Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[methos]

Because the secrecy of IDF, so we do not know how well Mk 4 really is. There was news Mk 4 was penetrated by pg29.

Show me the news. Never seen any news, only some random sourceless forum posts.
There were news reports that a Merkava IV was penetrated by a Kornet ATGM, which has twice the penetration power (!) of a RPG-29. Besides; to repeat myself: The Merkava IV.

lol, I do not say it penetrate front armor, RPGs only need to penetrate a tank, side or rear, that is enough. There was story it penetrate front T80, T90 back in the days.

A faked story according to various Russians.

1/ Those papers are against single warhead why Rpg 29 is tangdem with precursor used to defeat armor mechanism.

The precursor warhead is much smaller than the main warhead and will simply be defeated by the outermost layers, while the other layers take out the main warhead. The armour can be specialized by changing space, thickness, composition and angles.

2/ If the reality is so simple, then 2006 Isarel wouldn't lose a single Mk 4 to missile.

You are comparing completely different things. The Merkava IV has to counter various different types of missiles, including the 152 mm Kornet ATGM with tandem warhead - the armour penetration of this missile is 1,300 mm. It's armour has at the same time to protect against kinetic energy. The Merkava IV has weaker hull side armour (at least in terms of thickness) and weighs much less than a Leopard 2A7/Challenger 2 with TESH.
The armour of the Leopard 2A7 is however - as claimed by the manufacturer - designed to specifically counter RPGs and older missiles. The armour is thicker and has to counter much weaker warheads.

On one side, I read papers, OTOH, I look into reality, Mk4 was penetrated by shaped charge which according to papers, it should not happen.

Which papers say it shouldn't happen? None of the papers I mentioned.

Mk4 is very modern tank designed with overall propection, it was born much later than your paper, or Israeli didn't read your paper, oh how stupid Israeli?
Which one do I believe? I believe in reality, I believe Israeli read your paper and know a lot more than you and me, but they can't stop old shaped charge.

You only believe in YOUR OPINION. Nothing else.

I believe what you said would use heavy ceramic like Du or tungsten to provide that efficiency.

This would however be a contradiction to the desire of keeping the tank as light as possible why achieving the required level of armour protection.
Besides during tests in Germany, ceramic tiles mounted on the side skirts tended to shatter while riding during rough terrain.

And it has maximum 25cm side armor. Without skirt Leo2 already is 3.5+m wide. (4-3.5)/2 = .25 max, not counting mounting structure,.. so maybe less than 25cm of composite.

Can you just read again what I wrote earlier? The thickness of the heavy armoured skirts of the Leopard 2 is 150 mm (according to scale drawings and actual soldiers serving on that tank, not some random values you pull out of the internet); the Leopard 2 is 3,700 mm wide; without skirts the total width is 3,540 mm (this is the width from one of the hull sponsons above the sides skirts to the other, skirts are mounted below these). The width from track to the other track (the actual limit of how far the skirts theoretically could extend below the sponsons) is below 3,500 mm.

The Leopard 2A4M CAN - which happens to be a Leopard 2A4 upgraded with the applique armour of the Leopard 2A7 - is according to Canadian files 4,050 mm wide.

Full width 3.5m - 1.4m for the track then inner hull has less than 2.1m. I believe it has less than 10cm RHA base armor because turret ring already +2m

1.) Tracks are 635 mm width, full width (from the sponsons) is 3,540 mm.
2.) The turret ring has an external diameter of 2,200 mm - the internal diameter is slightly smaller (~2,000 - 2,100 mm).
3.) The turret ring's diameter only affects the size of the sponsons. In case of various tanks - like the T-54 and the AMX-30 - the diameter of the turret ring is larger than the hull's width

The point is, the addon skirt has maximum 25cm. You like the word outdated but penetrator still use Du or W which is outdated material. Stop claiming outdated.

