Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

It is not better protected. By no means. It might be harder to hit because of it's location, but that depends on the threat spectrum and the exact scenario.

That is what was said. Probability to damage autoloader is much lower due to placement, it is way less exposed than turet bustle with ammunition, and relatively safe as showed experience in Chechnia conflicts.

It is much more vulnerable to enemy fire due to the thinner armour, more prone to fire/cook-off due to the lack of compartimentation and it is much more vulnerable to mines and IEDs.

Leopard 2 turret bustle does not have any protection so I don't know what are you talking about, about being vulnerable to cook off it is not correct.

There's protection against fragments with screen and kevlar cover of interior wich reduces effect of penetration, and Leopard bustle storage is more vulnerable both due to more exposed surface and ammunition storage. Mine and IED, not correct.

Once the tank is seen on plain ground or from the front, there is more area occupied by the autoloader's ammunition and it is getting more likely hit.

Frontal area is protected by main armour, Leopard 2, yes, it is more vulnerable because from 30 degrees turret ammunition storage is exposed, and it does not posess any protection

 

[methos]

Probability to damage autoloader is much lower due to placement

Which is completely depending on the scenario. Against medium caliber rounds, EFPs and mines it is more likely to be damaged. Anything else can penetrate the side armour of both tanks easily.

it is way less exposed than turet bustle with ammunition

It is not. It is less exposed in the image, but the image shows one specific case which does not generally speak for all cases. Once the tank is not hiding it's lower part behind the terrain, the ammunition storage in the autloader will cover a bigger area than shown in the photograph.
If the tank is not seen directly from the front, but from angle, the turret bustle of the Leopard 2r ends up being less exposed. Once the rear is seen, the turret bustle is again less exposed.

Leopard 2 turret bustle does not have any protection

The mighty T-90 has 80 mm thick hull side armour, while the armour at the turret bustle of the Leopard 2 is de facto thicker. It is also not homogenous armour, but a more effective laminate array.

about being vulnerable to cook off it is not correct.

Err... not? How does the T-90's ammunition behave when ignited? Does it magically extinguish itself?

That's a proposal and has not been used on serial tanks yet.

Mine and IED, not correct.

Because mines happen to strike the turret bustle mainly, I assume?

 

[militarysta]

Angle for hull is obvious bigger for T-72/90

About the rest:

 

[militarysta]

More or less hull ammo placment in T-72 and T-90 is mucht more danger then in Leopard-2 and Leclerc. While Leo-2 hull ammo store is "hidden" after front armour -so it's "short" target, then T-72/90 have guite low but wery width "caroussele" and aditional ammo placed in any possible free space in hull. The result is that for +/-35 degree frontal Leo-2 hull rack can be hit only from sevral angle, and hull ammo placment in T-72/90 can be hit in almoust all angles- sevral times bigger then in Leo-2 case.

 

[collegeboy16]

If the T-72/T-90 underfloor autoloader is vulnerable, then how much more vulnerable is Armata autoloader?

 

[Damian]

If the T-72/T-90 underfloor autoloader is vulnerable, then how much more vulnerable is Armata autoloader?

New MBT based on "Armata" platform will have isolated autoloader compartment, with blow off panels most likely.

You see the problem is not where you place ammunition and autoloader, but if it isolated from crew and engine compartment or not.

All future MBT's will have most likely, ammunition compartment isolated from crew, and id does not matter if these ammo compartments will be in turret or hull, what is only needed is isolation and blow off panels.

 

[hest]

Which is completely depending on the scenario. Against medium caliber rounds, EFPs and mines it is more likely to be damaged. Anything else can penetrate the side armour of both tanks easily

It is not. It is less exposed in the image, but the image shows one specific case which does not generally speak for all cases. Once the tank is not hiding it's lower part behind the terrain, the ammunition storage in the autloader will cover a bigger area than shown in the photograph.
If the tank is not seen directly from the front, but from angle, the turret bustle of the Leopard 2r ends up being less exposed. Once the rear is seen, the turret bustle is again less exposed.

Autoloader is much less exposed and is better protected, due to nature of combat, terrain and placement and this is a fact and not something you can deny as experience shows in Second Chechen conflict, had it been Leopard 2 in place of T-72B it's turret bustle would have blowned up. And it is also a deficiency as there are only 15 available rounds for Leopard in such situation, in autoloader 22, and there is option for additional rounds in external storage behind turret, covered from 30 degrees by frontal armour and isolated from crew compartment (as shown in T-90MS), option not available for Leopard 2, where additional ammunition is stored in hull in less comfortable reach for crew and without any isolation.

