Modern armor internal arrays & what defeated them or might

[Damian90]

Wow, thanks, interesting materials! Especially that pod for missiles is great idea, but probably it was also heavy eh? Really interesting design.

[flamingknives]

Looks like the same idea as Brimstone.

[John Kettler]

Damian90,

You're welcome! ISTR the Wasp pod could be carried on any hardpoint which would take a 2000 lb. bomb. And did you see the additional material I found for you on the KVT?

flamingknives,

Brimstone came well after the Wasp contract was issued, but the seeker seems to be very like what Wasp had, right down to operating frequency and targeting logic.

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

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/

Here's a great Brimstone cutaway drawing as part of a wonderful discussion of what we used to call waffle fins.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml

Regards,

John Kettler

[Damian90]

Interesting pics of tested FV4030 Challenger 1 with L30A1/L55 120mm rifled gun mounted instead L11A5/L55 120mm rifled gun from TankNet:

And lin to the topic: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=30966&pid=753087&st=0entry753087

[LuckyStrike]

Fascinating thread, thanks to all!

[Damian90]

Ok, something is moving around US GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) program, first new vehicle that is designed under this program will be new IFV + probably vehicles based around it's hull... the whole idea's looks very interesting and are realistic in comparission to FCS (Future Combat Systems) MGV's (Manned Ground Vehicles). Especially modular armor idea for GCV IFV is very interesting and mentioned levels of protection are not everything that they wan't to do, especially if hull and suspension can take additional weights this thing can be turned in to a very well armored beast with APS.

I wrote up an interview I did last week with Col. Bryan McVeigh, program manager for the Army’s new Ground Combat Vehicle program on companion site DOD Buzz and wanted to post it here for DT readers.

I asked McVeigh why the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) request for proposal was held up by the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer Ashton Carter. Carter and his senior staff wanted to make sure that the Army was truly opening up competition for the GCV and that was made clear in the RFP, said McVeigh.

The GCV acquisition program “is focused on competition,” with up to three contractors selected for the technology development phase. The Army hasn’t kept two builders going head-​​to-​​head through early development since the Abrams main battle tank program, McVeigh said.

The Army wants companies other than armored vehicle builders BAE and General Dynamics to pitch proposals. “We want to be able to look at other American companies to allow them to break into this niche market. This isn’t just MGV warmed over. I just don’t want one or two companies that were deep in MGV have a competitive advantage in this,” he said.

OSD did not make any major changes to the Army’s plans, McVeigh said. Industry proposals are due in late April, then the source selection process begins, culminating in September with a “Milestone A” decision from Carter’s office, allowing the Army to award the actual production contract.

The Army is trying to build on six years of development work on the FCS Manned Ground Vehicle, and months ago it gave industry that development “body of knowledge,” which laid out the preliminary design, to incorporate into their proposals for the GCV.

Where the Army’s plans for GCV differ most significantly from the ill-​​starred FCS program is they don’t want “revolutionary” technologies this time around. FCS was all about pushing the technological envelope in everything from high-​​tech armors to automotive components to sensors, which resulted in a lot of time and money spent with very little to show for it. Its all about program “risk” avoidance this time around, all GCV technologies must be at technology readiness level 6, which means they’ve proven to work in a simulated operational environment.

“Our goal is to make sure we get something out to the soldiers within seven years… if we wait for the perfect solution we’re never going to get it into the hands of soldiers,” McVeigh said. We need their feedback to continue and improve the design.

The biggest changes over the original FCS vehicle design is in the armor package and other “survivability” fixes. The GCV will be significantly heavier than the FCS MGV, which started out at 20 tons and ultimately grew to around 34 tons before it was cancelled. McVeigh wouldn’t specify the vehicle’s weight exactly, because he wants to give industry bit of latitude. This is the first vehicle, at least since the Abrams tank, that from the beginning is built to be readily upgradeable, McVeigh said, which means the ability to add more armor.

It will come with a base level, “Level 0,” armor protection for irregular fights of the kind found in Iraq where the big threat is IEDs, explosively formed penetrators and mostly small-​​arms up to heavy machine guns. While the MRAP is a great vehicle for specific battlefields, he said, it doesn’t have needed cross-​​country mobility. “Based off the lessons we’ve learned in theater, survivability doesn’t just come from armor, it doesn’t just come from active-​​protection systems, it comes from not allowing the enemy to channel you into one area.”