No, it has more thickness. As mentioned serveral times, 30 cm seems to be a rather close estimate.
Neither DU nor WHA are an outdated material, because there still isn't anything better. But short penetrators with a length-to-diameter ratio of 12-to-1 are outdated. In the same sense, the RPG-29 is not outdated because it is a RPG with tandem warhead, but rather because the warhead's size (and penetration) is not as much as that of more modern systems. The Challenger 1 and the Warrior IFV were fitted with "Chobham" armour modules at the sides during Operation Desert Storm/Shield, which made them immune to RPG-7s (with single stage warhead) and MILAN-1 ATGMs (penetrating 300 mm and 400 mm RHA respectively). That was more than 2 decades ago. Was the RPG-7/MILAN-1 outdated in the 1980s? No, they could achieve kills from the sides. Was the RPG-7 outdated in ODS? Against the uparmoured British tanks, yes.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Please avoid name calling, Counter points instead getting personal..

 

[collegeboy16]

@ Damian are these videos propaganda?

 

[Damian]

@ Damian are these videos propaganda?

No, not propaganda, they are created by completely insane person, Mike Sparks, he is called "Sparky" in tank and AFV enthusiasts community.

He have several different alliases and a bunch of accolytes following him.

This guys is seriously ill on his mind, he thinks that the best AFV ever designed is M113, from which he creates several fantasy vehicles, there is even a parody of one of his ideas called "The MerkaGav!n".

Oh and yeah, he is constantly fighting with US Army, so they will name M113 after general Gavin. He is crazy especially about this.

There are some rumors who he really is, some says that he is just some crazy kid, others that he have a hatred to US military, especially USMC because they kicked him out for his incommpetence.

And of course he have absolutely no knowledge about AFV's, I remember that he once claimed that cast steel armor of the M60 tank provides better protection than composite armor of M1 tank.

If you actually look at his videos you will see that he criticize every possible vehicle excluding his beloved M113.

 

[313230]

And what DU based ceramic, show me armor with DU based ceramics, oh, wait there is no such thing in reality, perhaps another fantasy of yours.

Well if your only purpose here is to perform trolling, I report you to administration.

LMAO, search uranium dioxide ceramic fanboy, whatever you thought, just report it, look like I care about you

 

[313230]

The precursor warhead is much smaller than the main warhead and will simply be defeated by the outermost layers, while the other layers take out the main warhead. The armour can be specialized by changing space, thickness, composition and angles.

In your dream

In fact, NERA and ERA consume vast space. The jet penetrated the whole array of thin plates, look at picture. There is a dilemma, to stop the precursor, you need a consider thickness, if you pack more NERA, they are still be consumed by the first warhead because they are just thin plates. The means of re active armor is that the jet would be attacked before strike armor, if you put passive armor outside to block precursor, then it consume space, and the whole meaning of array is lost.

The main warhead's job is easy. Similar to ERA, NERA is effective against single warhead, but not tandem warhead.

Which papers say it shouldn't happen? None of the papers I mentioned.

So because papers demo against single warhead and don't say about tandem warhead then it should be protected against tandem, is this your logic? Because it don't say, then it is valid? Where did you get this logic?

Because paper didn't say about kinetic penetrator, so those NERA you mentioned should also provided protection against apfsds?

OK let's talk scientifically. I agree with you that by your proof, single warhead 600mm should be protected by leo2a7. Now you should provide proof against 600mm tandem warhead. Remember that the reason for tandem is mainly to defeat active mechanism: ERA, NERA. Dont imagine some fancy arrangement, but provide hard proof. Of course your imagination maybe true, but it also is maybe wrong.

You only believe in YOUR OPINION. Nothing else.

Well, of course I believe in my opinion, but I am not blind. You said nothing else is a lie, coz you don't know a fvck about me. Stop claiming thing over your head

And you, it seems you believe in your imagination, dont you? Because papers said about single warhead, you imagine some modification should provide protection against tandem while the mechanisms between them are vastly different?

 

[Damian]

LMAO, search uranium dioxide ceramic fanboy, whatever you thought, just report it, look like I care about you

I know what it is, but where did you readed that it is used as armor?