The mighty T-90 has 80 mm thick hull side armour, while the armour at the turret bustle of the Leopard 2 is de facto thicker. It is also not homogenous armour, but a more effective laminate array.

Wrong. There is ERA and uncomparably greater protection than non existing Leopard 2 ammunition turret side.

Err... not? How does the T-90's ammunition behave when ignited? Does it magically extinguish itself?

Question is not ignition, no different in both tanks, but to prevent it, reduce probability of hit and probability to penetrate and make significant internal effect, both much lower with autoloader placement.

That's a proposal and has not been used on serial tanks yet.

This is serial autoloader of T-90A and T-72B3.

Because mines happen to strike the turret bustle mainly, I assume?

These are only your assumptions, electromagnetic mines are not great deal, improvised explosives do not belong to most conflicts and from such detonation you do not know difference between T-90 and Leopard 2, you vaguely claim it will neutralise the former and not the latter, bring a definition.

 

[hest]

Angle for hull is obvious bigger for T-72/90

T-90 hull is protected up to 23 degrees due to nature of angled armour and ERA, Leopard 2 less because it only consits of passive material (12-15 degrees). This is incorrect and does not make sense because

- As said, you do not account armour features
- This is frontal projection and not what is dicscussed, heavy ATGM and APFSDS have strong after armour effect and will neutralise the tank no matter if hit or not in ammunition (and for ignition direct hit is not strictly necessary btw), so what matters is non penetration, and Leopard 2 hull provides 5-10 degrees less to manouver. If covered by frontal armour, it is aceptable to include additional ammunition for conventional conflict. The matter here is vulnerability for more than 60 degrees, when RPG are faced, weaker threats and direct hit has more importance, ammunition must be reduced.

About the rest:

This does not make sense for conventional frontal engagement because of main armour or for more irregular fighting because ammunition employed on such case will be only the main one.

 

[Dejawolf]

T-90 hull is protected up to 23 degrees due to nature of angled armour and ERA, Leopard 2 less because it only consits of passive material (12-15 degrees). This is incorrect and does not make sense because

- As said, you do not account armour features
- This is frontal projection and not what is dicscussed, heavy ATGM and APFSDS have strong after armour effect and will neutralise the tank no matter if hit or not in ammunition (and for ignition direct hit is not strictly necessary btw), so what matters is non penetration, and Leopard 2 hull provides 5-10 degrees less to manouver. If covered by frontal armour, it is aceptable to include additional ammunition for conventional conflict. The matter here is vulnerability for more than 60 degrees, when RPG are faced, weaker threats and direct hit has more importance, ammunition must be reduced.


This does not make sense for conventional frontal engagement because of main armour or for more irregular fighting because ammunition employed on such case will be only the main one.

M1A2 and M1A1 has been hit in crew compartment several times by RPG-7 and RPG-29, with minor damage to interior.
furthermore, western tanks like leopard 2 has spall liners in interior, which minimizes damage to the direct trajectory of the penetrator, so instead of all of the crew being killed,
maybe only 1 crewmember is killed or wounded, or some equipment is damaged. tank can retreat and give medical assistance to wounded crewmembers, an come back and fight another day. as for penetrating front armour of western tanks and hitting the ammunition storage, this is a soviet dream. front turret on western tanks is too heavy for russian APFSDS rounds to penetrate. russian tanks require a new autoloader design with single-piece ammunition in order to develop rounds powerful enough to penetrate western armour. meanwhile western nations are designing a new type of warfare, with drones and BLOS top-attack missiles.

 

[militarysta]

T-90 hull is protected up to 23 degrees due to nature of angled armour and ERA, Leopard 2 less because it only consits of passive material (12-15 degrees). This is incorrect and does not make sense because

It has a lot of sense.
Hull ammo in T-72/90 is huge width target possible to hit in all angle - without direct front when hull frontal armour protect -but it's only from +/-15 degree from hull axis. And it's all. Hull side protection is amoust not existing: 3 ERA pannels + 80mm RHA on turret sides.
In Leo-2 and Leclerc hull ammo is in one place hidden after frontal hull armour. It's "short" target.

