Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

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

This is a sacrifice, something for something, there are no perfect solutions, and all armies need to choose, same for engineers, they also need to choose.

 

[hest]

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"?

Experimental, theoretical understanding was not new, dating some decades back, but is not so easy to achieve necessary effectiveness and solve problems with mounting in vehicle construction while also providing necessary angle. ERA with ability to reduce performance of cumulative charges was used in West first by Israelis, in US developement, testing was carried out in 1985 and fielded in M60A3 in 1988.

so they hardly had the ability to make use of it earlier, much less if you talk about higher requirements of HEAT and KE.

And who says it couldn't have been implemented in integral form ? For example in cells in composite armour structure (5)

This design would give high effectiveness against HEAT projectiles, but if actually used, it would also bring some disadvantages:

Innefectiveness against KE, it is not possible due to space limitations to realise effect of thick plates, necessary against APFSDS in internal placement. So it is in some sacrifice of available internal space (innefectiveness against APFSDS and "waste" of this section).

About necessity, for example we know that T-72B turret in year of introduction already met these protection requirements without Kontakt-1..

Soviets were the first to incorporate ERA in late 60s in T-64, T-72, both in add on and integral form with non traditional construction, of box and cilindrical shape to achieve independance of effectiveness from angle of incidence, as well as ERA with construction to deal also with KE projectiles, though it was not deployed in part due to the already sufficient protection of those MBTs.

 

[Damian]

in US developement, testing was carried out in 1985 and fielded in M60A3 in 1988.

Wrong. ERA was developed for the M60A3 but US Army resigned from it because they had M1 and M1A1 as perspective platforms with better protection even without ERA. ERA kits were then bought by USMC and mounted on their M60A1 tanks because due to smaller budget, they needed to wait for M1A1 for a much longer time (to the 1990)

 

[hest]

Wrong. ERA was developed for the M60A3 but US Army resigned from it because they had M1 and M1A1 as perspective platforms with better protection even without ERA. ERA kits were then bought by USMC and mounted on their M60A1 tanks because due to smaller budget, they needed to wait for M1A1 for a much longer time (to the 1990)

ERA was available in US in second half of 80s, developement phase starting on that decade, I said nothing wrong. Truly, against latter threats such design would become innefective, and won't justify it's use in tank as M1. The point is that there were hardly options to use it earlier.

 

[Damian]

ERA was available in US in second half of 80s, developement phase starting on that decade, I said nothing wrong. Truly, against latter threats such design would become innefective, and won't justify it's use in tank as M1. The point is that there were hardly options to use it earlier.

You said that ERA was put on M60A3 in 1988, this is wrong, it was never fielded on M60A3. M60 was not seen as perspective platform by US Army, USMC also didn't seen it as perspective and also wanted M1, but due to smaller budget and longer time period before M1 fielding, they needed something to improve survivability of their M60A1 tanks. Because Army in the end resigned from ERA kits, USMC command decided to repurchase these and install on their tanks as a short term solution.

You better purchase Richard Hunnicutt books about US AFV's development and service history, as Russian language sources are very poor about this subject and full of lies and wrong informations.

 

[hest]

Ah, right. In the end it was deployed with M60A1, but the main point stands.

 

[hest]

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...

It is true, when the option was simple add on elements, Blazer (which owes to German developement), etc which later gave limited protection and were of innefective design and mounting, not able to provide sufficient effect under all incidence angles, limit detonation of secondary elements...while protection was probably sufficient, even for naked T-72B, T-80U turrets in mid 80s.

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"?

Because universal ERA was not available. For most of decade of 80s option was simple add on ERA and there was not sufficient testing and developement of more advanced designs, which does not exclude latter possible addition of more effective reactive armour integrated in composite structure (but still not effective against APFSDS).

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...

Different options could not be available for them, which does not speak about ERA performance in general.

 

[Damian]

I think you didn't read the document. There is clearly said, Leopard 1 was tested with universal ERA against APFSDS projectile with success, it seems that problem was that it needed to be designed as integral ERA similiar to Kontakt-5 not modular or addon design.