Do you even know how depleted uranium armor looks like? Do you even know that using it as ceramic is not nececary usefull and did not give advantage over alloy, yeah, this is why Americans use DU as an alloy, not in other possible forms, because alloy gives the best results.

In your dream

In fact, NERA and ERA consume vast space. The jet penetrated the whole array of thin plates, look at picture. There is a dilemma, to stop the precursor, you need a consider thickness, if you pack more NERA, they are still be consumed by the first warhead because they are just thin plates. The means of re active armor is that the jet would be attacked before strike armor, if you put passive armor outside to block precursor, then it consume space, and the whole meaning of array is lost.

The main warhead's job is easy. Similar to ERA, NERA is effective against single warhead, but not tandem warhead.

Well, you call other people fanboys, when in reality you are the one.

Precursor charge is very small and very weak. It is not a big problem to stop it. For example Polish ERAWA-2 ERA use a thick and very hard steel plates (compared to other types of ERA of such class), and have some anti-tandem capabilities as proved by tests against PzF-3T which was unable to perforate plate protected by ERAWA-2.

Also Russians designed ERA that have antitandem capabilities and can protect against such threats.

Ukrainian "Knife" and "Duplet" ERA are another example of protection capable to easy defeat tandem warheads.

And NERA is also not exception here. As I proved in considerably compact array we can put a relatively significant number of NERA layers.

If we use a T-72B NERA as example, we can did a simple maths.

A single layer is 27mm thick with a 22mm space between each layer.

27 x 4 = 108mm
22 x 3 = 66mm
108 + 66 = 174mm for NERA array, we have enough space to add significant outer and back plate, gor example 50mm outer and 20mm backplate for the whole armor module, which will give 244mm thick armor module. Possible, of course.

So because papers demo against single warhead and don't say about tandem warhead then it should be protected against tandem, is this your logic? Because it don't say, then it is valid? Where did you get this logic?

And there are also other papers.

However I doubt that you know more than one foreing language to read them.

OK let's talk scientifically. I agree with you that by your proof, single warhead 600mm should be protected by leo2a7. Now you should provide proof against 600mm tandem warhead. Remember that the reason for tandem is mainly to defeat active mechanism: ERA, NERA. Dont imagine some fancy arrangement, but provide hard proof. Of course your imagination maybe true, but it also is maybe wrong.

But you seems to not understand how tandem warhead actually works. There are no two big warheads but there is main charge and small precursor. Precursor have limited abilities to penetrate objects as it's main funtion is to initiate ERA, because of that it is only efficent against ERA not designed with tandem warheads in mind, as well it is not efficent against NERA that is always layered array.

Well, of course I believe in my opinion, but I am not blind. You said nothing else is a lie, coz you don't know a fvck about me.

Well we knot that you are a troll. I think it is enough to make opinions about your person.

And you, it seems you believe in your imagination, dont you? Because papers said about single warhead, you imagine some modification should provide protection against tandem while the mechanisms between them are vastly different?

Methos actually knows about ammunition and armor protection more than you do. But it seems that in Vietnam nobody actually cares about publications, literature etc. etc.

In our part of the world, such things like literature are that basis of any knowledge. There are many publications, many focused only on single subject.

For example I have a book written by an engineer that is designing vehicle armor protection. Book is called Armours - the Structure, the Examination and the Design, I doubt you ever had such book in your hands. And there are many other publications, in russian for example.

Only because something is written and widespread in most popular sources or "sources" like the fantasy about RPG-29 penetration capabilities, it does not mean it is truth, or that armor protection is not better.


So again, you loose a discussion. Besides didn't you said you will not care about us and you will not talk with us here? Why you do not keep your word and just be silent? Obvious troll is obvious troll eh?

 

[methos]

In fact, NERA and ERA consume vast space. The jet penetrated the whole array of thin plates, look at picture. There is a dilemma, to stop the precursor, you need a consider thickness, if you pack more NERA, they are still be consumed by the first warhead because they are just thin plates. The means of re active armor is that the jet would be attacked before strike armor, if you put passive armor outside to block precursor, then it consume space, and the whole meaning of array is lost.

