Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Damian,

You are talking with someone Was there ( Me & Saya Sir ), looking it, inspecting it and have a 30cm scale with me right now, I am correct with my given data and what i told, Is it different from something which i am not getting ?

Dod You check what is behind this 7-8cm thick part? It might be empty inside, or it only shaped that way so it looks like a solid plate.

I doubt that because when You look at one of Your photos You can see it is slightly deformed (that 7-8cm thick part), armor plates don't deform like that when they hit for example a tree or rock or concrete. I never seen such thick plate deformed. IMHO it is just mistake with making messures and not checking precisely what is messured.

 

[methos]

Is it possible that the ~900 mm thick front box is in fact 880 mm thick? This is a value I have found on surprisingly many disscussions and also made it into Wikipedia.

 

[Damian]

Is it possible that the ~900 mm thick front box is in fact 880 mm thick? This is a value I have found on surprisingly many disscussions and also made it into Wikipedia.

This is old estimation I made long time ago (based on Paul Lakowski "Armor Basics").

Zaloga said that armor was increased by 220-230mm, and many photos suggest he is right. Wih current estimation of basic M1 turret thickness, M1A1/M1A2 ~900 front turret armor is more correct when we take what Zaloga claims.

There are photos of what seems to be early M1IP's or M1's upgraded to M1IP variant with welding lines showing how much armor was thickened.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Dod You check what is behind this 7-8cm thick part? It might be empty inside, or it only shaped that way so it looks like a solid plate.

Those blocks there are heavy to move, If ( Spaced ) inside it would be lighter..

 

[Damian]

Those blocks there are heavy to move, If ( Spaced ) inside it would be lighter..

The best way to know what is there is a photo from the ground level showing what is beneath.

@Methos this is for You.

 

[militarysta]

The heavy side skirts are not made of RHA, at least the Abrams' ones include rubber.

About Leo2A4 heavy side skirts - theay are made by at least two layers heavy RHA plates and smth between it - as I know it's somthing like metal aloy, but I don't check this by myself - have You any dates about that?
What I know - that side skirts from Leo2 weigh preety mucht .
http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/leopard_2a4/images/leopard_2a4_09_of_18.jpg
http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/leopard_2a5_nl/images/leopard_2a5_nl_29_of_87.jpg
http://data.primeportal.net/tanks/de_craecker/leo2_dutch/Leopard 2 Dutch MBT (52).JPG
http://data.primeportal.net/tanks/de_craecker/leo2_dutch/Leopard 2 Dutch MBT (17).JPG


About Abrams - Yes You have true -my mistake - so it's look like this:


Abrams side skirts:

 

[Damian]

It looks like some sort of composite between layers of metal (steel?). While the non ballistic skirts are thin metal.

 

[militarysta]

And the last opus about M1 and Leo2 hull protection:




*I have no bloody idea how to mm RHA recount this 140mm (at 30.) M1 heavy side skirts
BUT
in Wiśniewski book on page 175 there is note that Polish CAWA-2 cermaic armour have the efficiency of the thickness like 0,79 -0,94 and the efficiency of mass like 1,22-1,62 but it was against APSDS not HEAT...

 

[Damian]

Are You sure that Leopard 2 side hull armor is ~60mm over crew compartment? I never seen any signs of thicker armor there. Some claims that it is only 30-40mm thick over it's full lenght.

Also we should remember that in Leopard 2 fuel tanks are in sponsons, this means they add protection only over relatively small surface, while the rest of side hull is not protected by them, contrary to the M1 where fuel tanks reinforce larger armor surface down to the suspension mounting points.

Besides there are mistakes in Leopard 2 fuel tanks marking, left hull fuel tank is too long and covers space occupied by NBC protection system.

 

[militarysta]

Are You sure that Leopard 2 side hull armor is ~60mm over crew compartment? I never seen any signs of thicker armor there. Some claims that it is only 30-40mm thick over it's full lenght.

More then sure.
In some book and specialized periodicals i(np. Nowa Technika Wojskowa) autors calim taht hull armour at crew comparment have 80mm thicks. Friend who mesured Leo2 calim that is more then 60mm but near (gniazda drążków skrętnych - nie wiem jak to przetłumaczyć...) this value is thinner - about 30-40mm so hull sides have at lest two diffren thickness.
On photo:

This red hull part is more then 75mm thick (let sey between 70 and 80mm).

 

[Damian]

In some book and specialized periodicals i(np. Nowa Technika Wojskowa) autors calim taht hull armour at crew comparment have 80mm thicks.

NTW claims, especially older numbers, are preatty much incorrect or full of mistakes and even BS I would say.

Friend who mesured Leo2 calim that is more then 60mm but near (gniazda drążków skrętnych - nie wiem jak to przetłumaczyć...) this value is thinner - about 30-40mm so hull sides have at lest two diffren thickness.

How they messure side hull armor?

Near suspension mounting points, this is how You should translate it.

Do You remember that photo of old Leopard 2A4 that looks like it was scrapped or used as target on proving grounds? It looks like the hull is thinner even at engine area than in M1.

