Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

T-72 (being the best armoured Soviet tank against KE when the Leopard 2 was developed)

Are You sure? There was allready in service T-64A and T-80, I doubt that T-72 (T-72A?) would be better in terms of protection, T-72B yes it was better than T-80B and T-64B but it was fielded approx in 1985.

 

[methos]

Are You sure? There was allready in service T-64A and T-80, I doubt that T-72 (T-72A?) would be better in terms of protection, T-72B yes it was better than T-80B and T-64B but it was fielded approx in 1985.

T-72B and T-80B are another thing, but he seems to use the T-72A in the comparision also because it was used by the East-German army.

But:
From NATOs perspective T-80 was not existent until ~84/85 (i.e. NATO didn't know anything real about it and didn't even have pictures of production vehicles), Rolf Hilmes wrote in 1983 that the T-80s is expected to enter service until 1983/4. I would say that the low amount of T-80s meant that it can be seen as irrelevant. The T-80B has according to Zaloga some 50 cm vs KE, what would be better than the T-72A/M1 depending on some estimates, but only equal if you use others.

T-64B was believed to be as good armoured as T-64A (at least in CIA's "The The Soviet T-64: An Updated Assessment") - which were believed to have armour from 37 - 44 cm RHAe vs KE. But the T-64B and the T-80B used the same turret, so CIA or Zaloga (or both) must have done a mistake. As written in Zalogas "M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural" the early T-64 armour was less protective against kinetic energy than the basic T-72 and was useless after a single/a few hits. Only a very few T-64A were built with Combination-K (back then with ceramic balls) until Combination-K with tiles/"sandrods" was used on T-64A and T-64B.

In "The Soviet T-72 Tank: Performance" CIA believed that the T-72 turret has a thickness of 47.5 cm with 10 cm less at the mantlet. In "Soviet Tank Programs" (CIA) the T-72 is believed to have 45 cm cast steel and the T-72A/M1 is believed to have 50 cm RHAe vs KE at the turret (which means it would be as good as the T-80B according to Zaloga!). DASA (Deutsche Aerospace( reportedly also estimated the T-72A/M1 at ~50 cm vs KE, while Rolf Hilmes puts it at ~35 cm vs KE in "Kampfpanzer Entwicklungen der Nachkriegszeit" (1983) based on the false reports/idea that the steel armour thickness remain the same as on the T-62... Zaloga somehow came to the idea that the T-72 has in all versions except the T-72Bs a turret armour equivalent to 38 cm vs KE (in "M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural"), although he estimated the "T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974 - 1993" that the original T-72 Ural had ~41 cm vs KE and the later T-72 with laminated turret armour (T-72A/M1) has 50 cm vs KE. His values for the T-72B remain unchanged (also they are too low imo, glacis is with Kontakt-1 ERA at least 59 cm, probably ~62 cm, turret should be similar). That the T-72 armour got weaker in his books could have something to do with patriotism (in 1993 the armour should have been known much enough for proper estimates imo).

 

[Damian]

Hmmm... IMHO all these are wrong, based on false or incomplete data.

Only a very few T-64A were built with Combination-K (back then with ceramic balls) until Combination-K with tiles/"sandrods" was used on T-64A and T-64B.

Can You provide source of these revleations? AFAIK there were problems with T-64 series armor quality for some time, but all tanks had Combination K, not only few.

 

[Austin]

Preatty big IED, but it only slightly damaged this M1, it was put back in service after repairs. However that was in time when TUSK was not ready, so there was no safe seat for driver, if I remember correctly his head was crushed when it hit roof of his compartment. TC also had no luck, he broke his spin.

Too bad , RIP to both

 

[Damian]

AFAIK TC survived, but he got only broken spin.

 

[Austin]

AFAIK TC survived, but he got only broken spin.

A broken spine is certainly a life time disability if i am not wrong , so its sad .....very sad , although the good thing is he survived which means he could be back with his family.

