Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[methos]

Sure? Are you sure?

According to an older Jane's article, the Type 90/MBT-2000/Al-Khalid are estimated to have 600 mm thick turret armour and 450 to 470 mm thick hull nose/glacis armour.

 

[Damian]

Well, it proves that Japanese Type 10 does not have special armor protecting turret sides, but there are some sort of storage boxes.

 

[Damian]

Ok, this is a terrorysts propaganda video, so watch it on your own responsibility.

However around 31:00 minute, there are filed attacks on Iraqy Army armored fighting vehicles, there is some footage of attacks on Iraqi Army, American made M1A1M Main Battle Tanks, with IED's, RPG's and even Molotov Cocktails...

Generally speaking, what we see in first minutes from 31:00 is a known immobilized convoy that stuck after leading vehicle (MRAP) was struck by IED, then two tanks trying to manouvere and get off the road between flooded fields stuck, Iraqi Soldiers panicked and abandoned all vehicles, terrorists then burned both M1A1's and some M113's. There was one more similiar incident where Iraqi crew drove their M1A1 in to a ditch, abandoned it and later it was burned by terrorists as well.

However at around 36:00 minutes, we have a footage from a battle, where two, maybe more M1A1's supported by small infantry detachement fight against terrorist forces, we can see that M1A1's are hit several times with RPG's and terrorists even try to use molotov cocktails against them with... no effect at all it seems, vehicles have only cosmetic damage and we can see that crews not only constantly turn turrets scanning for targets, but also respond with heavy firepower of their tanks. However IMHO, they also make mistakes, for example they sit in one position, they don't manouvere, and cooperation with infantry is, non existing.

It is interesting tough, that they actually don't received losses in this type of tank mainly from dedicated anti tank weapons. The Iraqy Army lost ~10+ M1A1's, one confirmed victim of huge IED, some to heavy ATGM's, and some to stupidity of their crews and infantry "cooperating" with them and abandoning completely functional vehicles.

However again, even if video is interesting for technical analisis, it's still a creation of IS scumbags, so keep it in mind.

 

[Meriv90]

Tank as a weapon system is a cheap weapon system, cheap and effective.

Tank ammunition is one of the cheapest you can find, and also very effective.

Tanks do not burn as much fuel as for example aircrafts or navy vessels, and do not cost such astronomicly high prices as them.

Tanks can actually take, hold and control territory, no aerial platform can do this, and to operate in AO aerial platforms needs to constantly burn a lot of fuel, tanks, meh, you place them somewhere, turn off engines and voila.

Overall tanks, or ground combat armored vehicles, are very, very cheap, and very, very effective (if used properly by well trained and motivated crews).


It is that anoying aerospace industry and "flyboys" propaganda that shows tanks as cost inefficent or combat ineffective, while reality is very different.

Only just in recent years a serious analisis about weapon systems cost effectiveness and battle effectiveness were made, and all of these analisis are very in favor for tanks or ground combat vehicles in general.

Aerial platforms on the other hand are... meh, their costs are just too high, and capabilities overhyped.

Navy vessels are a bit different thing, however their costs are also astronomically high.

Paradoxally then, ground forces are the cheapest and most cost effective, while also being most numerous.

Damian thanks, but I was refering to comparing costs between tanks, I know that for example a Leclerc or a K2 is way better than for example an Ariete, but price speaking one can buy two Ariete for the price of the leclerc or 3 for the k2.

So for example when you are analyzing Chinese/Pakistan tanks could you take in account the price?.

 

[Damian]

Damian thanks, but I was refering to comparing costs between tanks, I know that for example a Leclerc or a K2 is way better than for example an Ariete, but price speaking one can buy two Ariete for the price of the leclerc or 3 for the k2.

So for example when you are analyzing Chinese/Pakistan tanks could you take in account the price?.

But now think how many weaker tanks are worth better tanks?

What if 1 Leclerc is worth 4 Ariete?

What if 1 M1A2SEPv2 is worth 10 T-55's?

And still, look at one of my previous posts, NATO members and their allies actually have more tanks thank rest of threats and potential competition.

