Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Akim]

With our taxes half a liter of vodka costs 15$

[OFF] Wow! We have for this money you can buy 2.5 liters of cognac.[/OFF]

 

[erkjetter]

Thx for the answers.

That S-tank armor test video isnt really that relevant anymore. Shot used seems to be a M392A1/L36A1 and its not up to par with modern L/D >30 long rods.

The whole debate started after someone said that a tank (in this case a russian one, lets assume a T90) would remain operational and keep fighting even if it would recieve multipe partial-penetrating hits from a western (in this case shot from Leo2A4/A6) APFSDS rounds. I argued that should it happen that none of the rounds would penetrate to the crew compartment, atleast something would be broken or someone hurt. I just dont see it likely that a tank would just absorb multiple APFSDS hits and not be affected.

And I managed to find a friendly fire incindent from the first gulf war where a M1 Abrams shot anotherone. APFSDS hit the front slope, no penetration to the crew compartment but the drivers eyes were injured from the prism shattering and he was evacuated. And a fire started.
(Forum software does not allow me to post links for some reason)

I'll try to register and read the polish forum with google translate. And alcohol is always a valid reason for anything, here in Finland we know it too!

 

[militarysta]

Back to Life!

Give me some time, I will try to answer in proper way

@ erkjetter
About Behind Armour Effect:
http://forum.militarium.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6437&start=15
from this post:

przez militarysta » 22 gru 2013, o 14:33

to this:

przez militarysta » 16 sty 2014, o 18:35

the meritum You have here:

To zależy gdzie będzie mieć miejsce trafienie. Jeżeli po stronie ładowniczego to raczej przyrządy nie powinny zostać zniszczone, jeżeli zaraz obok "doghouse" to raczej można się pożegnać z celownikiem. Co do samej elektroniki to ta z czołgów tym się różni od cywilnej że musi wytrzymywać takie rzeczy. Jeszcze do lat 1990 wielu autorów wierzyło, że każde trafienie będzie mieć bardzo negatywne skutki dla załogi (słynne opisy jak to będą wypadać oczka, uszka i płucka) ale były to opisy tworzone na podstawie nie najlepszych doświadczeń z eksploatacji wozów z monolitycznymi pancerzami stalowymi: M48, M60, Chieftian, T-55, T-54, oraz wozami z II wś gdzie istotnie każde (nie rykoszetujące) trafienie było niebezpieczne dla załogi - w opisach powtarza się ogłuszający huk, odpadające wewnątrz pojazdu elementy wyposażenia (i rażące załogę), krwawiące czasem bębenki i przygłuche załogi, w ekstremalnych przypadkach iskry (?!) w przedziale załogi.
Tyle, że ten opis w ogóle nie opowiada temu co się dzieje po trafieniu wozów z niemonolityczny opancerzeniem (T-64, T-72M1,T-72B, T-80B, etc) a już w ogóle nie odpowiada temu co się dzieje w przypadku trafienia wozów z pancerzem typu Burlington lub jego pochodną .
Ponieważ wygląda na to, że nic poważnego się nie dzieje w razie niepenetrujacego trafienia.

tbc

 

[Cifu]

Frankly saying, to give someone a link for a Polish language forum, where we cannot see anything without registration, it's a bit mean.
Do not misunderstand me, I learn a lot from your post in the past years, and become a great fan of you, but this is harsh to me... Please at least turn on the interface language changing in phpBB options

 

[militarysta]

The whole debate started after someone said that a tank (in this case a russian one, lets assume a T90) would remain operational and keep fighting even if it would recieve multipe partial-penetrating hits from a western (in this case shot from Leo2A4/A6) APFSDS rounds. I argued that should it happen that none of the rounds would penetrate to the crew compartment, atleast something would be broken or someone hurt. I just dont see it likely that a tank would just absorb multiple APFSDS hits and not be affected.

In case influence of the non-penetrating hits on tank it's multiple problem. In case tanks whit solid steel (monolith) armour - cast steel or RHA plates - the problem was transfering MJ energy from outern (hit) surface to inter (border of crew comparment) layers. Even if there was non-penetrating hit the where a hight risk of debrits or even shrapnels detached from armour and hit crew. What more -on this problem based HESH ammo - pretty effective against cast steel T-55 and T-62.

