Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[JBH22]

Excuse me if repost.

 

[laughingbuddha]

Whatever happened to the indian army requirement for a light tank? I though they might even go for the BMP-3 in leiu. Light tank was meant for JK and NE?

 

[Austin]

Pictures appeared of Kornet-E" used against Iraqi "Abrams" M1A1M

bmpd - "Корнеты-Э" против иракских "Абрамсов"

 

[Damian]

Pictures appeared of Kornet-E" used against Iraqi "Abrams" M1A1M

bmpd - "Корнеты-Э" против иракских "Абрамсов"

This is actually very interesting because photos of 9M133 missile hitting a tank is not decisive. We only see a fireball from missle explosion and not much after it.

Iraqi M1A1's use weaker armor than US ones. The question is, if their front armor is capable to protect against 9M133 or not?

We know that M1A1HA sustained a hit in it's turret front from AGM-114 Hellfire missile and survived, this was in 1991. However M1A1HA uses Heavy Armor Package, that gives better protection than what export M1's have.

There are two theories that can be applied to this incident.

1. Iraqi M1A1 survived a hit.
2. Iraqi M1A1 was perforated by 9M133 missile.

If the option 2 is true, then we can relatively well estimate protection of export M1A1's against HEAT warheads to be below 1000mm RHAe for their turret front. Which is surpsingly very similiar to M1IP and original M1A1 from 1984/1985 that was estimated to have HEAT protection for turret front as ~800-900mm RHAe vs CE.

This makes justified conclusion, that Export Armor Package, might be very similiar to original US "Burlington" armor variant for their tanks for period 1984/1985.

And further explains why during tests in Sweden, it was concluded that M1A2 with export armor, had 50% weaker front protection than Leopard 2S that did not had export armor package.

The second photos shows slightly burned M1A1. IMHO not a victim of missile, perhaps IED? The rear torsion bars are definetely damaged, perhaps by fire or by IED blast. Hard to say if vehicle will be scrapped or repaired.

 

[313230]

militarysta, do you have any estimate on LOS thickness of T series like the pictures you have done with western tanks?

 

[militarysta]

militarysta, do you have any estimate on LOS thickness of T series like the pictures you have done with western tanks?

Yes, I have.

T-90A and Oplot-M mady by myself:

turret front for 0. from it's longitiudal axis (the biggest value):
Oplot-M: 850-870mm LOS
T-90A: 915-920mm LOS

turret front for 0. from it's longitiudal axis:
Oplot-M: 780-800mm LOS

The main sight area and area around gun mantled mask in +/- 30cm from gun mantled mask edge:
Oplot-M: 585-600mm LOS
T-90A: up to 600mm LOS

turret for 30. from it's longitiudal axis:
Oplot-M: 600-620mm LOS
T-90A: 620mm LOS

gun mantled mask:
Oplot-M: 400-450mm LOS
T-90A: 420-450mm LOS



T-80B made by Wiedźmin from otvaga forum:




T-72B model 1989 hull and turret roof - made by myself:



T-72B vs Leo-2A4 mady by myself:

 

[313230]

Many thanks militarysta

 

[militarysta]

Many thanks militarysta

So the latest form otvaga and Wiedzmin work:

T-80B:

and Andriej Tarasenko work from btvt about

T-64B:

 

[laughingbuddha]

I would love to see our MBTs on deployment overseas.
If a neutral force is required later on the ukranian-Russian border our govt should volunteer to deploy a.mechanised/armoured regiment for peace keeping.

 

[cobra commando]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GjU0U7KOYTU

 

[313230]

I am trying to figure out current the most volume efficient armor vs shaped charge.

For example, Leopard 2a7 seems to provide protection against rpg (assume it is rpg 29 with 600+mm) by 250mm side skirt + 700mm space + 50mm RHA = 1000mm, volume efficiency is 0.6
The turret of this tank has about 500mm to 600mm LOS, so space efficiency is maybe from 1 to 1.2 (assume it protects against 600mm)

Any help is appreciated!

Regards

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Something Interesting Just Came up ..

===============

Are there any documentary on M1A1/2 simulator of similar kind used by US army / marines ..

 

[Damian]

Something Interesting Just Came up ..