 

[Damian]

Yup, however this is what I remember from discussion with well informed military journalist, who was tracking all indicendts with IED's and armored vehicles in Iraq. So I could be wrong, these infos are several years old, so You know.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Yup, however this is what I remember from discussion with well informed military journalist, who was tracking all indicendts with IED's and armored vehicles in Iraq. So I could be wrong, these infos are several years old, so You know.

You said you are studying journalism and now you say you meet this journalist several years ago..Either your in collage for several years or you where a kid who had great links!!

 

[methos]

Hmmm... IMHO all these are wrong, based on false or incomplete data.

It's quite hard. We don't know the exact protection levels of the Combination-K armour or earlier Soviet composite armour. We also don't know the exact thickness. For the cast steel turret we already have a quite large range, thus 45 to 47.5 cm seems far more realistical than Jane's 28 cm (lacking any slope data). If the thickness of the kvartz/sandrod cavity is really "only" up to 15 cm, then we have 45 - 47.5 x 0.9 (cast steel) + ~15 cm * x. If x is 0.5 then it would be able to reach 50 cm RHAe at the thickest parts.

On the other hand, locking at typical penetration values the armour values seem a little bit funny. Based on Jane's claims the M829 does penetrate 54 cm @ 2 km, whereas the M829A1 according to Zaloga does only 57 cm @ 2 km - the T-72B would then be immune against the M829A1 at ranges above 1.5 km, with Kontakt-1 (+5 cm) even at ranges above 1 km, while the M829 would require a range of 1 km or smaller against the "naked" T-72B. The T-72A would be immune to 120 mm DM33 at ranges above 1.5 km, while M829 would have a small chance of penetration the T-72A at 2 km, depending on impact angle.
Does this mean the values are wrong? Not exactly, we currently look at the heaviest armoured part - the armour thickness, cavity size and protection varied on the whole turret, while the glacis is typically less than 40 cm (~38 cm) without 16 mm HHS applique and 44 cm with it.

Can You provide source of these revleations? AFAIK there were problems with T-64 series armor quality for some time, but all tanks had Combination K, not only few.

This again goes back to Zaloga (M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural). He wrote that the first T-64A to use Combination-K (with ceramic balls at first) went into production 1975 and was soon replaced by the ceramic tiles/rods. As the T-64A production started 1969, 6 year long T-64As were produced using another armour. The German-language claims that first models used something like hardened metal plates (steel or aluminum probably) in some sort of cast glas (kvartz?) and then hardened metal plates without the cast material, while the T-64 is correctly claimed to use aluminium (aluminum is also claimed by Zaloga and Harkonnen).

 

[Damian]

You said you are studying journalism and now you say you meet this journalist several years ago..Either your in collage for several years or you where a kid who had great links!!

I never said that I study journalism, I study Homeland Security, and earlier I also was studying History. And yeah, I was kid back then, so I just started to correspond and talk with such people connected to military, these men were... my mentors from some point of view and I learned many things from them.

It's quite hard. We don't know the exact protection levels of the Combination-K armour or earlier Soviet composite armour.

Well, we actually don't know exact protection levels of any composite armor, we have estimates, some informations but in reality we can only guess, I hardly doubt that anyone will share such informations anytime soon.

We also don't know the exact thickness.

Are You sure? For T-64 series we have some thickness messures, provided by Tarasenko for example, of course they can be also manipulated and not correct but still we have such sources.

If the thickness of the kvartz/sandrod cavity is really "only" up to 15 cm, then we have 45 - 47.5 x 0.9 (cast steel) + ~15 cm * x. If x is 0.5 then it would be able to reach 50 cm RHAe at the thickest parts.

Well these are effects of different philosophy and a fact that they wanted to have good protection with minimal weight... but my doubts are if that was really good decision to design turret this way and to stick with so low weight. This even makes even greater my doubts abour Burlington and similiar armors "weakness" in all estimations, especially that in fact it was made from rolled armor only and that inserts thickness was far greater... + probably greater dynamic nature of that armor than Combination K that from all descriptions, drawings and photo seems to be preatty passive, there is no place for any bulging effects, litteraly nothing that could be called "dynamic reaction"... but I can be wrong.