In case modern multilayerd armour, or rather spaced armour HESH are not working - energy will not by transfered to inter layers. There is no single "continous" layer whit can transfered energy. So debrits will not exist without penetration.

In subject of the tank abilities to battle after hit - there is no simple answer. in case SC hit - there are known tanks (T-72B whit Kontakt-1, CR2, or M1A1HA, Merkava Mk.2D, 3D) whitch winstand dozens hits by RPG's, ATGM's and...where able still to fight.
In case APFSDS we have small number "life fire tests" but it's seems that there is no negative influance on crew in case non-penetrating hit.

 

[militarysta]

Frankly saying, to give someone a link for a Polish language forum, where we cannot see anything without registration, it's a bit mean.
Do not misunderstand me, I learn a lot from your post in the past years, and become a great fan of you, but this is harsh to me... Please at least turn on the interface language changing in phpBB options

In Poland we have small problem whit militarium forum, now it's only fo register users, soon it shoud be open for wide public. Please be patient ;-)

 

[militarysta]

Two articles written by myself about ukrainian ERA Knife:

part I:
Ukraiński pancerz reaktywny Nóż. Część I. Klasyczne pancerze reaktywne ERA oraz metody ich pokonywania jako punkt odniesienia do analizy Noża - DziennikZbrojny.pl

part II:
UkraiÅ„ski pancerz reaktywny Nóż. Część II – Nóż i Duplet - DziennikZbrojny.pl

Part III
(work in progress - about Oplot-M, Bulat BM, T-64B1 and T-64B1M, and Knife ER use in this conflict)

Sorry - they are in polish, so google translator is needed.

More of my articles:
Wojska lądowe - Wyposażenie - DziennikZbrojny.pl
(about:
polish ERA - ERAWA
EFP
AMAP-ADS
and
Trophy ASPRO-A)

unfortunatly all in polish, but propably tehy are the best avaible NOW in the whole internet yes I know - Im so modest

 

[Cifu]

In Poland we have small problem whit militarium forum, now it's only fo register users, soon it shoud be open for wide public. Please be patient ;-)

I will!
Just a question: at the Militarium, do you plan to have forgein language (at least english) forum, or remain polish only?

unfortunatly all in polish, but propably tehy are the best avaible NOW in the whole internet yes I know - Im so modest

Actually yes, but that's why we thanks your work!

EDIT:
After reading your article about the Knife/Duplet system a question began to emerge inside me: as normal each step in "sword" development (this time: anti-armor rounds and missiles) is almost simultaneous to the "shield" (here: armor) systems. If the Knife / Duplet offer an above-average defense capability against the APFSDS rounds, then what is the next possible step for the "sword"? There is no force to step up in the caliber (let's say for 140mm, or even 152/155mm)? I believe the current armor systems are designed against the 120/125mm caliber threats, and level of penetration (and energy level around 11-13Mj), so if a 140mm canon hit the field (with muzzle energy level of 17-20Mj), that probably ruin the current type of armor desing, is not? Why no one take this step? Even the Armata reports saying it's retain the "old" 125mm caliber, while there is report about an ex-soviet / russian 152mm program...

 

[militarysta]

I will!
Just a question: at the Militarium, do you plan to have forgein language (at least english) forum, or remain polish only?

• Zobacz dziaÅ‚ - Militarium in English -part in english, rather for ask and answers

After reading your article about the Knife/Duplet system a question began to emerge inside me: as normal each step in "sword" development (this time: anti-armor rounds and missiles) is almost simultaneous to the "shield" (here: armor) systems. If the Knife / Duplet offer an above-average defense capability against the APFSDS rounds, then what is the next possible step for the "sword"? There is no force to step up in the caliber (let's say for 140mm, or even 152/155mm)? I believe the current armor systems are designed against the 120/125mm caliber threats, and level of penetration (and energy level around 11-13Mj), so if a 140mm canon hit the field (with muzzle energy level of 17-20Mj), that probably ruin the current type of armor desing, is not? Why no one take this step? Even the Armata reports saying it's retain the "old" 125mm caliber, while there is report about an ex-soviet / russian 152mm program...