===============

Are there any documentary on M1A1/2 simulator of similar kind used by US army / marines ..

@Kunal Biswas

US Army, ARNG and USMC uses primary AGTS gunnery training system. There are various variants of AGTS depending on which tank variant it was to simulate. Each AGTS set have a driver compartment and turret compartment, so the whole crew can train.

http://www.lockheed-martin.com/cont.../documents/CS00086-15 (AGTS Product Card).pdf

Here you have PDF.

Also US Army currently works on idea of embedded training in each tank, what it means? It means that tanks computers can be set to training mode, and simulate training scenario in a real tank. What it means? It means you don't need dedicated simulator, you can train in your own tank, you don't drive it, fire it, use fule in reality. Very clever idea, AFAIK they were working on it during FCS program for MGV platform.

So just imagine, that you deploy troops somewhere, they are on a ship, so they still can train scenarios in their own vehicles, or they are on deployment, no training tools are avaiable, so they train in their vehicles.

Also I know that some guys in Fort Hood use Steel Beasts Pro PE simulators for additional training.


Here is one of the simulators types used by US Army.

 

[Andrei_bt]

I am trying to figure out current the most volume efficient armor vs shaped charge.

For example, Leopard 2a7 seems to provide protection against rpg (assume it is rpg 29 with 600+mm) by 250mm side skirt + 700mm space + 50mm RHA = 1000mm, volume efficiency is 0.6
The turret of this tank has about 500mm to 600mm LOS, so space efficiency is maybe from 1 to 1.2 (assume it protects against 600mm)

Any help is appreciated!

Regards

Do you have any evidence, that Leopard 2a7 (sides) provide protection against rpg (29 600+) ??

 

[militarysta]

I am trying to figure out current the most volume efficient armor vs shaped charge.


Any help is appreciated!

Regards

This is very erly Buringhton from 1968r. And ist's perforamces on Chieftian hull sides:


And notice that for 90. degree HEAT diametr 84mm (SC) - so with perforation around 340-380mm RHA in those years - was stopped by: 203cm LOS thick erly Burlinghton module, and only ~50mm RHA (hull sides). In fact only Burlinghton module provide protction like (Carl Gustav warhed rforation - hull sides) ~290-330mm RHA.
For 30-35 degree the same module whit LOS thickens 400-450mm and hull sides thicknes 100-120mm RHA provide protection against SC (HEAT) warhed 152mm dimatere whit 600-680mm RHA perforation.
So 400-450mm LOS thick module act like ~500-560mm RHA. Of course the biggest advantage was the minimum weight of the solution.
And thsi all was in...1968.

TBC...

 

[militarysta]

next exmaple:

First I will make sevral general assumptions:

1. Leopard-2A4 turret have frontal volumen 25% bigger then T-72B.
2. BUrlinghton style armour in Leopard-2A4 have mass efficiency -at lest 1,5 x kg vs KE and at lest 3 z kg vs HEAT -according to the data from 1978, and posted in two greate articles about erly Burlinghton ( I've already quoted them before)
3. The same mass efficiency is taken for T-72B "NERA style" special armour -maybe it's revaluation but I'd rather prefer to overestimated soviet tank then understimated.
4. In T-72B 80% turret mass is taken for frontal protection (+/- 30.degree) - rest (20%) of nacked turret mass is taken for roof, rear sides and turret back. So from 8 680kg it give 6 950kg (inluding NERA special armour). Both NERA armour inserts weight 740kg, so rest of turret armour weight 6 210kg.
5. From known Leopard-2A4 "special armour mass" 8 900kg ~22% is taken for turret sides, so only frontal armour (+/-30 -without turret sides) we have 6 942kg

Now small compare:
T-72B 6 210kg of cast steel turret x0.9 as RHA converter = 6 210kg x0,9= 5 588kg. So whole cast steel T-72B turret armour act like 5 588kg RHA. Now "special armour" cavities (both NERA inserts).
Against APFSDS: 740kg x 1,5 = 1100kg, and against HEAT: 740kg x 3 = 2220kg. So those values are RHA equivalent, and we shoud add them to previous mass.
5 588kg + 1100kg RHA= ~6 688 kg stell armour vs APFSDS
5 588kg + 2200kg RHA= ~7 788kg stell armour vs HEAT

