Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

I have something great here. M1A2SEP v2 gunner controls photo, very detailed.



Ok so there are 3 sights, the one on the left is GAS or Gunner Auxiliary Sight, it is simple telescopic sight hidden in main gun mantle. Center one is GPS or Gunner Primary Sight primary ocular, we can see below that it have 3x and 10x magnification. The right one is second ocular of GPS, we can clearly see a wide range of magnification levels, 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x. The primary ocular of GPS is universal as far as I know, it can be used for day vision and thermal vision, the second ocular seems to be connected with thermal camera only.

Here is a high resolution photo:

All sizes | M1A2(SEP) "Abrams" Tank | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

And more photos below.

All sizes | M1A2(SEP) "Abrams" Tank | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
All sizes | M1A2(SEP) "Abrams" Tank | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
All sizes | M1A2(SEP) "Abrams" Tank | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[p2prada]

Just one look at the controls and I know I can learn that in no time. Probably 15-30 minutes.

 

[Damian]

Yeah, it should be preatty easy, but for safety and other reasons it is better to learn them on simulator first. US Armed Forces have several different simulators. SBProPE is also preatty good, but currently from M1 series there are only playable M1 and M1A1HA, M1A2SEP is still not playable vehicle, playable are also Leopard 1A5DK, Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A5DK, Leopard 2S/Strv122, Leopard 2E, T-72M1 and partially playable Challenger 2, there are of course many more different playable vehicles.

But I must say one thing, T-72M1 is very primitive in terms of fire control system, there are even some issues with stabilisation, former GDR tankers said that it was better not to work in tank with full stabilisation of gun and turret more than 40-60 minutes, or they will overheat and shut down (probably damaged). I think it would be problematic to fight in this thing even against such oldies like M60A1AOS or M60A1RISE/RISE-PASSIVE, M60A3 would also be completely superior in terms of FCS to T-72M1, especially at night... yeah when I think about lack of any thermals in Soviet tanks even in the 80's, and how primitive and short range are active IR sights, NATO then should base their tactis on night operations, that would give them huge edge even on much superior in numbers soviet forces.

BTW, do You see these 5 black buttons under primary ocular of GPS, the one in the center is preatty interesting, it controls FCS to fire in to ground or air targets.

For example TC sees helicopter, it shouts to the gunner and loader to fire MPAT round in air target with proximity fuze switch on. So loader takes M830A1 MPAT from ammo magazine, switch fuze switch to proximity mode on, and loads it in to gun, in the same time, gunner push MPAT button on (so FCS know what ammunition will be fired) and then he pushes Air/Ground button in to Air mode, and voila. Gunner just aimst at target, track it and laze it, then if target is moving, FCS will automatically add lead and the only thing that gunner needs to do is to keep steady track on target and push trigger.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Looks simpler than an micro wave oven.

 

[Damian]

Well in such case it should not be and disadvantage?

I would recommend to buy SBProPE, it's still preatty simplified compared to real thing but, gives good idea how modern tank FCS works, it's preatty easy to learn how properly lead target and laze it and use all these FCS gizmo's.

IMHO even the older M1A1HA FCS was actually much simpler to learn for me than Leopard 2 FCS that have opinion of much better. But I never get to use it, it was annoying to manually (by pushing button) engage dynamic lead when target or my tank was moving, older M1's have automatic dynamic lead, but main sight have only mirror stabilized in only one axis, vertical, so main sight crosshair after laze will start to "float" in horizontal axis, but when You get idea how it works it is actually much easier in use than Leopard 2 FCS.

The newer FCS mounted currently in M1's have stabilized sight mirror in both vertical and horizontal, just like in Leo2, but AFAIK dynamic lead is still engaged automatically after lazing target. It actually is very helpfull when You learn a simple technique called "Laze And Blaze". It means that You track the target, when You have steady track laze it and when turret will be in proper position (it take a second or two) You take a shot, when done properly it permitts to fire very quickly and with high accuracy.

 

[p2prada]

Nice.

Anyway there were a lot of night operations against Saddam's forces during both wars.

 

[Andrei_bt]

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

it is incorrect numbers.

 

[Andrei_bt]

SBProPE

The PC game - this is a "sourse" for real tank comparisson -
Now I know - this group from polland play "Steal beasts" and think they know something :cool2:

 

[Andrei_bt]

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.