It's typical sword-shield next step More or less it's seems that tank armour since 1980s ussaly have small advantage over "sword".
In case energy level those 11-13MJ is for penetrator and sabot together - for penetrator only is mucht less. Even for EMC gun MJ is up to 18MJ put power supply is teh key problem.
And armour is still better and better, so propably even EMC guns and new longer and better penetrator will not end this race.

 

[Cifu]

(I needed to remove the link, because the forum cannot allow me to include in my posts... - Cifu) Zobacz dział - Militarium in English[/url] -part in english, rather for ask and answers

Well, for me even the registration cause some problem, and because the whole user interface is polish only, it's really a pain in the ass to use the forum correctly.
So yes, your answer is correct, because i asked about forgein language sub-forums, but in truth I'm interested about the user interface language...

It's typical sword-shield next step More or less it's seems that tank armour since 1980s ussaly have small advantage over "sword".
In case energy level those 11-13MJ is for penetrator and sabot together - for penetrator only is mucht less. Even for EMC gun MJ is up to 18MJ put power supply is teh key problem.
And armour is still better and better, so propably even EMC guns and new longer and better penetrator will not end this race.

Your answer basically point out that not an larger caliber conservative design, but the EMC is the next logical step? While even the US planned to use the "old way" in the XM360/XM360E1.

 

[militarysta]

I'm interested about the user interface language...

Unfortunatly it will be polish only...

Your answer basically point out that not an larger caliber conservative design, but the EMC is the next logical step? While even the US planned to use the "old way" in the XM360/XM360E1.

Rather any posible solution which allowed to achive bigger MJ energy transfered to target. So in theory as big as it's possible MJ energy transfered for as small as it's possible area cm2 on target. To complicated more - penetrator must overpass some ERA, NERA, SLERA armour and penetrate multilayered ative layers in Burlington armour style. So it's very hard task.

How we can aviche bigger MJ for penetrator only? Mostly by using ultralight composite sabot (like im M829A2 or A3) as long as it's possible penetrator (like M829A3...) and special propelant charge -which allowed to give "extra" energy in barrel -not only in chamber (like in DM53/DM63). And of course better barrel whit bigger MPa values... So they are some solutions good enought for "conventional" guns.

 

[cobra commando]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRxHmVbU90

dat suspension, dayum !

 

[Broccoli]

Yet unnamed light tank driving around in Tibet.

Chinese tank designer with a interesting model in background. T-72 with a turret more similar to the T-55 than Soviet T-72.

 

[jouni]

Russian Invasion Of Ukraine Spurs New German Tank Design | Popular Science

 

[LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Is this the real "Armata" deal ?

Article: Об «Армате» вопреки секретности | Еженедельник «Военно-промышленный курьер»

 

[militarysta]

@UP

Nope.
Chassis of the Armata will be look like this:

turret will be simmilar to this:

BUT It will be fully unmaned, without turret bustle - obly whit small bustle for autoloader part. Turret armour will give Armata shape like in Ob.640 turret.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Is this the real "Armata" deal ?

Article: Об «Армате» вопреки секретности | Еженедельник «Военно-промышленный курьер»

These are pics from an article of former KMDB designer? it s not real Armata

 

[Andrei_bt]

In other news.......

According to Robert Griffin's Book Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank Vol. II:

"The ROMOR reactive armor upgrade added to the challenger's lower front plate consisted of a carrier fixed to the toe plate of the tank, into which ERA blocks were fitted. This was the only part of the frontal armour not fitted with Chobham armour, with rolled homogenous steel armour only 70 mm thick, for the Challenger's armour layout had been optimized to fight hull-down"

well, also turret with armor consisting of 125...140 mm of armor at 60 degrees does not provide adequate protection.

 

[Sovngard]

well, also turret with armor consisting of 125...140 mm of armor at 60 degrees does not provide adequate protection.

This concerns the FV4201 Chieftain, not the FV4030/4 Challenger 1.

 

[JBH22]

Basically I'm worried just looking at the reviews of the T-72A which is considered to be upgraded version of T-72M1 that India operates in large quantities.