On the other hand, locking at typical penetration values the armour values seem a little bit funny. Based on Jane's claims the M829 does penetrate 54 cm @ 2 km, whereas the M829A1 according to Zaloga does only 57 cm @ 2 km - the T-72B would then be immune against the M829A1 at ranges above 1.5 km, with Kontakt-1 (+5 cm) even at ranges above 1 km, while the M829 would require a range of 1 km or smaller against the "naked" T-72B. The T-72A would be immune to 120 mm DM33 at ranges above 1.5 km, while M829 would have a small chance of penetration the T-72A at 2 km, depending on impact angle.
Does this mean the values are wrong? Not exactly, we currently look at the heaviest armoured part - the armour thickness, cavity size and protection varied on the whole turret, while the glacis is typically less than 40 cm (~38 cm) without 16 mm HHS applique and 44 cm with it.

You could be right... hmmmk, the actuall geometry of soviet turrets makes me wodner if really as Tarasenko claims, they provided balanced protection on whole zone seen within safe manouvering angles, and I doubt that if we look at how thickness change on the whole frontal armor, it is much more "extreme" than on western turrets where within safe manouvering angles in fact front turret protection on both sides remains preatty much the same, and side protection by pure LOS thickness is also preatty good.

This again goes back to Zaloga (M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural). He wrote that the first T-64A to use Combination-K (with ceramic balls at first) went into production 1975 and was soon replaced by the ceramic tiles/rods. As the T-64A production started 1969, 6 year long T-64As were produced using another armour. The German-language claims that first models used something like hardened metal plates (steel or aluminum probably) in some sort of cast glas (kvartz?) and then hardened metal plates without the cast material, while the T-64 is correctly claimed to use aluminium (aluminum is also claimed by Zaloga and Harkonnen).

If Zaloga is right.

As far as I know, Combination K were corrundum balls/spheres placed in cavity and then melted alluminium alloy was placed there and then it cooled down? It is probably that T-80 series up to T-80B was using similiar armor, while T-72 series was prepared to use this armor but it was later changed before production started to something different.

The real revolution started with T-72B and T-80U/UD, the first one used reflecting plates, NERA like armor, the latter ones used or something called cellural casting or whatever it was translated, or ceramic and metal package, something similiar to Burlington as it was shown in Tarasenko articles on drawings.

However how it was in reality is still preatty much unknown in west and most of the world. I have sometimes a contact with one well informed person, when I have opportuinity I will ask him about Combination K history, maybe he will know something.

 

[methos]

Are You sure? For T-64 series we have some thickness messures, provided by Tarasenko for example, of course they can be also manipulated and not correct but still we have such sources.

I never have seen any thickness drawings of cast turrets providing a "3-dimensional" view, only simple "one plain", which doesn't show how armour thickness changes in the height. I never found any reliable drawings of the T-72/T-72A, although there are more reported thickness values than for other tanks, ranging from 28 cm to 47.5 cm.

As far as I know, Combination K were corrundum balls/spheres placed in cavity and then melted alluminium alloy was placed there and then it cooled down?

There were two versions, at first ceramic balls in an aluminum "matrix" and later they decided to use "ultra-porcelain", i.e. another ceramic in form of tiles/rods, because the balls were hard to manufacture and impractical. At least according to Zaloga.

It is probably that T-80 series up to T-80B was using similiar armor,

Originally T-80B should use the T-64B turret, but the design plant in Leningrad decided to use the new features of the T-64B turret and put them in a new turret, this also includes the armour (i.e. Combination-K with "ultra-porcelain"). What the orignal T-80 utilized for turret armour remains unknown, but it could be early ceramic-balls Combination-K.

The real revolution started with T-72B and T-80U/UD, the first one used reflecting plates, NERA like armor, the latter ones used or something called cellural casting or whatever it was translated, or ceramic and metal package, something similiar to Burlington as it was shown in Tarasenko articles on drawings.