Bullshit. If the outer layer(s) have enough thickness, they will simply stop the precursor warhead from reaching the inner layers. After penetrating two sloped 28 mm NERA layers, a 136 mm warhead (capable of penetrating 950 mm RHA) couldn't penetrate more than 17 mm steel RHA - not enough to theoretically penetrate a third layer. How much armour penetration will be left after a 65 mm warhead - capable of penetrating less than 300 mm RHA - penetrates a single layer NERA layer of this kind? Not enough to penetrate the following layers.

Your completely biased claims are based on the assumption that all layers would be penetrated by the precursor warhead - which would require them to be extremly thin and inefficient.
Which picture shows that a jet penetrated the whole array of thin plates? The drawing from a patent? A picture you didn't post?

The main warhead's job is easy. Similar to ERA, NERA is effective against single warhead, but not tandem warhead.

Modern ERA can be effective against tandem warheads, NERA can also be - depending on the thickness and amount of layers. The Ukranian Duplet ERA can protect against a RPG-29:

So because papers demo against single warhead and don't say about tandem warhead then it should be protected against tandem, is this your logic? Because it don't say, then it is valid? Where did you get this logic?

Because paper didn't say about kinetic penetrator, so those NERA you mentioned should also provided protection against apfsds?

Do you even read what I wrote? What part of your post I quoted?
You claimed that the fact that some Merkava IVs were penetrated, would mean that these scientific papers were wrong. That there isn't a single connection between these papers and the Merkava IV was quietly ignored by you. That's not arguing resonable, that's what I describe as "filling up the lack of arguments supporting your opinion by creating a non-existant connection to another topic".

My logic has been explained in this post and the earlier one. NERA can also provide increased protection against kinetic energy rounds (like APFSDS ammunition), but other types of armour are better against these threats and more specliazed on dealing with kinetic energy rounds.

Remember that the reason for tandem is mainly to defeat active mechanism: ERA, NERA.

No. Tandem warheads were only developed to counter ERA, not NERA. ERA can't be layered (or at least it couldn't during the Cold War), so a single small precursor warhead did a great job against ERA tiles. In some cases the precursor warhead was only made of a small HE charge, because that was enough to deal with first generation ERA. The introduction of second generation "heavy" ERA lead to the adoption of HEAT precursor/tandem charges on all modern anti-tank missiles.

The difference is simple.
Small precursor warhead penetrates ERA - penetration of the main warhead remains unaffected.
Small precursor warhead penetrates a single layer of NERA - penetration of the main warhead remains unaffected.
Small precursor warhead penertrates the outer layer of double-layered ERA (like Duplet) - the main warhead's penetration will be signifnicantly lowered by the second ERA layer.
Small precursor warhead penetrates only two of five NERA layers - penetration of the main warhead will be signifnicantly lowered.

Dont imagine some fancy arrangement, but provide hard proof. Of course your imagination maybe true, but it also is maybe wrong.

You want me to proof something that is classified (and to what I don't have access) to some random internet forum user just because you don't agree with me? Funny.
I can only refer to the official statements and literature covering the PSO. Protection against modern man-held anti-tank weapons doesn't sound like "only protected against the 50 years old RPG-7 using the oldest available warhead" for me.

Well, of course I believe in my opinion, but I am not blind. You said nothing else is a lie, coz you don't know a fvck about me. Stop claiming thing over your head

But you behave like a blind. Didn't you say that the RPG-29 was "the best of it's class" and can defeat all tanks?

Because papers said about single warhead, you imagine some modification should provide protection against tandem while the mechanisms between them are vastly different?

Sure, vastly different...

 

[Damian]

Some interesting informations.

First Poland started talks with Germany to purchase 128 Leopard 2A5 tanks, and now Chile also declared it wants to purchase approx 100 Leopard 2A5's from Germany.

It seems that Germans want to left only Leopard 2A6 tanks in their inventory. They had approx 200+ Leopard 2A5's today.

 

[militarysta]

(...)