This is an answer from shollboys from polland making different estimations and painting some lines on the picters from my site.
Interesting. You have nothing to say exept your biased fantasies and start talking about my nationality. dirty stroke.

You expected from Ukrainian nationalist with sentiment to Soviet Union

You don't understand what you are talking about. Suppose you should go back to homework and stop fluding this thread about T-90 eith your fantasy.

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.

example of "corect" mesurments -

 

[Storm shadow]

@Andrei,
By the examples of the pc tank simulator games,Damian wanted to give a rough idea of how does the FCS in the M1 and Leopard 2 series work.I thought you were smart enough to get that.Guess what? I was wrong,totally wrong.

 

[Damian]

The PC game - this is a "sourse" for real tank comparisson -
Now I know - this group from polland play "Steal beasts" and think they know something :cool2:

Andrei, honestly. You are don't even capable to correctly read with understanding in english. Go back to language school and when You will finally learn english back and then discuss...

Of course we all know that simulator used by armed forces of several armies is not a good source to use it as simplified explanation about how modern MBT FCS is working and how it is used by crew.

You don't understand what you are talking about. Suppose you should go back to homework and stop fluding this thread about T-90 eith your fantasy.

Yes of course, only You oh great lightness of knowledge know about what You are talking about.

example of "corect" mesurments -

So come here to Poland and ask if You can ride in to Świętoszów 10 Armored Cavalry Brigade and messure these tanks Yourself genius.

It's even funny that Andrei Tarasenko demands proper messurements but he never did such himself.

And still, You were proven to be wrong, it was You who stated that Leopard 2 armor is max 650mm thick, we proved You wrong, it is at least 800mm max.

It is You who are using ballistic tests on outdated tanks and are stating that they are equivalent to a much more modern machines.

You have biased opinions based on You nationalism and pseudo patriotism. There is not even one, critical opinion in Your texts about BM Oplot or BM Bulat, not even one, just biased statements that this tank is good, and this is bad, everything of course nicely covered with technical data and such.

I can find a weak points in design of both. Latest BM Bulat's do not even have thermal sights as far as informations are pointing this out, and there is large exposed weak zone in driver vision block area.

And BM Oplot? Why no several layers of Knife/Duplet on hull glacis plate, too heavy perhaps? Why nobody even bothered to completely eliminating a weak zone in glacis plate by redesigning driver vision blocks, or placing them somewhere else (a bit lenghtened hull could do the trick). Why no ERA on turret sides, it is naive to belive that storage boxes will give enough protection, especially that these days attacks from sides are more probable than in more conventional conflicts. Why no completely isolated ammo magazine with automatic loader, even if such was allready sucessfully tested on T-84 series?

Even if M1 Abrams have such side turret armor design as You belive, then it still have better basic ballistic protection than BM Bulat or BM Oplot or any Russian or Ukrainian MBT besides T-90MS (with ERA protecting turret sides).

Why You do not wrote in Your texts any similiar ciriticsm of Your beloved tanks? This is proffesional? No, this only put You in a light of proffesional propagandist of KMDB (designer of BM Bulat and BM Oplot if someone do not know), especially that You are not writing anything good about non Ukrainian tank designs, unless it serves to criticize UVZ or some western designs and show them in bad light.

And the best part is that Andrei from what I see on his site and blog, still seems to see world in the old way, good east and bad west.

It is even funny, this silly sentiment to the soviet union times.

 

[Austin]

Research on to develop lighter battle tanks

CHENNAI: Research is underway at the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) to develop light weight tanks for the Indian Army, said S D Dimri, Director General, Ordnance Factories, here on Wednesday.

He was speaking at the golden jubilee celebrations of the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory (AHVF).

Addressing mediapersons on the upcoming developments, he said the technology to destroy anti-tank missiles had been bought from Russia and the same, to be introduced soon, would be upgraded to suit the needs of the Indian tanks. "The present tanks weigh around 45-60 tonnes. Technological superiority is increasingly going to be the decisive factor in future battles. The prediction is that future tanks would weigh less than 30 tonnes, mak- ing them light enough to fly in fleets of C-130 transports, land on dirt strips, and roll off ready to fight," Dimri said.

