Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[p2prada]

That means T-90 production will be increased to 140/year as mentioned in Shukla's blog.

@Damian

The first time FMBT project was announced, the tank was said to be 40 tons. As more information came out the number became 45 to 50 tons. Now DRDO comes up with a 30 ton figure for future tanks. It looks like nothing is concrete as of today. Once requirements(GSQR) are formulated, we will know the basic features of the tank we are going to get. Only a preliminary requirement(PSQR) has been formulated.

GSQR is General Staff Qualitative Requirements.

As for FCS program, I did not know the armour protection on those vehicles were so low. So, they depended entirely on an APS.

According to the US Army, they need a month to get the Abrams to hot spots around the world. With FCS they could do it in 3 days to a week. A 30 ton tank with Abrams level armour would mean a major revolution and will give planners a lot of leeway in achieving strategic and tactical objectives. I am guessing the 30 ton tank is something to be considered well into the future and not in the coming 10 years.

 

[methos]

You have nothing to say exept your biased fantasies and start talking about my nationality. dirty stroke.

I was not talking about your nationality, but the fact that you categorically mark all turret-designs flawed, unless the follow the Soviet designs, which are currently only used by two countries: Russia and the Ukraine. If this design would be the holy grail of tank design, why did never a single country try to copy it?
And now please tell me where exactly are my "biased fantasies".

example of "corect" mesurments -

There is a steel plate behind the welding seam. You can't see it from a top view.

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

My data for Russian tanks came from different sources, T-64B/T-80B and T-72A came from various Western sources, T-72B and T-80U from Fofanov's site.

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.

Automatics for loading/unmanned turret's don't decrease weight per-se, but they enable more weight-effective design of the turret. Just take a look at a human loader - he will weigh less than 100 kg, whereas an autoloading mechanism will weigh more than 3 times as much. But a autoloader enables you to use a smaller interior volume and a smaller turret height, which leads to a smaller surface -> less weight for armour. Therefore the underlined part should be rephrased to "A 15-20 tonnes turret can be replaced by a 10 tonnes turret without sacrificing armour". Btw. the main thought if unmanned turrets is that they require less protection than crewed turrets.

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.

On chassis/hull more than 2 metirc tons weight saving are unrealistic. When using smaller engines and/or less full, you won't change the (heavily armoured) front, but only some small rear part where armour is less than 10 cm. Actually smaller engines often tend to require more fuel than bigger ones of the same size.

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.

Best way to make the hull lightweight and stay in the same level of performance as other tanks might be the use of advanced titanium alloys. Al-Ti-alloys sometimes need less than 35% of the weight steel would require for offering the same level of protection. But they cost inadequately much more.

 

[p2prada]

manned turret's don't decrease weight per-se, but they enable more weight-effective design of the turret. Just take a look at a human loader - he will weigh less than 100 kg, whereas an autoloading mechanism will weigh more than 3 times as much. But a autoloader enables you to use a smaller interior volume and a smaller turret height, which leads to a smaller surface -> less weight for armour. Therefore the underlined part should be rephrased to "A 15-20 tonnes turret can be replaced by a 10 tonnes turret without sacrificing armour". Btw. the main thought if unmanned turrets is that they require less protection than crewed turrets.

On chassis/hull more than 2 metirc tons weight saving are unrealistic. When using smaller engines and/or less full, you won't change the (heavily armoured) front, but only some small rear part where armour is less than 10 cm. Actually smaller engines often tend to require more fuel than bigger ones of the same size.

Also an unmanned turret would mean crew is in the hull which would increase size anyway. Space is required for storing ammo and this won't change if shells only get bigger and the turret smaller.

Best way to make the hull lightweight and stay in the same level of performance as other tanks might be the use of advanced titanium alloys. Al-Ti-alloys sometimes need less than 35% of the weight steel would require for offering the same level of protection. But they cost inadequately much more.

Or some new materials which are still on paper. Titanium is too expensive for use in tanks. We have to wait and see what the GSQR for FMBT states before jumping at every announcement that DRDO makes.