What acually do you know about tnadem SC warhed?
We have 3 basic types of them:

1) Main SC and non-linear precursor (small SC in precursor is placed in non linear way -ussaly whit some angle) Examples: Nag, JAGM, Spike, ,
2) Main SC and linear precursor -ex: Kornet, RPG-29, Panzerfaust-3
2) Main SC + Main SC + precursor ex: in fact only in some prototypes like in BM-31 or others.

In fact you haven't any idea how precursor works -aren't you?

 

[313230]

Bullshit. If the outer layer(s) have enough thickness, they will simply stop the precursor warhead from reaching the inner layers. After penetrating two sloped 28 mm NERA layers, a 136 mm warhead (capable of penetrating 950 mm RHA) couldn't penetrate more than 17 mm steel RHA - not enough to theoretically penetrate a third layer. How much armour penetration will be left after a 65 mm warhead - capable of penetrating less than 300 mm RHA - penetrates a single layer NERA layer of this kind? Not enough to penetrate the following layers.

Bullshit, typical fanboy calculation

You think with NERA it adds 400mm protection then you add 4 layers of ERA then they give 1200mm? BS.

In fact ERA has one of the best protection per thickness/ weight, but you would never see the 5, 6 layer of ERAs to replace passive armor, because the mechanism of them is not 1+1=2 like simple fanboy want to think

In the paper of Dr Manfred Held, the first 600mm penetration capable of jet is untouched after passing the first layer of NERA. Given this scenario, if you add second layer, third layer, this 600mm will also be untouched because NERA don't have enough time to touch it. 10 layers of NERA or so on, this part can only be stopped by passive armor (thickness of NERA included).

By this logic, if you want to stop the fastest tip part of the jet, you need passive armor with LOS thickness equivalent to 65mm x 5 = ~300mm of RHA no matter what. Given the best passive @ 1.8 thickness equivalent, you need 166mm of very hard armor with no space.

That why 2 layers of NERA will not be equivalent 2 layers of RHA. It is not 1+1=2 like you want it to be. If re-active armor works like 1+1=2 then all tank will have 10 layer of ERA. In fact it is not

Your completely biased claims are based on the assumption that all layers would be penetrated by the precursor warhead - which would require them to be extremly thin and inefficient.

You need 300mm to stop precursor, given the best scenario, your side skirt only has 300mm, the precursor will penetrate it like butter. The bulging will only in effect after some stand off distance. You are typical fanboy and attack in every small detail which I don't have interest in given an answer.

You claimed that the fact that some Merkava IVs were penetrated, would mean that these scientific papers were wrong. That there isn't a single connection between these papers and the Merkava IV was quietly ignored by you. That's not arguing resonable, that's what I describe as "filling up the lack of arguments supporting your opinion by creating a non-existant connection to another topic".

This is typical nonsense question of you. In fact, because the secrecy of IDF, we don't know how well really Mk4 was. I don't have evidence of RPG29 penetrate it, and you don't have evidence of rpg 29 can not penetrate it, either. You don't have a clue what penetrated mk4, but you believe it can't and talk non sense. You claim ATMG penetrated it but not rpg 29, isn't it just your imagination? Because of that, I normally keep silent and don't want to keep on that direction but you think I am weak?

Do you have any number what mk4 was penetrated with? If not then there is a possibility it was penetrated by rpg29.

The difference is simple.
Small precursor warhead penetrates ERA - penetration of the main warhead remains unaffected.
Small precursor warhead penetrates a single layer of NERA - penetration of the main warhead remains unaffected.
Small precursor warhead penertrates the outer layer of double-layered ERA (like Duplet) - the main warhead's penetration will be signifnicantly lowered by the second ERA layer.
Small precursor warhead penetrates only two of five NERA layers - penetration of the main warhead will be signifnicantly lowered.