"The production of equipment at the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory works out to 25 per cent and this translates to production of` 2,600-crore worth equipment per year, whereas the total amount of equipment produced through all ordnance factories is `12,000 crore. Two more ordnance factories will come up in Nalanda (Bihar) and in Korba (Chattisgarh)," he added.

MC Bansal, Additional Director General, Indian Ordnance Factories, and MSN Rao, General Manager, AHVF, were also present.

 

[Damian]

I have a strong feeling that someone is directing this project in not good way... next Future Combat Systems copy?

It is worring, especially that Americans, leaders in such thinking about complete revolution in AFV's design from heavier to extremely light platforms, abandoned such ideas not so long time ago.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I am not going through the whole vid nor i care whats in it..

What is important and many think is from 2:40sec..



Light Armour vehicles and tanks are good for fast deployment but not forefront of an assault..

Light Armour have its place in battle and heavy Armour at its..

People get confused and some take advantage..

 

[Damian]

Sure, this is why armed forces should have light, medium and heavy components, unfortunetly there are some people beliving that light or light/medium components are enough... in UK Royal Armored Corps allready have problems with such people in goverment, and if they suceed RAC in worst scenario will end with only 35 MBT's, in best with 135 MBT's... from approx 400... really sad.

 

[militarysta]

@methos

Hi, nice to meet You again

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.

I full agree with it. Acording to some sources (unfortunately I can't make it public) EMES-15 area can be hit form 1500m with 10% probability, but only for turret front. When we consider the case when it's not for 0.degree but for more then 15. this propability is less then 5% Of course it's not perfect, but this area is not so "week point" as many people thinks. The same gun mask -for most of degres (angles?) it's less then 10%.
BTW: next to "window" EMES-15 is 650mm thick armour cavity. It't almoust thea same LOS like for T-90A turret for 30.degree(angle). Area under EMES-15 window have cavity for the mechanisms of sight, but left and right part of turret have the same LOS - 840mm

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

No, it's not correct, more proper values(for diffrent tanks) :

Tank (date of introduction) max armour ------- 0° ---- 30° side shot
Leopard 2 (1979) --------------------------- 84 cm ----- 74 cm
T-72B (1985) ------------------------------- 60/80cm---60/68cm
T-80U (1986) ------------------------------- 55/65cm---55cm
T-90 (1999)---------------------------------60/70/80---53/70cm
T-90A (2005) -------------------------------60/85cm---65(70?)cm