Just compare the photos:

M1 side hull over engine compartment looks 10mm, maybe 20mm thicker than in Leopard 2, Also on any photo I have there are no indicators showing that armor over crew compartment is thicker. Can You or Methos provide anything that can say otherwise?

 

[militarysta]

How they messure side hull armor?

They masuret suspension mounting points and realized how (mor on less) thicker is side armour upper thet point.

Do You remember that photo of old Leopard 2A4 that looks like it was scrapped or used as target on proving grounds? It looks like the hull is thinner even at engine area than in M1.

Yes but you look ad wrong part of this tank. engine comparment hull sides have about 20mm thick - for mass reason, at crew comparment this side armour is mucht thicker. I meant this part above suspension mounting points.

 

[Damian]

This red hull part is more then 75mm thick (let sey between 70 and 80mm).

This is true that this part is such thick, but it can be so thick there, the rest of the hulls is thinner.

They masuret suspension mounting points and realized how (mor on less) thicker is side armour upper thet point.

I would need to do it on my own, because yes it is possible to see that way how thick the armor is but as I said, I would need to do it on my own.

Yes but you look ad wrong part of this tank. engine comparment hull sides have about 20mm thick - for mass reason, at crew comparment this side armour is mucht thicker. I meant this part above suspension mounting points.

Well in M1 it is clearly visible where armor is thicker and where thinner on hull sides, but on Leopard 2 there are no clear indicators that can say if it thicker or thinner. I need to have good interior photos, do You have such photos? Especially without suspension installed?

 

[Damian]

Interesting photo of M1 tank hull. Militarysta this is especially for You, You can see that front fuel tanks cavieties are empty, and You can also see that fuel tank cavietie is seen in the glacis plate hole for fuel inlet. This clearly prooves that glacis plate of M1 tank have variable thickness, ~50mm over driver station and ~80mm over fuel tanks.

Merkava Mk4 have also very interesting hull protection. The lower part where suspension, wheels and tracks are, is not better protected than on any other comparable tank but... the sponsons over the tracks are made from composite armor, so the sponsons probably better protect hull sides than on any other tank.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Merkava Mk4 have also very interesting hull protection. The lower part where suspension, wheels and tracks are, is not better protected than on any other comparable tank but... the sponsons over the tracks are made from composite armor, so the sponsons probably better protect hull sides than on any other tank.

How good Merkava MK4 hull at front is good against HEAT and AP rounds, As discussed at other place we came to know it have a fuel tank ( Diesel ) at front then engine..

------------------------------------

Interesting Anti-tank round ?

 

[Damian]

How good Merkava MK4 hull at front is good against HEAT and AP rounds, As discussed at other place we came to know it have a fuel tank ( Diesel ) at front then engine..

Don't know the exact details but, IMHO Merkava Mk4 as all Merkava series, have inferior front hull protection to other tanks that have rather massive composite armor modules protecting front of their hull instead of engine.

IMHO engine will not add significant protection against modern ammunition (it's density and protection values are lower than a thick module of composite armor), and engine on front makes vehicle more vurnable to mobility kills. And tank that can't move is more vurnable.

The only improvement that can be seen in Merkava Mk4 over previous variants is thicker glacis plate/engine cover plate, probably made from composite. So with increased thickness and it's angle, protection is definetly improved there.

Interesting Anti-tank round ?

Looks like some concept drawing, I never saw such design in reality.

 

[militarysta]

@Damian

there are no clear indicators that can say if it thicker or thinner. I need to have good interior photos, do You have such photos? Especially without suspension installed?

Well I can't post hard proofs for many reson, from normal pict. I can post this:


It's really possible that on ammo and driver hight hull armour have this 70-80mm RHA. Or there is second options - 40mm at suspension level and 80mm above sunspension (and after fuel tank).

 

[Damian]

It's hardly 70-80mm, more likely 50-60mm.

Mainly because hull width, Leopard 2 without side skirts is narrower than M1 with (probably) skirts.

3,540 mm - Leopard 2.
3,650 mm - M1

3,700 mm - Leopard 2 with side skirts.

So it is immposible that there is more armor on hull sides.

3,780 mm is T-90 width with very thin skirts (several mm thick), and it have confirmed 80mm thick hull sides, T-90 is wider than M1 and Leo2.

So as above, Leopard 2 just can't have 70-80mm thick hull sides.

 

[militarysta]

Or internal volume drivers site, and hull ammo is just slighty smaller then 2x fuel tanks + driver seat in M1 and in that case all will be corect.

ps. Yours fight against this 70mm in Leo2A4 frontal hull sides is rather pointless

 

[sayareakd]

Dod You check what is behind this 7-8cm thick part? It might be empty inside, or it only shaped that way so it looks like a solid plate.

I doubt that because when You look at one of Your photos You can see it is slightly deformed (that 7-8cm thick part), armor plates don't deform like that when they hit for example a tree or rock or concrete. I never seen such thick plate deformed. IMHO it is just mistake with making messures and not checking precisely what is messured.

@Damian you are smart guy, that is show piece they got on Arjun tank.