- As said, you do not account armour features

What features?
3 ERA pannels on T-90 (Ob.188, Ob.188A1/A2)? It's all.
Modern APFSDS (DM53,DM63, M829A3, M338) wilt pass those ERA loosing ony circa 8% of it's capabilities. It's ineffective. And after that we have only 80mm RHA plate. For 30. degree is 160mm RHA for 20. circa 200-240mm

, heavy ATGM and APFSDS have strong after armour effect and will neutralise the tank no matter if hit or not in ammunition (and for ignition direct hit is not strictly necessary btw),

It's not true. HEAT (SC) have very mercy for crew and tank behind armour effect - to ignit ammo is necessery direct hit into catrige. And it was proven sevral times. I even not mentioned insensitive DM63 and russian ammo (Yes in Russia is insensitive HE-FRAG and other - those ammo had been used during second chechenia war).
Posibility to hit hull ammo is sevral times bigger in T-72/90 then in Leopard-2/Leclerc. Hull ammo is palced in any T-72/90 hull space, in western mentioned tnaks - in ONE place next to frontal armour.
And behind armour effect for SC ammo will not ignite ammo in leo-2/Lelcerc if jet don't hit ammo rack. The same on T-72/90- but posybility to hit those ammo is sevral times bigger in T-72/90 case 4xtimes bigger voulmen taken by ammo in T-72/90 hull then in Leo-2/Leclerc.
In case APFSDS - agree, behind armour effect will kill the crew.

and Leopard 2 hull provides 5-10 degrees less to manouver.

And those bullshit is taken from what accually?

 

[collegeboy16]

Is it true that in Europe Western tanks were meant to be used in dugout positions where they sniped soviet tanks and fall back as quickly as possible to another prepared position as soon as they got overwhelmed?

 

[The Last Stand]

Is it true that in Europe Western tanks were meant to be used in dugout positions where they sniped soviet tanks and fall back as quickly as possible to another prepared position as soon as they got overwhelmed?

Err. Western tanks during Cold war Europe were definitely slower than Soviet tanks but not better armoured. The L7 couldn't shoot past 3 km while Soviet tanks could use ATGM at upto 5 km. I don't think Western tank planners had suicidal thoughts.

Western tankers would definitely have been uber-comfortable camping.

 

[Damian]

Is it true that in Europe Western tanks were meant to be used in dugout positions where they sniped soviet tanks and fall back as quickly as possible to another prepared position as soon as they got overwhelmed?

Not exactly. The idea was to use mobile defence, which means there were several line of defences, and NATO would defend one line, then retreat to another efficently bleeding out Soviets and minimizing their own casualties, this was of course theory, nobody knows how this would end. But all simulations show that such type of defence should be efficent, even if defending force is outnumbered and attacking force have superior numbers and firepower (also artillery).

Err. Western tanks during Cold war Europe were definitely slower than Soviet tanks but not better armoured. The L7 couldn't shoot past 3 km while Soviet tanks could use ATGM at upto 5 km. I don't think Western tank planners had suicidal thoughts.

Western tankers would definitely have been uber-comfortable camping.

Which NATO tanks you talk about? M1 and Leopard 2 in reverse are as fast in the field as many other tanks on their top forward gear (of course in field not on paved roads).

Besides this, in Germany, there were very little places to actually use GLATGM's, most firing lanes have a range of around less than 1km to 2km max, so it is better to use conventional ammunition, and on such ranges, even the good old L7 was dangerous enough with proper ammunition back then.

 

[Andrei_bt]

How to made cheep propaganda/marketing:

Post this:

forgot about rest of the ammo placed in any possible space of the T-72/90 hull

It is rather strange misinforming advirtisement, typical for UVZ

 

[hest]

It has a lot of sense.
Hull ammo in T-72/90 is huge width target possible to hit in all angle - without direct front when hull frontal armour protect -but it's only from +/-15 degree from hull axis. And it's all. Hull side protection is amoust not existing: 3 ERA pannels + 80mm RHA on turret sides.
In Leo-2 and Leclerc hull ammo is in one place hidden after frontal hull armour. It's "short" target.

I will comment again

First, what does it mean, that a penetration without hit in ammunition will not neutralise the tank ? And here you try to represent the situation only in one picture, and it is completely wrong, first because you did not understand function of ERA and steel sides, second because there is no perspective which accounts for height, in short, this is completely useless.

I will give theory, this is tenth time I post this ПОДХОД К БРОНИРОВАНИЮ БОРТОВОЙ ПРОЕКЦИИ ТАНКА about side protection, Function of these ERA screens

is to provide protection against HEAT and APFSDS for 23 degrees (former is even more, latter now is reduced, but still). This is only for conventional warfare, in Caucasus conflicts and similar configuration is this

What does Leopard 2 hull have ? Nothing of this sort, completely vulnerable hull for anything more than 10 degrees front against APFSDS and HEAT, no difference.