Zaloga wrote that the T-80U has a large cavity, in which two rows of steel cells and a steel backing layer are located.The whole cavity and all cells were then filled with a semi-liquid Polymer, which will behave like a liquid when penetrated, but will have a higher density. If 7 cm fuel offer as much protection as 1 cm RHA (vs HEAT), then the polymer should offer (thanks to the higher density) more, something like 3 cm RHAe per 7 cm, maybe 4 cm RHAe.
The German-language wikipedia claims that the T-80U would use a ceramic/metal armour. Maybe they used one armour type first and later switched to another.

 

[Damian]

I never have seen any thickness drawings of cast turrets providing a "3-dimensional" view, only simple "one plain", which doesn't show how armour thickness changes in the height.

For T-64B:

For T-64:

T-64A (?):

From A. Tarasenko site and blog.

There were two versions, at first ceramic balls in an aluminum "matrix" and later they decided to use "ultra-porcelain", i.e. another ceramic in form of tiles/rods, because the balls were hard to manufacture and impractical. At least according to Zaloga.

I have some Zaloga books, need to reread them.

Zaloga wrote that the T-80U has a large cavity, in which two rows of steel cells and a steel backing layer are located.The whole cavity and all cells were then filled with a semi-liquid Polymer, which will behave like a liquid when penetrated, but will have a higher density. If 7 cm fuel offer as much protection as 1 cm RHA (vs HEAT), then the polymer should offer (thanks to the higher density) more, something like 3 cm RHAe per 7 cm, maybe 4 cm RHAe.
The German-language wikipedia claims that the T-80U would use a ceramic/metal armour. Maybe they used one armour type first and later switched to another.

Well it seems that they most probably used both solutions, maybe the latter was more efficent?

 

[militarysta]

Regarding DM33/Polish APFSDS replacement:
If DM33 would fail to penetrate 50 cm, why would the government not go and buy modern French/German/Israeli/US ammo - all these countries have at least 2 rounds developed after DM33, which could in theory penetrate more (not sure about first Isreali 120 mm APFSDS) than the wanted 50 cm. I think the government just wants to help it's own defence industry. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to claim that the Polish tests were faked, but a failing forgein rounds is a nice reason for buying homemade ones.

Well im more then sure that those test are proper for that resons:

1) My stupid (Polish) goverment never help polish tank industry in that way - they just don't care about it :-/
of course blocking acquisition second free bath Leo2 for Poland (~128 tanks) was powerade by polish Kaczyńscy goverment, and Bumar (PT-91 manufacturer), but nobody in Poland care about polish tank ammo factory ("ZS Pionki") that sad true...
2) Poland haven't they own 120mm AFSDS ammo - we can produce only 120mm trening, and HE, and full spectrum of 125mm ammo. But after small series of experimental 120mm APFSDS (~2008) polish industry can't produce this kind of ammo -we haven't core (rod) factory line for modern rods... And this all DM-33 was for free from BW store (like engines, WBG-X and many many others spare parts - they are fro free for polish army from german's BW mobilization stocks ) So there was no rivalry between polish and german APFSDS becouse there is no polish 120mm APFSDS yet...
3) Test DM-33 was made in more then one place - in polish army, and in WITU (http://www.witu.mil.pl/www/witu_pl.htm) - they tested DM-33 on RHA plates, plates with ERA, on T-72M1 with ERAWA, on T-72M1 hull model with ERAWA, etc. And here is some discrepancy: sources close to polish 10Tk.Bde gives DM-33:
DM33 -P0:600 P2500:490 (P0 - 0m P2500 - 2500m) - but this value is propably downloaded from german manuals for tank crews. Sources from WITU gives DM33 no more then 470mm RHA for 2000m in all publications.
And WITU tested DM-33 many times...bacouse it's only "modern" APFSDS redy to test armour developed in WITU :-/
Of course there is another possibility - as I know in WITU they tested APFSDS on stack of steel plates (RHA) with ~80mm one layer not on stell monoblock. And we don't know how hard (HB scalle) are this plates. This two factors can "eat" this 50-70mm penetration.