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

Tungsten, kevlar, i wrote about it on otvaga.ru (grate forum) (sorry for my not very good english):
Well, for me it's obvious that western style multi layers armour (Burlinghton, simmilar German solution, etc) is very very good against HEAT. Even erly Leo2A3 (1983/1984) armour can reduce HEAT capabilities about 25-30%. In theory (if some "sorces" are not fake -but I should check it -->vide DM-12 penetration value problem) to sure penetrate frontal Leo2A3 HEAT warhead should have beetween 930-830mm RHA penetration (for most typical LOS 740-660mm not for 840mm!) . 830-930mm RHA for HEAT - like for Metis, or Wihr... Leopard2A4 since 1986 have serious improved armour - so propably more then 900-1000mm RHA penetration for ATGM's is needed - again like Metis-M, Kornet, Wichr, etc.
(...)
I don't get - where is problem? Two years ago I was thinking that "wedges" in Leo2A5/A6 are some simple "screen" - just to initiate HEAT SC or to blunt pin od rod from APFSDS. But year ago I was talking witch propably on of the best armour historian/scientist in Poland, and he talked that it can be only NERA/NRxA/SLERA panel. After that I got confirmation from army - that indeed they are NERA/SLERA etc. pannels. So, yes -now I think it is active working pannel. Where is problem? Their effectiveness is difficult to estimate - like all active working solutios, but - I have very good dates from test polish NERA panels. Perhaps they are simpler than those from German, but Polish simple NERA (2-3 layers) mass efficiency is 4-4,5. So 1kg NERA pannel (with spall liner) works like 4-4,5kg RHA plate. It's not from my head, but polish Institute who developed this NERA.
If we take this dates on german NERA pannels on Leo-2A5-A6 we have 500kg(x2) x4-4,5, so yes, one NERA-SLERA pannel works like 2000-2250kg stell plate, and whole NERA-SLERA(?) wedges on Leo2A5-A6 is like additional 4-4,5t of steel.
(...)
Well, of course there is no simple one "Burlinghton". In UK we have Burlinghton with some generations of it, and after that Dorchester, in USA -Damian can wrote smth.about it - He knows mucht mucht more then I about Jankee "Special armour". In France - in Leclerck there is at least two generation "special armour", socond (since T9 turret) have NERA panels inside -according to Frencht sources. In Germany - well it's most interesting for me - Germans since 1974/1975 have full acess to Burlinghton, but near 1977 they don't decide to just copy it. The reson was not very good resistans erly burlinghton vs APFSDS amunition. Instead, they developed they own solution - very simillar to Burlinghton, but slighty beter against KE. In Leopard-2 "special amrour" was changed at last 4 times (2A1, 2A3, 2A4 since 1986, 2A5 since 1994-1997). So yes, there is no one burlinghton western armour - I just think about "burlinghton style" multi layers armour consisting of meny layers RHA and CHE plates, kevlar, rubber, polymers and only very little (if any) ceramic elements. This armour (I prefer name "special amrour") works rather in semi-active then pasive way. As I know - for late 80 and erly 90. thery is more and more active layers in that "special amrour" but only Germans decide to place NERA pannels outside the main armour cavity.
(...)
Well, of course I could be wrong, but it's based on that what I found about this western "special armour" ("Orgins of the Burlinghton", article tanks armour scientists / historians, what I found about tests in Poland and Germany, and life performance in Iraq and Lebanon), and what if found about ex T-72B (we know how thick is LOS, what kind and how many and how thick are layers in T-72B turret cavity, and in Polish milt.press they are some dates about assumed value this armour vs. KE and CE). Maby it's not enought, maybe this what I found is wrong but now (till I don't get better sources) conlusion is that - in mid. 80. armour T-72B was slighty better agianst KE then western solutions, but against CE it wasn't. As I found frontal turret T-72B protection vs HEAT was estimatous like 590-500mm RHA (dependent on angle?) or like ~530-600mm. After that we have Kontak-1 and Kotakt-5 in USSR tanks and since that armour protection level look quite simmilar for top tanks in both sides od wall. What is interesting is achieved by tottal difrent solutions.
btw: During ODS one M1A1HA was hit by AGM-114 in frontal turret armour. HEAT jet perforated only 70cm+ for tottaly ~80cm+ LOS of turret (for 30.degree). This info is from two guys - one is tank crew member (Polish origin) now US army member, and second is guys who work in 10 TankBdeCav and he was in USA on training. If its true...
(...)
I suppose that mass of this armour is not so big, becouse there is no thick RHA plates inside. Erly Leo2A1 armour (special armour) in turret weight only 8,9t (im sure that) for all turret mass 16t. Active NERA pannels on Leo2A5 weight only 1000-1200kg (2x500kg)

 

[p2prada]

Sure, this is why armed forces should have light, medium and heavy components, unfortunetly there are some people beliving that light or light/medium components are enough... in UK Royal Armored Corps allready have problems with such people in goverment, and if they suceed RAC in worst scenario will end with only 35 MBT's, in best with 135 MBT's... from approx 400... really sad.

I have heard automation alone will remove 10 tons out of tanks. An automated turret will remove even more. Feasibility of the design, if it works in the environment and the systems have high redundancy then there is no reason why it wouldn't work. So, a MBT may possibly have the same amount of protection as current heavy tanks while being lighter in other unnecessary respects.

For eg: A 20 ton or 15 ton turret can be reduced to 10 tons without sacrificing armour. A 30-40 ton hull can be reduced by another 10 tons with better design, more automation. A lighter more efficient, perhaps hybrid, engine would mean lesser fuel consumption, so extra fuel tanks can be taken out to make the tank small and light enough for air transport. The outer body of the tank can continue having current version of armour like steel, ceramics and dynamic, but the insides of the tank don't need such heavy equipment. This can also reduce weight.. Thermosets and thermoplastics already carry more than steel can. So, this can make some small foray into the tank world as well.