Leopard-2A4 turret weigh 16t, special armour weight 8 900kg, 22% of it ist taken for turret sides, so for +/-30. we have only 6 942kg of special armour. Now x 1,5 vs APFSDS and x 3 vs HEAT:
10 410kg RHA vs APFSDS
20 826kg RHA vs HEAT

Now compare for both tanks:

vs APFSDS
T-72B : 6 688 kg stell armour vs APFSDS
Leopard-2A4: 10 410kg RHA vs APFSDS

So leopard-2A4 armour have 35% more kg of steel armour for protection. Even if Leopard-2A4 turret is 25% bigger in frontal area then still Leopard-2A4 is at least 10% better.

vs HEAT:
T-72B ~7 788kg stell armour vs HEAT
Leopard-2A4: ~20 826kg RHA vs HEAT

So Leopard-2A4 have ~63% more kg of steel armour for protection. And even if Leopard-2A4 turret is 25% bigger in frontal area then still Leopard-2A4 is at least 38% better.

btw: in many estimatous T-72B have basic armourlike <540mm RHA vs KE and <630mm vs HEAT if for kg of armour data for Leopard-2A3/A4 are 10% better in first case, and 38% in second case, then Leopard-2A4 armour should be like ~590mm RHA vs APFSDS and...~870 vs HEAT at least if we take only those one factor described above. In fact diffrence in HEAT protection is even bigger -for many causes - for example -Burlinghton features.

 

[militarysta]

And here You have few translation from very very good polish article about erly Burlinghton declassifaited files:

Brytyjska osłona miała postać pancerza grodziowego,
w którym przestrzeń między ścianą przednią a tylną w pewnym stopniu wypełniały
przegrody z płyt przekładkowych, złożone z dwóch warstw stalowych i pomiędzy nimi
warstwy niemetalowej.

Translate:
British armour was build as some kind of "bulkhead armor" whit space filted by layers made (those layers) as sandwich - two thin steel layers and between them non metalic layer



And about later Burlinghton:

W konfi guracji z przełomu lat sześćdziesiątych i siedemdziesiątych, w konfrontacji
z amunicjÄ… kumulacyjnÄ… "žBurlington" byÅ‚ od 2 do 3 razy skuteczniejszy od jednorodnego
pancerza stalowego o tej samej masie – przy zbliżonej odpornoÅ›ci przeciwko pociskom
kinetycznym.

Translate:
In configuration from at the turn of 1960/1970, against SC warhed "Burlinghton" was 2-3times better then monolithic steel armour whit the same mass, and had (Burlinghton armour-milit.) similar resistance (as those monolithic steel armour ) against kinetic energy rounds.

Efektywność masowa nowych odmian osÅ‚ony wzrosÅ‚a do 1,3–1,5 przeciwko amunicji kinetycznej i do ponad 3 przeciwko gÅ‚owicom kumulacyjnym116 (...)
116 Ibidem, DEFE 68/69, Preliminary systems study of MBT 80 main armament, 1978, s. 3.

Translate:
The mass efficiency of the new armour variants (Burlinghton -milit) increased to 1.3-1.5 agains KE and do more then 3 against SC warhed (HEAT) This part is about Burlinghton from circa 1978r.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Translate part 1:
In the second half of the seventies began to pay more attention to the protection against kinetic munitions. "Biscuits" (Burlinhton-milit.) developed for Chieftain mk 5/2 was able to stop 105 mm APDS shot virtually "with relief" (0m distance) or 120 mm APDS from a distance
1200-1300m. In 1975 in the United States, "Americanized" armor was successfully tested against 152 mm XM578 APFSDS munition and HEAT projectiles (unspecified caliber) which represented the expected level of the warhed in 1980s'. The bigger challenge was more modern sub-caliber (APFSDS) ammunition. During one of the tripartite weapon test (UK, FRG, USA about main gun -milit) one APFSDS fired from a German smoothbore 120mm gun overpass on of he "Cobhan" armour variant whit velocity simulating the hit from 6000m distance. Developed heavier version of the armour was however, pierced only from 200m distance.