What features?
3 ERA pannels on T-90 (Ob.188, Ob.188A1/A2)? It's all.
Modern APFSDS (DM53,DM63, M829A3, M338) wilt pass those ERA loosing ony circa 8% of it's capabilities. It's ineffective. And after that we have only 80mm RHA plate. For 30. degree is 160mm RHA for 20. circa 200-240mm

Read, you should understand it is about ricochet property, not about angled thickness. For ХМ946 APFSDS for american XM291 140 mm gun, with lenght of 870 mm, diameter 24 mm l/d ratio 36.2 and initial velocity of 1800 m/s ricochet angle against 70 mm steel + ERA is 9 degrees (from surface), against current 120 mm it is more than 10. For Leopard 2 passive side it is not significant.

Second is real perspective, autoloader placement

It is placed in much safer situation on floor of tank of already low siluette, part covered by terrain and lower than line of fire of enemy, uncomparably less exposed and better protected, with ERA. Now Leopard 2 hull storage

It is much more exposed, higher and part is covered by lower part of glacis, so no talk about total frontal armour coverage

In reality Leopard 2 does not have a succesfull ammunition storage, only 15 main rounds are available and safe for crew, thought exposed, rest are placed in dangerous hull zone, and this is in some aspect primitve, because turret must be rotated to perform loading from them, exposing vulnerable zone in combat and disrupting engagement. Last such soviet tank was T-62. It is worse than Abrams or Leclerc which store greater amount of ammunition in safer and better protected turret bustle. T-72 or T-90 placement is not ideal, but more suitable for combat, and if only autoloader is used it is way safer than Leopard 2, there is also option to move additional ammunition to isolated storage behind turret, no such option for Leopard 2 limited only to 15 rounds.

It's not true. HEAT (SC) have very mercy for crew and tank behind armour effect - to ignit ammo is necessery direct hit into catrige. And it was proven sevral times. I even not mentioned insensitive DM63 and russian ammo (Yes in Russia is insensitive HE-FRAG and other - those ammo had been used during second chechenia war).
Posibility to hit hull ammo is sevral times bigger in T-72/90 then in Leopard-2/Leclerc. Hull ammo is palced in any T-72/90 hull space, in western mentioned tnaks - in ONE place next to frontal armour.
And behind armour effect for SC ammo will not ignite ammo in leo-2/Lelcerc if jet don't hit ammo rack. The same on T-72/90- but posybility to hit those ammo is sevral times bigger in T-72/90 case 4xtimes bigger voulmen taken by ammo in T-72/90 hull then in Leo-2/Leclerc.
In case APFSDS - agree, behind armour effect will kill the crew.

It is wrong, effect does depend on after armour penetration, if it is only residual of less than 100 mm then danger will be not fragments but limited to noise and some overpressure, that is why tanks in conflict with ERA where able to withstand several penetrations. If it is serious effect it is much more dangerous, less sensitive propellant is effective on certain margin, with greater presence of fragments of more powerfull penetration can ignite them, not talking about APFSDS effect. Of course wheter hit is direct on ammunition or in close proximity it does matter.

And those bullshit is taken from what accually?

Exposed turret bustle and weak passive "protection" of hull side which cannot provide protection against HEAT or significant ricohet angle.

[/QUOTE]
This is nothing which could tell about protection, in material and in perspective.

 

[The Last Stand]

Which NATO tanks you talk about? M1 and Leopard 2 in reverse are as fast in the field as many other tanks on their top forward gear (of course in field not on paved roads).

I meant the good old Chieftain and M60. Cold War.

L7 was definitely dangerous.

 

[Damian]

I meant the good old Chieftain and M60. Cold War.

L7 was definitely dangerous.

Well, the Chieftain was never designed to fire on the move, in fact it's stabilization and FCS was designed to increase accuracy during short stop between movement and firing.

Challenger 1 inherited this characteristic.

M60 did not have initially stabilization either, it was added later in M60A1 improvement program, but it does not matter, original M60 served shortly as interim design untill M60A1 was fielded, and with AOS and RISE improvements it had really good capability to fire on the move. M60A3 was even better. Very interesting was also FCS of the M60A2 which was not very popular as a tank, but it's FCS was rather advanced and have, something we can call a proto Hunter-Killer mode.

As for L7, yeah, it is somewhat underestimated weapon, especially for the Cold War period. And it become even more dangerous in late 1970's and 1980's.