 

[hest]

I did read it. The point the is that there can be problems with design, efficiency against given weapons, mounting, etc.. which to be solved and for the elements be ready for deployment would need extensive tests and developement time. The fact that USSR did also perform tests of integral ERA against sub caliber penetrators in late 60s does not mean it could be implemented decades later under different circumstances, so it is not correct to say it was available but not used. .

 

[Damian]

That is only your assumption.

 

[collegeboy16]

Gentlemen,
What are the pros and cons of western(nato) and eastern(soviet) tank design and philosphies
and which has a much better future in your opinion?

 

[Damian]

NATO:
+ Better crew survivability (not in all designs, highest and today unmatched by any design, crew survivability have the M1 Abrams series)
+ Better ergonomics
+ Bigger modernization potential
+ More stable weapon platforms
+ Better tactical mobility despite bigger weight
+ Electronics

- Higher price
- Bigger weight compromising strategic mobility
- More fuel comsuming in case of some designs

+/- More surface protected by composite armor (front hull, front and sides of turret) making it more universal design (both for conventional and assymetrical conflicts) but price for this is bigger size and weight.

Former Soviet:

+ Lower weight improving strategic mobility
+ Lower overall prices
+ Somewhat designs more suited for countries where soldiers (or society) have lower technical culture
+ Lower fuel comsumption in most cases

- Low (almost non existing crew survivability)
- Lower modernization potential due to smaller size
- Somewhat inferior electronics suits in most cases

+/- Composite armor only at hull and turret front, makes vehicle smaller and lighter, but mostly suited only for conventional conflicts.

and which has a much better future in your opinion?

None, future belongs to IV generation, which have completely different design philosophy than both earlier design schools.

 

[militarysta]

but is not so easy to achieve necessary effectiveness and solve problems with mounting in vehicle construction while also providing necessary angle.

More or less all avavle now, and new sources give conclusion that german ERA where more advanced and ready then anybody suspect.

ERA with ability to reduce performance of cumulative charges was used in West first by Israelis, in US developement, testing was carried out in 1985 and fielded in M60A3 in 1988. so they hardly had the ability to make use of it earlier, much less if you talk about higher requirements of HEAT and KE.

Was used in serial tank. But this solution was redy mucht erlyier in Germany. All avaible now sources give us circa 1973-1980 as ended developmend phase for ERA in Germany - for both - anti SC and anti KE use.

And who says it couldn't have been implemented in integral form ? For example in cells in composite armour structure (5)

All avaible infos rejected this posibility -at least in British burlinghton and german "special armour".

It is true, when the option was simple add on elements, Blazer (which owes to German developement), etc which later gave limited protection and were of innefective design and mounting, not able to provide sufficient effect under all incidence angles, limit detonation of secondary elements

The point is that now can be taken as sure that in 1970-1980 Germans developes preperd sevral quite effective ERA -in fakt not whorse then later 1980s. solutions. And those all ERA was rejected during Leopard-2 developmend. Even layter ERA was not introduced on western III gen. tanks.
And we can't said that german ERA = Blazer. More or less all test photo shown quite effective ERA.

Because universal ERA was not available. For most of decade of 80s option was simple add on ERA and there was not sufficient testing and developement of more advanced designs, which does not exclude latter possible addition of more effective reactive armour integrated in composite structure (but still not effective against APFSDS).

Ok, but even if "special armour" in wetern tank have some abilities against KE i SC then even against one thred ERA shoud give better protection. And the didn't decide to mounted it on Leopard-2. More or less -basic armour must be enought in their opinnion.

Different options could not be available for them, which does not speak about ERA performance in general.

It's rather sure that those pannels where better option in that case - NERA/NxRA wedges ave both: anti SC and anti APFSDS protection. And avile pdfs about german ERA give us soultion effectiv against both: SC and KE. Germans chose NERA/NxRA pannels. More or less double NERA wedges are effective agianst SC warhed like modern ERA.

 

[JBH22]

I read that Israelis were the first who readily deployed ERA on their tanks,Russians and Americans may had designed this but they were still reluctant to adopt the ERA.

 

[Damian]

I read that Israelis were the first who readily deployed ERA on their tanks,Russians and Americans may had designed this but they were still reluctant to adopt the ERA.

This is not correct actually.

Americans and British during World War II designed composite armor. One of the first tanks tested with composite armor was M4 Sherman tank for which was designed, probably the first modular armor package codenamed HCR2.