Translate part 2:

Later, the designers were able to increase the resistance of the modules. At the beginning of 1970, reported: "All technical problems attaching armor so that it have the ability to repel (windstand) many attacks have been overcome. For example, the first module of the front of the hull withstood (survive?): 9 SC warhed attack, including 5 SC whit 152mm caliber (diameter) and 4 whit 127 mm caliber (diameter). Second (Buringhton module -milit) stopped 120mm HESH round, which was followed by many 127mm diameter SC warhed hits. The other (Burlinghton armour module -milit) survive 3 APDS cal.105mm and after that hits (more then two? milit) by 127mm diameter SC." In July 1970 the "biscuit" No. 4 (Burlinghton version -milit) mounted whit some kind of amortisation on 50mm thick RHA plate (front hull) survive multiple hits by: 105mm round from "0m distance", 152mm diameter "žShillelagh" warhed, two SC 152mm dimater test warhed and finnaly 120mm APDS whit velocity like on 1300m distance hit. Ability to protect against multiple attacks has become an important asset, of the "Burlington" armour.

 

[militarysta]

Do you have any evidence, that Leopard 2a7 (sides) provide protection against rpg (29 600+) ??

In any COIN Leo-2 modes we have protection mucht better then T-72/90 screens whit ERA:

"pasive protection exapmle":

those israeli module on Rosomak is circa 80mm thick -whit such LOS it have circa 300mm LOS and it's stoped SC warhed whit circa 350-360mm RHA penetration. It light armour for APCs. It's thicknes effectivnes is circa 1,2 so rather low, but mass is really small.

Module on Leo-2A4+ CAN is 35cm thick (350mm LOS) at least. For 90. its 350mm LOS or 60. its 400mm LOS, for 30. degree it's give 700mm LOS and for 20. more then 1000mm LOS. Even is it have only 1.2 thickens efectivens (it can be better of course) -like for this israeli armour on Rosomak -APC then it shoud stopped:
90. 420mm + 60mm RHA hull side= 480mm RHA vs SC
60. 480mm + 70mm RHA hull side = 550mm RHA vs SC
30. 840mm + 120mm RHA hull side = 960mm RHA vs SC
20. 1200mm + 175mm RHA hull side = 1375mm vs SC
And this is for thickenss efectivens like for those Israeli module. And it can be better.

 

[313230]

Do you have any evidence, that Leopard 2a7 (sides) provide protection against rpg (29 600+) ??

I don't have any evidence, it is just a guess since most urban configs of Leo: Leo 2 PSO, Leo 2A4M, Leo 2A7+ use the same side armor thickness and the company develop it consider rpg 29 is a widespread threat at 0 degree attack angle.

 

[313230]

This is very erly Buringhton from 1968r. And ist's perforamces on Chieftian hull sides:


And notice that for 90. degree HEAT diametr 84mm (SC) - so with perforation around 340-380mm RHA in those years - was stopped by: 203cm LOS thick erly Burlinghton module, and only ~50mm RHA (hull sides). In fact only Burlinghton module provide protction like (Carl Gustav warhed rforation - hull sides) ~290-330mm RHA.
For 30-35 degree the same module whit LOS thickens 400-450mm and hull sides thicknes 100-120mm RHA provide protection against SC (HEAT) warhed 152mm dimatere whit 600-680mm RHA perforation.
So 400-450mm LOS thick module act like ~500-560mm RHA. Of course the biggest advantage was the minimum weight of the solution.
And thsi all was in...1968.

TBC...

Thanks for your info

The problem with this, as I don't consider them space efficient, is because it uses a lot of space between outer armor and inner hull, often in the range of 700mm. This space is important for semi active armor like NERA because it allows the jet to have time to be destabilized after interact with NERA. If the outer Burlington layer is placed immediately in front of the RHA, the result will be much different, IMO.

The total thickness efficiency should be measured from outermost to the innermost layer, include everything between them, even air. Your calculation doesn't include this air layer thickness.

Is there any case of semi active layer in front of RHA without space between them, and is still highly effective?

The West uses semi active armor is very important as multi hit requirement of ERA is poor. In battle, tank will be hit many time from many guns at once.