 

[Sridhar]

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.

Research on to develop lighter battle tanks | idrw.org

 

[Damian]

@methos I have serious doubts about using alluminium in tanks, I saw enough APC's and IFV's with alluminium hull elements after burning. Titanium alloy is however interesing option. BTW AFAIK it is currently used in western MBT's armor, I remember that Americans were experimenting with Titanium alloy, and they used it finally as superior to alluminium alloy and replaced it by titanium alloy in some elements of armor.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I like the vid, Also it show some important places, Like roof top and interior..

 

[militarysta]

[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/862/sabiznywleo2ibuaciecz1.png/]

[/URL]

to be continued...in bigger article in english

ps. If 420mm LOS thick mantle is "enormous weakened zone" what we can say aboutsituation when all turret LOS is under 390mm LOS, and only for several angles LOS is beetwen 460-470mm LOS?
Of course im talking about T-64BM BUŁAT turret - when almost whole turret LOS is thinner then Leo2A4 mask/mantlet.

as I said -it will be article about this


pps:

Стойкость основного бронирования лобовых фрагментов защиты танка «Леопард-2А4» к воздействию БПС составляет 400"¦450 мм. Противокумулятивная стойкость составляет 550"¦600 мм

Yes, values from article from 1979 are so true...for tank from 1983.

ppps:

WHA-H22:
ВН не более 0,3
ГН не более 0,4

Again:

x = 0,15-0,30 mrad
y = 0,20-0,40 mrad
This is ALWAYS range of values - if I'll be so fair like Andriej, I should write:

WHA-H22:
ВН не более 0,15
ГН не более 0,2

 

[Damian]

To be fair I would recommend to mark Leopard 2 frontal angled section of turret top armor as a weak zone, it is weak zone in every tank. However in Leopard 2, and most if not all bigger NATO or western design MBT's, like Arjun for example, this weak zone is rather less exposed than in T-64BM or it's older variants and T-72 series or older variants of T-80 series. However to be even more fair, Soviet designers seen this problem and made turret roof more flat and less exposed in T-80U/UD. Less exposed roof have also T-90A (T-90S with welded turret in IA service), Object 187 and T-84 series. T-90MS however have this strange turret roof with highly exposed "bulge".

Interesting thing is that actually smaller size of vehicle with manned turret is not nececary advantage from protection point of view, I seen photos of roof perforated by projectiles not fired from high elevation point but just by bigger tank from the "ground level". Yes there is probabilty that highly angled roof will deflect such hit, but we must remember that modern APFSDS ammunition have smaller tendency to deflect hitting angled armor.

 

[militarysta]

[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/sabiznawleo2a4czii.jpg/]

[/URL]

 

[bhramos]

Tank Protection Systems. T-90 (English sub)

 

[militarysta]

Rest tank (week zones):













Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[militarysta]

yellow - part-internal fuel tank it's lightly armored
green - main armour cavity, and inner RHA plate (60mm thick -left to the driver)
red - this what is really "weak zone" in Leo2A4 front hull




ps. http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/click.php?http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/259/fuelvsheat.jpg/



According to Israeli developers - 70mm thick fuel is like 10mm RHA plate(only vs HEAT!), in Leo2A4 this "yellow" fuel tanks we have ~5mm armour + 600mm thick fuel tank (for 90.) + 60mm inner citadel (RHA plate). Small?
For 20. degrees from the longitudinal axis of the hull it is:
14mm armour plate + ~1750mm of fuel tank + 175mm RHA inner citadel which gives ~190mm RHA plate + 250mm RHA (only vs HEAT) all - ~440mm vs HEAT. Quite good like for 1979r.

But the real mastery of the world is M1 Abrams hull:

 

[methos]

According to Israeli developers - 70mm thick fuel is like 10mm RHA plate(only vs HEAT!), in Leo2A4 this "yellow" fuel tanks we have ~5mm armour + 600mm thick fuel tank (for 90.) + 60mm inner citadel (RHA plate). Small?
For 20. degrees from the longitudinal axis of the hull it is:
14mm armour plate + ~1750mm of fuel tank + 175mm RHA inner citadel which gives ~190mm RHA plate + 250mm RHA (only vs HEAT) all - ~440mm vs HEAT. Quite good like for 1979r.

