection would be below that of the Leopard 1A1A1... but that's not true. In fact the cavity sizes imply that the Leopard 2 uses nearly twice as much composite armour as any Soviet/Russian tank with cast turret.
Of what the armour is made is unknown, but we know what types of armour were available. Germans used steel-plastic-laminates incorporating SHS and HHS on some tanks/prototypes and on others steel-rubber-laminates. Armour incorporating SHS/HHS will offer more protection vs kinetic energy than homogenous steel armour of the same weight, while rubber-steel armour offers more protection (~twice as much) vs shaped charges. What remains unknown is if they received and used armour technology from Great Britian and the US, i.e. glass and ceramic armour.

Why germans try to partially solve this weakened zone in Leopard-A5 if everything was allfright.

Because the NATO expected the Soviets to field a new tank (nicknamed FST-2) at the end of the Cold War, which should carry a larger tank gun. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it was still believed that the FST-2 project would continue, which lead to the adoption of a longer gun and more armour. It has nothing to do with your T-72 and T-80 rip-offs.

I has less armor weight and density. more air - less armor.

Again total nonsense. Who says that there is air in the armour? Using your argumentation 30 cm titanium would offer less protection than 18 cm steel. But the titanium will offer ~27 cm protection while weighing as much as 15 cm steel.

It is not good such armor design used on Arjune tank.

The Arjun is "not good" because it lacks the side armour at some part where the turret is only covered by storage boxes (even these will provide some protection against small HEAT rounds) and not by composite armour. But that's something it shares with every Soviet-legacy tank. Since the Pakistani army does not have very potent armour-piercing rounds the "weak spots" - the armour behind the gunner's sight and the mantlet - will probably be enough to defeat them.
It's shape will provide sufficient armour protection for the crew compartment at ±25°. Against HEAT projectiles, where the storage boxes already improve the protection by a few dm, it will be more than ±30°.


I think my patience is coming to an end. The more you write the more you persuade me that you are nothing more than an internet troll. You won't accept any tank as good design unless it is made in Russia/Ukraine.

 

[Damian]

Are you making fun of yourself now? If density/weight would matter the moste, the most efficient armour in existence would be uranium or tungsten. And the Tiger tank would have stronger armour than the Leopard 2. You seem to have missunderstood the idea of composite armour. But that's all bullshit. Hardness and UTS are real phyisical properties of materials that matter. Composite armour is designed to offer more protection at less weight than steel. Soviet armour designers made the mistake and used thick steel turrets with comparatively few "composite" armour, which in the end was only one homogenous type of armour filling the whole cavity. The main amount of KE protection always resulted from the steel turret, only the newer T-84s and T-90s with welded turret's have changed that. On the Leopard 2 the basic steel turret has an outer and an inner layer of ~4 cm, which means that if they would design their turret the same way the Soviets did, the actual KE protection would be below that of the Leopard 1A1A1... but that's not true. In fact the cavity sizes imply that the Leopard 2 uses nearly twice as much composite armour as any Soviet/Russian tank with cast turret.
Of what the armour is made is unknown, but we know what types of armour were available. Germans used steel-plastic-laminates incorporating SHS and HHS on some tanks/prototypes and on others steel-rubber-laminates. Armour incorporating SHS/HHS will offer more protection vs kinetic energy than homogenous steel armour of the same weight, while rubber-steel armour offers more protection (~twice as much) vs shaped charges. What remains unknown is if they received and used armour technology from Great Britian and the US, i.e. glass and ceramic armour.

Indeed. But Methos, I and Militarysta actually have some good... sources about western armors. From all descriptions it seems that Burlington (BRL-1, BRL-2 and British version) and German variant have much in common, all of them do not use ceramics as main armor material (if any) and it seems that there are more metal alloy plates and the overall structure is much different than that described in books for years. We even have a preatty good description of armor array.

Also You have right about Soviet composite armors, there is indeed less composite at any hit angle than in western designs and the funny thing, even if at some angles Soviet tanks armor thickness is similiar to that of western 3rd generation MBT's, the higher the hit angle is from 0 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, the thinner is armor of Soviet tanks, but also front armor of Soviet tanks will protect much more surface at such angles, it is because of specific geometry. However side composite armor of western tanks at for example 30 degrees should have similiar thickness. If I would have proper drawings I could show in easier way what I have in mind.

But there is something else, for T-72B/T-90 I counted how many composite layers stands against projectile, at 0 degrees it will be approx 5 layers, and this number will decrease if hit angle will increase.

In case of western 3rd generation MBT's due to the fact how thick is composite armor array (it's physical thickness is still greater than physical (without angling) thickness of Soviet/Russian/Ukrainia T-xx's) and how composite layers are placed in cavity, not matter at what most predictible hit angle projectile will hit armor, be it 0 or 30 degrees, there will allways be the same number of layers standing on penetration path of projectile.

Of course both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. I wrote about them many times in the past.

I think my patience is coming to an end. The more you write the more you persuade me that you are nothing more than an internet troll. You won't accept any tank as good design unless it is made in Russia/Ukraine.

Hah, but what You expected from Ukrainian nationalist with sentiment to Soviet Union... Even Russians do not like him, he is viewed as person with extreme views on AFV's designs.