Armor was tested, and it was very promising (despite it was relatively primitive), although it was never inducted in to regular service.

Work on composite armor was well performed after World War II which later lead to development of different solutions, amongs the the most famous, the so called Burlington armor which was the basis for later, more advanced designs.

In Soviet Union, work on Explosive Reactive Armor or Dynamic Protection was performed after WWII, however first attempts were not successfull, back then too much explosive was used and armor was not optimized yet, so every ERA detonation lead to cracks in protected vehicle main armor.

At the same time work on ERA in the west (perhaps mainly in Germany) were performed and this work lead to development of Blazer ERA that was first used by Israelis.

 

[Damian]

I think, why not some history lesson from my country, and to be more precise, from the 1990's and early XXI century.

The first part might be very interesting for Indian users of this forum, as they also start to see obscolence of the BMP series of vehicles. @Kunal Biswas I am very interested about your thoughts about our modernization proposals.

In Poland in the 1990's there were several attempts to modernize these vehicles, althoug none were implemented as not reasonable from economic point of view and the obvious fact that replacement either way will be nececary.

BWP-40 (or BMP-40 if you wish), modernization was purely focused on improving firepower by installing CV9040 turret armed with Bofors 40mm L70. However such configuration was too heavy and too big, also amount of ammunition taken for the gun was low. Dismounts quantity was reduced and vehicle if I am not mistaken, could not swim anymore.

BMP-95, modernization was focused on improving survivability and firepower.

The old turret was replaced with a new one, armed with 23mm auto cannon, a 7,62mm machine gun and SPG-9. These modules we can see on hull and turret, are explosive reactive armor with ceramic backing CERAWA-1 providing protection against 14,5mm armor piercing ammunition and shaped charge warheads capable to penetrate 300mm of armor.

The obvious question is why CERAWA-1 modules are not better covering hull, my theory is that this was weight compromise.

Sources I have say that during tests, it was discovered by some proposed armor improvements decreased amphibious capabilities by 4% (this means armor from 1 to 2 tons heavy), this ended with hull top completely underwater and was unacceptable. CERAWA-1 in this configuration increased weight only by approx 900kg's.

There were also considered (or perhaps even performed tests) with installation of ERAWA-1 explosive reactive armor designed for T-72 tanks modernization. However such protection was considered as too heavy, and additional concern was that ERAWA-1 detonation might end up with cracks in BMP-1 hull.

More soon.

 

[Damian]

One of the considered variants of the so called BWP-1M "Puma" with UT-30 turret system.

Here some more different photos.

 

[Damian]

As you could seen on several of the previous photos, there is a big IFV of unknown type for most people, it is BWP-2000 (BMP-2000), it is much heavier and bigger vehicle, non amphibious with very powerfull armament.

There were two prototypes builded, tested with 3 turret systems.

First was tested with the turret from Italian VCC-80 Dardo IFV, it was very standard configuration, a 25mm autocannon, machine gun and ATGM launchers, however it was considered as too weak, so other Italian turret was picked up for tests, a T60/70A armed with powerfull 60mm automatic cannon, machine gun and ATGM launchers. Turret was tested in two configurations, light with weaker armor, and uparmored variant.

The hull is based on SPG-1M artillery tractor on which is also based self propelled mine placer SUM "Kalina". Vehicle is powered by V-46 engine providing 791HP, it weights depending on variant 25-29 tons. Crew is 3 plus 8 dismounts.

 

[Damian]

PZA Loara SPAAG - based on modified PT-91 hull.

PZR Loara Anti Air Missile System - early mockup based on T-72M1 hull not modified PT-91 hull.

ZSU-23-4MP Biała (White), modernization of ZSU-23-4M, radar system was replaced with passive electrooptical system making vehicle harder to detect, there are additional modification to electronics, electric system and other components, additional armament are 4 PZR Grom (Thunder) missiles.

MT-LB based SPAAG Sopel (Icicle) and it's upgraded variant Stalagmit (Stalagmite)

 

[Kunal Biswas]

PZA Loara SPAAG is most impressive and it is competing for Indian army future gun-missile system along with others in row which are SKYRANGER, Pantsir-1 , MACHBET ..