What do you mean with "90°". If you mean a side shot, then you still have to add the heavy side-skirts, which cover the majority of the frontal side hull on Leopard 2 - 2A4 and the whole frontal side (with less thickness at the upper section) on late 2A4, 2A5 and 2A6.

 

[Damian]

Really good work Militarysta. I think it is close to reality. BTW You did not mark a possible back plate placement for M1 yes?

Maybe You could also use these:

 

[Damian]

Seems to be correct?

 

[militarysta]

Seems to be correct?

Yes - about 650mm+ frontal LOS cavity

BTW You did not mark a possible back plate placement for M1 yes?

No, I mark it on picture ;-)

@methos

What do you mean with "90°". If you mean a side shot, then you still have to add the heavy side-skirts, which cover the majority of the frontal side hull on Leopard 2 - 2A4 and the whole frontal side (with less thickness at the upper section) on late 2A4, 2A5 and 2A6.

Well - from the sides only upper front hull is protected by fuel tanks - this havy side-skirts have 80mm LOS (for 90.) but this is cover under this fuel tanks and for that case we have "only" for 20. shot 230mm + 175mm = ~405mm. In 1979 it was enought to stop 3BM15 or 3BM22 for more then 1300m.

 

[militarysta]

About small part of this funny article:

Сравнение «Леопард-2А4» и Т-64Б (БМ «Булат»)

По защите. Анализ защищенности танков «Леопард-2А4» и Т-64Б показывает:
Для обоих танков, в современных боевых условия, слабозащищенным местом является крыша башни и МТО. Лобовое бронирование находится приблизительно на одинаковом уровне 400 – 600 мм;
Боковая защита боекомплекта в башне «Леопард -2А4» уступает Т-64Б;
За счет установки на танк Т-64Б динамической защиты его защитные функции могут быть существенно повышены.

Well -

First:


As we can see - even in stupid LOS - Leo2A4 is about twice better then T-64BM Bulat.
Yes, I know - Ukrainian wunderwaffe - Knife hevy ERA, and in merketing ads and theory old T-64B Bulat shoud by (with Knife) like Leo2A4. If Knife is really so "super"?



As we can see above - coverage upper front hull by Knife have many serious gaps, what worse - effectiveness of the Knife cassette is depend on one important factor - place where APFSDS hit. That's reson why on Oplot-M is double Knife on turret. But in Bulat is single layer of Knife...



the most stupid part of article:

Для защиты бортов корпуса установлены экраны, передняя часть которых (прикрывающая отделение управления) изготовлена из разнесенной многослойной брони. Стойкость основного бронирования лобовых фрагментов защиты танка «Леопард-2А4» к воздействию БПС составляет 400"¦450 мм. Противокумулятивная стойкость составляет 550"¦600 мм [3].

OMG - here is source - god bless - now we know how good is Leo2A4 armour! Oh..wait a moment...the source:

3. Г. Ф. Татарин, канд. техн. наук. В. Г. Толочин, Ю. А. Шишков «Оценка защиты зарубежных танков на основе метода воссаздания схем бронирования». Вестникбронетанковойтехники, №11. 1979

WTF? I ask...
Leo2A4 is from 1984/1985 but in "Вестникбронетанковойтехники" from 1979 they know how good is Leopard2A4 armour.

 

[methos]

Which diameter have the shaped charges in Knife/Nozh? With a diameter of ~25 mm a late generation APFSDS should trigger only very few of the charges, as the blunt penetrator nose should let it bend towards the armour (at least according to tanknet).

 

[Damian]

AFAIK on Tarasenko site there is a photo of one reactive element in hand, these are rather big elements.

 

[Austin]

Any idea when this happened , looks like M1 in Iraq