US Army have 2000+ M1A2SEPv2's vs PRC having no more than 1000 cheaper and less capable ZTZ-99.

 

[Meriv90]

But now think how many weaker tanks are worth better tanks?

What if 1 Leclerc is worth 4 Ariete?

What if 1 M1A2SEPv2 is worth 10 T-55's?

And still, look at one of my previous posts, NATO members and their allies actually have more tanks thank rest of threats and potential competition.

US Army have 2000+ M1A2SEPv2's vs PRC having no more than 1000 cheaper and less capable ZTZ-99.

I'm neither saying that numbers wins over quality, (and I have been following the topic so I already knew about your posts).

What I meant isnt quality vs numbers, just to know the price, nothing else ;-).

Because at the end this topic sounds like the classic topic in historic forum were people discuss on how Tigers stompt down everything without considering that at the end who won the war were the T-34/shermans.

And this bring results like indonesia buying the Leo that is totally useless for them and are confined to urban area where they literrally destroy the street mantle.

 

[CCP]

US Army have 2000+ M1A2SEPv2's vs PRC having no more than 1000 cheaper and less capable ZTZ-99.

PRC has 3000+ Type 96.

 

[militarysta]

PRC has 3000+ Type 96.

You wish.

it was about 2500 and half of them was rebuild to Type-96A
Type-99 is in circa 800 pieces and Type-99A2 circa 200

 

[CCP]

You wish.

it was about 2500 and half of them was rebuild to Type-96A
Type-99 is in circa 800 pieces and Type-99A2 circa 200

Check your date in the wiki

 

[militarysta]

According to an older Jane's article, the Type 90/MBT-2000/Al-Khalid are estimated to have 600 mm thick turret armour and 450 to 470 mm thick hull nose/glacis armour.

Acually, Methos, Im not sure at all,
while we have this erly prototype turre measured from museum:

and here we have at least (for 0.) 660mm LOS + backplate so at least 700mm(!)

then in case Type-96 whit modular armour whit screw on top modules I'm really confused:

first - look on both thickens, even including some error the turret is about twice as hull armour...
and:
look and wheel -it's pue T-54 copy. T-54 wheel is 810mm diameter...

and third problem:

IMHO it's 700mm form module (what is consist whit Dazzler value: "irst batch inducted had 680-720mm turret")
but we have backplate there - easy to estimatous thanks screws (circa 100mm thick)

IMHO chineese incarase armour thickens from 660mm (totally circa 700mm whit backplate) so in Type-85III, maybe erly Type-90?) to circa 700mm in Type--96 and propably in erly Type-99 and thic thickens whit backplate will be circe 800mm at least. From weight and geometry resons it fully possible.

IMHO most sources are doing the same mistake - they are counting only armour module thickes, without consider backplate....

 

[Damian]

I'm neither saying that numbers wins over quality, (and I have been following the topic so I already knew about your posts).

What I meant isnt quality vs numbers, just to know the price, nothing else ;-).

Because at the end this topic sounds like the classic topic in historic forum were people discuss on how Tigers stompt down everything without considering that at the end who won the war were the T-34/shermans.

And this bring results like indonesia buying the Leo that is totally useless for them and are confined to urban area where they literrally destroy the street mantle.

Weapon systems cost are not fixed and depend on many factors.

How many vehicles were ordered, how many at what time can be manufactured, if they are exported or for domestic use, and so on. So it's hard to say really.

PRC has 3000+ Type 96.

And USA have besides these 2000 M1A2SEPv2's, also 5400 other variants of M1A1 and maybe also some lefto overs from M1/M1IP variants which were not upgraded yet, all these tanks belong to ARNG (2000 M1A1SA + some M1A2SEPv2), USMC (400 M1A1FEP and M1A1HC) and rest is in reserve storage (around 3000). What is more important is that these tanks can still be upgraded to newer variants, and even more important, USA still have capability to manufature new tanks of this type in the newest avaiable version, if nececary.

And then there are battle capabilities of weapon systems, how much worth are ZTZ-96 against M1's? How much worth are ZTZ-99 against M1's?

Honestly, I would not bet my life on ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99 tanks.