IA has been asking for lighter tanks since a long time. DRDO is talking about 30 ton tanks now, this is most definitely not an IFV considering DRDO isn't going to develop one and it is too heavy to be one anyway. So, they could be talking about a medium or light tank. If they are talking about a 30 ton MBT then that would be a surprise. This is going to be a 2020 project, something out of Avengers or Tony Stark's factory.

 

[militarysta]

Andrei_bt

example of "corect" mesurments -

Well, I don't get - why You just don't tell - "Sorry I was wrong, Leo2 LOS is thicker than I thought"?
It's so big problem? But no, you just try to overthrow normal mesurment made on normal Leo2A4 (1986).
Phtos:

Of course each measurement is inaccurate, but this Leo was measured many times - inside and outside turret. So I was able to find inner wall (measured from loader periscope etc). For various reasons I can not upload more photos But finnaly it look that:

And the problem is not "is this mesurment with ruler shows 63,5 or 65,8cm" but that You had wrote many BS about Leopard2 armour. Leo2A4 LOS is not 65/40cm (as You wrote many times) but: 840/740-~650mm, and even the thinnest area on front Leo2A4 turret (~65cm next to EMES-15 window) is the same like all Soviet tanks turret LOS for 30.degree(angles) in 1985-1994 years (T-72B, T-80U, T-90, Ob.187 etc).

 

[Damian]

@p2prada

I have heard automation alone will remove 10 tons out of tanks. An automated turret will remove even more. Feasibility of the design, if it works in the environment and the systems have high redundancy then there is no reason why it wouldn't work. So, a MBT may possibly have the same amount of protection as current heavy tanks while being lighter in other unnecessary respects.

For eg: A 20 ton or 15 ton turret can be reduced to 10 tons without sacrificing armour. A 30-40 ton hull can be reduced by another 10 tons with better design, more automation. A lighter more efficient, perhaps hybrid, engine would mean lesser fuel consumption, so extra fuel tanks can be taken out to make the tank small and light enough for air transport. The outer body of the tank can continue having current version of armour like steel, ceramics and dynamic, but the insides of the tank don't need such heavy equipment. This can also reduce weight.. Thermosets and thermoplastics already carry more than steel can. So, this can make some small foray into the tank world as well.

IA has been asking for lighter tanks since a long time. DRDO is talking about 30 ton tanks now, this is most definitely not an IFV considering DRDO isn't going to develop one and it is too heavy to be one anyway. So, they could be talking about a medium or light tank. If they are talking about a 30 ton MBT then that would be a surprise. This is going to be a 2020 project, something out of Avengers or Tony Stark's factory.

It is possible to reduce weight and size of vehicle yes, by using unmanned turrets, crew in hull and very compact hull design, but IMHO weight of such vehicle should still be around 40 to 50 tons if designers will not resign from good basic protection. Maybe perhaps additional weight savings can be done on some components like replacing torsion bars with lighter HydroGas and similiar solutions.

But a 30 or less than 30 tons vehicle smells fishy, like FCS MGV's that were completely unsuited to protect crew against anything bigger than 40mm automatic cannon over frontal armor.

 

[Anonymouse]

HVF set to step up T-90 tanks | Deccan Chronicle

In a bid to meet the ever increasing demand of armoured vehicles and allied systems from the Army, Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) is embarking on a massive expansion programme for enhancing the production capacity of T-90 Tanks, T-72 variants and for production of spares with an investment of Rs 1,562 crore.

Further, the capacity of MBT Arjun will also be enhanced to 50 numbers per annum from the existing 30 numbers per year, said M.C. Bansal, additional director general armed vehicles, at the golden jubilee celebrations of HVF in Avadi on Wednesday.

"As on date, there is enough workload and I am confident that there will be orders continuously placed at the factory for the next eight to 10 years," he added. He further noted that the ministry of defence and ordnance factory board (OFB) have high hopes on HVF, as it is the flagship unit of OFB.

Starting with the production of battle tank Vijayanta, HVF now manufactures prestigious combat lethal battle tanks fleet of armoured combat vehicles for the Army namely 72 (Ajeya), T-90s (Bhishma), MBT Arjun Tanks and their variants using latest state of art technology.

Till date, HVF has produced 2,105 Vijayantha tanks, 1,300 T-72 tanks, 113 armoured recovery vehicles, 48 self propelled 130mm guns, 823 T-72 (OH) tank, 451 T-90 tank and 110 MBT Arjun.