After improvment:

 

[Damian]

My stupid (Polish) goverment never help polish tank industry in that way - they just don't care about it :-/

These morons in our goverment and parliment do not care about our country and it's industry, economy and nation, everything they care are to please these bigger morons (commisars and politicians) from EU... but we can only dream that everything change before this censoredcensoredcensoredcensoreders just die and let to rule our country by younger generations...

 

[Austin]

from BEL interview to Force magazine , some snippets on tanks development from BEL

What systems are being developed by BEL for Tanks such as the 'Arjun', T-90 and T-72?

BEL has a dedicated unit for land warfare systems. BEL is supplying the gunner main sight for 'Arjun' Main Battle Tank (MBT). It is an important part of the tank as it enables sighting of targets, day or night. Initially, we contributed towards testing. Now, in Phase II, we are going in for technology transfer. Recently, we signed a contract to be the lead integrator of the gun control system for 'Arjun'. This responsibility was passed on to us after seeing the way we supported the gunner main sight. The commander panoramic sight was earlier a day-sight, but we have now developed, along with foreign partners, a new sight for 'Arjun' Mk-2 which can be used day and night.

About T-72, if our foreign partner gets the order for the Thermal Imager Fire Control System, we will do 30 per cent of the work. We are working on a commander sight for T-90 along with the DRDO labs; the product is expected to be fielded before March 2012. If proven successful, the same product can be fielded for T-72. For the T-90, we have indigenised about 18 sub systems for Stabiliser and Auto Loading Gear.

The items developed by BEL have already been cleared for bulk production. We have only four items to be indigenised at the moment. We are also working closely with Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) for the upgrade of Bofors FH-77B howitzers of the Indian Army. We have already modified a gun; yet another one is being modified now. It if comes through it will be a good achievement for both OFB and BEL, as OFB is handling the armament and BEL is looking after the electronics.

 

[methos]

3) Test DM-33 was made in more then one place - in polish army, and in WITU (http://www.witu.mil.pl/www/witu_pl.htm) - they tested DM-33 on RHA plates, plates with ERA, on T-72M1 with ERAWA, on T-72M1 hull model with ERAWA, etc. And here is some discrepancy: sources close to polish 10Tk.Bde gives DM-33:
DM33 -P0:600 P2500:490 (P0 - 0m P2500 - 2500m) - but this value is propably downloaded from german manuals for tank crews. Sources from WITU gives DM33 no more then 470mm RHA for 2000m in all publications.
And WITU tested DM-33 many times...bacouse it's only "modern" APFSDS redy to test armour developed in WITU :-/
Of course there is another possibility - as I know in WITU they tested APFSDS on stack of steel plates (RHA) with ~80mm one layer not on stell monoblock. And we don't know how hard (HB scalle) are this plates. This two factors can "eat" this 50-70mm penetration.

Were the plates spaced? Paul L. writes here that penetrating multiple spaced plates is harder than penetrating homogenous plates, i.e. the penetrator will errode a little bit after every plate, depending on the exact design somewhere between 70% to 230% of the penetrator diameter (~70% also for DM33).

 

[Andrei_bt]

About small part of this funny article:

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



Well -

First:

WTF? I ask...

I see polish shoolboys like to make some color lines on pictures, very funny. So out of this world pictures I can't even comment.
This forum becomes a playground for trolls like militarysta . Very sad.

As we can see - even in stupid LOS - Leo2A4 is about twice better then T-64BM Bulat

Maybe T-64B, but not "Bulat".

 

[Andrei_bt]

why somebody painting about 300 mm armor steel at 68 degrees angle red?

 

[Damian]

I see polish shoolboys like to make some color lines on pictures, very funny. So out of this world pictures I can't even comment.
This forum becomes a playground for trolls like militarysta . Very sad.

Ahh, how easy it comes, some constructive criticism of Your beloved design and the only thing You are capable is to call someone a troll than provide a hard proof that effectiveness of Knife is same even if projectile will hit cassette edge.

Maybe T-64B, but not "Bulat".