Check your date in the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96

2500+ as for 2013.

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZTZ-96主战坦克

Here it looks the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZTZ-99式主战坦克

Militarysta estimations looks realistic.

 

[militarysta]

Guys I made a mistake - heavy one...


@Dazller - you have absolutly right!

550mm armour module + circa 150-170mm backplate = 700 maybe 720mm LOS max
sorry for very wrong previous measurment :/ my shamefull mistake acually

 

[Dazzler]

Guys I made a mistake - heavy one...


@Dazller - you have absolutly right!

550mm armour module + circa 150-170mm backplate = 700 maybe 720mm LOS max
sorry for very wrong previous measurment :/ my shamefull mistake acually

You should not be shameful at all mate as you are doing us all a favour with your measurements.

Something interesting i learned, there is some thickness difference in type-85 series composite cavities and that of the type-90II, type-98 cavities. Infact, when being tested, type 90II had the thickest cavity among all of these mbts. I remember since there was big dissatisfaction among army for going for the same or just marginal frontal protection.

Interestingly, the most worked out area in Alkhalid (pakistani mbt 2000 version) is armour and ammo. Here are some pics that you folks may have seen before, but notice marginal differences in armour thicknesses (frontal turret, side hull).

Al khalid-1 (2007-08) composite module highlighted in blue line.. also notice thickened hull side armour with old side skirts removed.

 

[Dazzler]

M1 Abrams firing stationary and on the move, it is a mix bag, despite having a good FCS, crew skill is always a deciding factor...

M1 Abrams Tank Gunnery HQ - YouTube

 

[militarysta]

Al khalid-1 (2007-08) composite module highlighted in blue line.. also notice thickened hull side armour with old side skirts removed.

Results:

of course there is some error, and backplate is not included - so there can be even 100-150mm armour AFTER those module.
So module only: 670mm LOS + backplate (100-150mm) = 770mm up to ~800mm

hull in progres but ist circa 800mm LOS so hull SHOULD be the same (at least this 770 whit backplate)


well - Al Chalid-1 seems tho have thick armour

 

[militarysta]

Hull:

there is visible welding line when special armour cavity is ending. Frontplate is hard to see on those photo BUT it shoud be as I marked.
More or less - circa 800mm for special armour + forntplate

Well Al Khalid-1 semms to be nice protcted tank:
Turret:
special armour module: 670mm LOS + backpplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS
Hull:
special armour module at least 670mm LOS + frontplate (100-150mm) = the same

 

[militarysta]

And another intersting think:

ZTZ-99 module:

and good quastion -what is diameter of road wheel or lenght of ERA casette?
Sure - huge error, but...


anyway - even including some error we can assume that special armour module in ZTZ-99 is not thicker then 650-670mm lookin at the wheel diamater (750mm?)
and the longest known to me chineese ERA casette lenght is 375mm so looking at that ZTZ -99 armour module is thic as circa 660mm so simmilar

Soo -including obvious backplate 100-150mm thick we have tottal LOS = 770/ ~800mm

 

[Dazzler]

Hull:

there is visible welding line when special armour cavity is ending. Frontplate is hard to see on those photo BUT it shoud be as I marked.
More or less - circa 800mm for special armour + forntplate

Well Al Khalid-1 semms to be nice protcted tank:
Turret:
special armour module: 670mm LOS + backpplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS
Hull:
special armour module at least 670mm LOS + frontplate (100-150mm) = the same

in the absence of raw data, measuring is perhaps the closest thing one can do. You are pretty close to what i saw few years ago. Surprisingly, i also thought the hull armor was on par with turret armor, or pretty close in thickness. When asked, i was told that this was the prime reason for the hull to be longer than traditional type-59 based modules. Even in t-72, t-80 and 90s, we see a visible slope in hull shape.

 

[Damian]

First time in history, US Army will train in Poland using M1A2 MBT's, M2A3 IFV's and M88A2 ARV's.

 

[Bhadra]

M1 Abrams firing stationary and on the move, it is a mix bag, despite having a good FCS, crew skill is always a deciding factor...

M1 Abrams Tank Gunnery HQ - YouTube

What a bad firing.....