Do you have any paper to back your claim? Indeed you don't, just your imagination. Read and counter my logic in the first part.
To stop precursor you need thin NERA with large stand off distance beyond it, or you need thick passive armor
If you want to counter the 65mm precursor, you need 300mm LOS of very dense NERA.
Or if you want to stop precursor with just like 50mm of NERA then you need 300mm standoff distance beyond NERA (just random numbers)

You want me to proof something that is classified (and to what I don't have access) to some random internet forum user just because you don't agree with me?

If there is something like that, you can confirm it. Or you just believe there is something like that.

 

[313230]

Also some sources give pg29 600mm after ERA.

600mm RHA alone seems a bit too low for 105 main charge + 65mm precursor.

 

[Damian]

In fact ERA has one of the best protection per thickness/ weight, but you would never see the 5, 6 layer of ERAs to replace passive armor, because the mechanism of them is not 1+1=2 like simple fanboy want to think

Oh look, 3 layers of ERA "Duplet".

Again M19 ARAT with clearly visible several reactive layers.

M32 ERA combined with M19 ERA, again layered design.

Drawing showing layered ERA for BMP-3.

Another layered variant of "Duplet" ERA on BM "Oplot" tank.

And you call other fanboys when you don't know anything about different protection solutions.

Also some sources give pg29 600mm after ERA.

600mm RHA alone seems a bit too low for 105 main charge + 65mm precursor.

After ERA means that ERA didn't affected main charge and was initiated by precursor. This is simple to understand... well perhaps not by you.

 

[militarysta]

About ERA developmend and ERA vs KE on...Leopard-1

 

[methos]

About ERA developmend and ERA vs KE on...Leopard-1

Could you please post the names of the sources [5] and [6]?

 

[militarysta]

PM -I'll send you source

 

[collegeboy16]

Question: What is the best frontal hull structure design for tanks?

 

[Damian]

Question: What is the best frontal hull structure design for tanks?

By that overall design or armor?

By overall design, it is currently rather immposible to implement due to weight, but with unmanned turret perhaps both glacis and lower hull or "beak" can have composite armor inside.

As for armor, of course composite structure with provisions for addon armor.

 

[militarysta]

About ERA developmend and ERA vs KE on...Leopard-1

It's importnat to notice that in Gerany they had developed very advanced ERA till 1970s and 1980s but for some resons Germans didn't placed ERA on their top tanks (Leopard-2). Then natural is asking "why?".
1) as we can see germans have anti-SC single and double ERA since erly 1970s.
2) Germans have anti-APFSDS ERA since 1973 at leas and in article there is mentined about nex developmend phase -10 yeras. So in at least 1983 ERA whit abilities to defeted long rods where redy. And what? And we can't see any ERA placed on Leopard-2.
The conclusion can be only one - main armourplaced in Leopard-2 was better/enought then armour+ added ERA. So disadvantages where bigger then advantages from using ERA on tanks...
Aftaer that we have half of the 1985 and Soviet ERA -firs gen. agains SC only, second against SC and APFSDS and third gen as improved against both. And on west in IIIgen MBT (M1, CR1, Leo-2, Leclerc) we haven't any ERA although it was redy in circa 1983 in Germany. Again -"why"?

During KWS program when anoyne was afraid about FST1 and FST2 whit new longer APFDS and others Germans still don't put ERA on tanks, but turn in to advanced NERA/NxRA solution on A5 and other Leopards. IMHO the answer is one - advanced NERA/NxRA in Germany where better then ERA avaible in country (Germany) when those solution was developed and tested by over circa 20-25 yers..again - this shoud be puzzling...

And now we have SPz Puma - anyowne can check it's side protection in "C" level. Angain - puzzling...

 

[volna]

The conclusion can be only one - main armourplaced in Leopard-2 was better/enought then armour+ added ERA. So disadvantages where bigger then advantages from using ERA on tanks...
Aftaer that we have half of the 1985 and Soviet ERA -firs gen. agains SC only, second against SC and APFSDS and third gen as improved against both. And on west in IIIgen MBT (M1, CR1, Leo-2, Leclerc) we haven't any ERA although it was redy in circa 1983 in Germany. Again -"why"?

But on the other hand,Western tanks are significantly heavier than the Soviet tanks!