Both use the same turret... but yeah, we know, it's "magicial" and so "special", so even if LOS thickness in both is same, BM Bulat have same or better LOS thickness than Leopard 2... Jeez You really belive in what You are writing?!

why somebody painting about 300 mm armor steel at 68 degrees angle red?

And why not, how effective will be 300mm steel block over composite armor compared to ERA + composite armor over rest of surface, effectiveness will probably be smaller, so it can be seen as a weak zone.

 

[militarysta]

@Andriej Tarasenko

This forum becomes a playground for trolls like militarysta . Very sad.

Dear Andriej you hurt my heart...

More seriously:

1. Have You and argument how to hell assumptions about the Leo2 armour from article from 1979 can by placed like a armour estimation for Leopard-2A4 from at least 19841985??
For simplicity I will add that in leo2 armour was changed at least four times:
a) between prototypes and 2A0/2A1
b) between 2A1 and 2A3
c) between erly 2A4 and late 2A4 (in half batch in 1986)
d) between 2A4 and 2A5 in 1994


2. In which tank main armour LOS is bigger? Again For simplicity:

Los for T-64 is taken from Yours mesurments, for Leo2A4 are made by me
So, where is bigger LOS?

3. How about Kinfe - why You never post why on Oplot-M turret there are two leyers of Knife, why this solution (two leyers) are not use on Oplot-M hull? Some people know why - unfortunately for this all marketing ads about Knife in Poland where made test of many ERA and it's performance vs many types of countmesures (HEAT/EFP precursor, APFSDS, etc) - of course on very simple models and in small scale but even this Master's thesis study proves that ERA based on SC have serious gaps. For really sure working it need at leas two layers of SC ERA bricks. But it need many kg as "frame" for this kind ERA - mass double leyers Knife on hull was to big to place it - the same about Bulat turret. And in case the single layer "Knife" You can forgot about 90% of efficiency over the entire surface (area) of Knife bricks - this "90%" is possibe only in case when almoust all SC hit APFSDS. But for that scenario APFSDS must hit in upper 20% of Knife bricks area. Sorry - for rest it will be mucht lower, and for down part od Knife it will be no better then 20% (propably even less). For that reson (weak main armour + problem of Knife efficensy) even with Knife ERA T-64BM Bulat whole front is in more then 70% full "penetrable" for 120mm APFSDS developed in 1990's. And where is modern 125mm ammo? Russian sold Sniviec with Bulat? I don't thinks so.. So we have this all Israeli 125mm APFSDS clones - like polish Pronit, chineese clones, pak.clones etc. This whole APFSDS can perforated about 480-540mm for 2000m.

Leopard2A3 (and erly 2A4):
APFSDS: 480- 550mm RHA (740-840mm LOS)
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~460mm RHA (turret sides for 30. 660mm LOS)
HEAT: 900- >1000mm RHA
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~830mm RHA

Leopard2A4(since 1986):
APFSDS: 560 - 630mm RHA (740-840mm LOS)
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~520mm RHA (turret sides for 30. 660mm LOS)
HEAT: 990 - >1100mm RHA
Bok wieży pod kątem 30. - ~900mm RHA

Of course this under is only for old base Leo2 not for Leo2 with ex. revolution or evolution additional armour packed - with this solution armour is mucht stronger then IMI 125mm rods perforations capabilities.

rest later

ps. I forgot - test Knife and others havy ERA made on APFDS with dual partial rods (rods made from tungsten slug with metal sheet, or on two parts penetrator) are one big bullshit. During test on Bm15 and Bm22 even stupid polish ERAWA can reduce it possibilities for 40-60%! So tests on 3БМ-17 3БМ-22 3БМ-26 and propably 3БМ-42 can't be authoritative for western havy long rods.
BTW: test on OLF F1 are interesting, but after test in Poland (T-72M1 with ERAWA vs DM-33A1) for me it's sure that is very easy to manipulated that tests. BTW: F1 is almoust the same like rejected Dm43 - think why after DM33 in service is not DM43 but DM53 and DM63