APFSDS ammo like M111 Hetz and M833 was really dangerous for older Soviet tanks, especially their glacis plate. I am not certain about M900, when it was fielded, although this round could be fired only from M68A1 gun, older M60 and L7 variants were not suited for such ammunition.

 

[militarysta]

First, what does it mean, that a penetration without hit in ammunition will not neutralise the tank ?

It's mean that if SC jet penetrate turret or hull but doesn't hit in catrige/ammo then tank will not be destroyed or even disabled. And there was [d]dozen[/b] of sucht example:
a) Merkava Mk.IV and III in South Leanon in 2006
b) Abrams in Iraq
c) T-72B in Chechenia
In all cases even if HEAT (SC) jet penetrate the hull or turret but desen't direct hit into ammo or crew then nothing therrible was hapend.
Behind armour effect is to small in HEAT warhed cases to destroy tank or kill crew or ignit ammo if jet does not hit into vital part (crew/ammo).
And even in offcial descripsion Cowboy uniform for Russian crews there is mentioned that T-72B in Chechania was able to fight even after 3 and more perforaton.
So if SC jet does not hit in ammo/crew then there is not posisble to destroy tank. Here is no magic.

first because you did not understand function of ERA and steel sides
(...)
Read, you should understand it is about ricochet property, not about angled thickness. For ХМ946 APFSDS for american XM291 140 mm gun, with lenght of 870 mm, diameter 24 mm l/d ratio 36.2 and initial velocity of 1800 m/s ricochet angle against 70 mm steel + ERA is 9 degrees (from surface), against current 120 mm it is more than 10.,

And agian - those article about monblock penetrator have not many common whit modern non monoblock penetrator developed to overpas ERA. DM53/63 M829A3, M338, and propably KEW-A3 will pass those ERA even with sucht small angle.

And presenting obsolate Kontakt-1 on T-72BW is not a example.It can be useful against PG-7WR but not double modern warched (whit precursor).

What does Leopard 2 hull have ? Nothing of this sort, completely vulnerable hull for anything more than 10 degrees front against APFSDS and HEAT, no difference.

Front hull sides have 130mm tick compoiste modules (so 260mm LOS for 30.) and 60mm hull sides (120mm RHA).
In any COIN Leo-2 modes we have protection mucht better then T-72/90 screens whit ERA:

second because there is no perspective which accounts for height, in short, this is completely useless.,
Second is real perspective, autoloader placement
It is placed in much safer situation on floor of tank of already low siluette, part covered by terrain and lower than line of fire of enemy, uncomparably less exposed

And this is bullshit.
Leopard-2 hull rack have 1/4 volument as T-72/90 hull ammo have:
Leopard-2A4:
whole ammo in 2 places, what is impotant -only in ONE pace in hull:

T-71/PT-91/T-90 ammo in caroussel and in any possible space in hull:

Now You have "perspective"?

In reality Leopard 2 does not have a succesfull ammunition storage, only 15 main rounds are available and safe for crew, thought exposed, rest are placed in dangerous hull zone, and this is in some aspect primitve, because turret must be rotated to perform loading from them,

And it's takes circa 180s (3min) to reloade those turret rack, and how many times takes reload caroussele?
WHat is more important - caroussele mahanism can jam (faliture) when catrige is crossing arm -it's quite offten. Manual loading 2A46 takes circa 25s for one shoot.

T-72 or T-90 placement is not ideal, but more suitable for combat, and if only autoloader is used

And it was used ONLY in COIN. In any rest possible cases - whole 42/44 pieces are put in any possible space in hull. What is mucht whose ten placed ammo in ONE place.

 

[collegeboy16]

Question: If I were to store two-piece ammo(125mm ammo + propellant stub) vertically under the turret ring(about the diameter of a T-90's) of a tank with unmanned turret using carousel, how much would I be able to store? (each round canister is about a meter high)

 

[Akim]

Is it true that in Europe Western tanks were meant to be used in dugout positions where they sniped soviet tanks and fall back as quickly as possible to another prepared position as soon as they got overwhelmed?

Tank poorly designed for defense. It is an offensive weapon. In different periods of the Cold war, the West's attitude to the diametrical tactics. In the first half of this period, were created tanks with a small armor, but heavily armed. When the Soviet Union put in Europe a large number of T-64А, and his allies were T-72, appeared imbalance. Then the Germans began to create Leopard 2. His task was not offensive and counter-attack. Damian rights. When a echeloned defense - is a good effect. But modern defence "to break" the dominance of aviation and the presence of tactical missile complexes. You are right, too. Western tanks were intended mainly for defense. This is well illustrated by the Swedish tank STRV 103B.