The GCV must have mobility equivalent to an Abrams tank. Although McVeigh refused to say so, cross-​​country mobility, especially on any kind of soft ground or snow, only comes from tracks. In urban areas, tracked vehicles have the advantage of being able to pivot steer, which is a huge advantage over wheeled vehicles.

The “Level 1” armor package, will add appliqué armor that also protects up to auto-​​cannon, along the lines of the current Bradley. An active-​​protection (APS) system will be included on the vehicle to provide 360 degree protection against RPGs, which is the threshold requirement; the objective requirements, are an APS that can defeat heavier anti-​​tank guided missiles and sabot rounds. But McVeigh says builders must demonstrate how they’ll improve on the existing APS architecture the ability to defeat those heavier threats down the road as technology improves. “I don’t want two different computers running it. I don’t want two different radar systems running it.”

The Army is developing an improved version of Raytheon’s Quick Kill APS system. The Army is continuing to develop its APS, contractors can bid any system they want, McVeigh said, as long as they meet the GCV holistic requirements.

The FCS vehicles were designed to fit inside a C-​​130. That is not the case with the GCV. Transportability requirements are that it must be C-​​17 and C-​​5 transportable. “It allows us the weight flexibility,” he said. Trying to keep the FCS vehicles inside that C-​​130 box forced designers to dump too much armor protection and other important components.

The GCV must carry a 12 man team, a 9 man rifle squad and a three man crew. Cooling the interior of the GCV will be a big challenge, because the vehicle will carry many more computers and video panels than any other vehicles. Built into the design will be a 30 percent margin for growth in cooling and at least a 20 percent growth in propulsion.

I asked McVeigh how the GCV would match up against the current Bradley, which it is intended to replace:

“It will have significantly better mine and IED protection, it will have greater lethality, it will have a bigger cannon. It will allow us to carry more men… a complete squad. It will have about the same mobility of the Bradley but the ability to carry significantly enhanced communications and electronics so I don’t have to divert power from the propulsion system for cooling. It will have significantly improved reliability than the Bradley. It will have integrated non-​​lethal capabilities, which none of our vehicles have today.”

And next.

Army Releases Ground Combat Vehicle RFP; Proposals Due April 26

800 words

1 March 2010

Inside the Army

IARMY

Vol. 22, No. 8

English

Copyright © 2010, Inside Washington Publishers. All rights reserved. Also available in print and online as part of InsideDefense.com.

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL -- The Army last week released a request for proposals for the Ground Combat Vehicle, the replacement for the terminated Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles.

According to senior leaders and program officials, the development of the vehicle -- which will use a competitive acquisition process -- will mark a significant change from past practice.

Speaking by teleconference at the Association of the U.S. Army's winter symposium Feb. 25, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli told the audience the new GCV will be versatile enough to change over time. For instance, it will be able to accept different force protection packages and active protection measures. Additionally, it will be able to incorporate ceramics-based or lighter armor as it becomes available.

"What we're looking for here is something that takes into account the lessons learned after eight years of war," Chiarelli said. "It is not just FCS warmed over."

He said GCV is the first Army system that has ever had mobility as a key performance parameter. "I think that's absolutely essential," Chiarelli told the audience.

The RFP calls for the development of "the next-generation Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) for the United States Army, making the program a key effort in Army modernization.

"The GCV IFV will have greater survivability, infantry-carrying ability and lethality than current force vehicles," the RFP continues.

Addressing the weight of the vehicle, Marlin Carlsen, deputy project manager for GCV, told Inside the Army in a Feb. 25 interview here that it is changeable depending on the level of armor protection. The vehicle's modularity, he added, means the weight spans a large range, likely from 40 to 45 tons up to about 70 tons.

Even as industry prepares to submit proposals -- due by 1 p.m. April 26 -- Chiarelli said the Army is conducting an analysis of alternatives, which began in early February and will run through July. The RFP lays out a 27-month technology development phase, and Chiarelli stressed the Army's desire to award three technology development contracts.

"We're hoping that we will have three contractors, but if we don't have three good proposals and only two, we'll go with two," the vice chief said, adding that there seems to be enough interest that the Army expects three.

The service is set to award TD contracts in September, and Carlsen said the contracts will be cost-plus-fixed-fee. "As a developmental effort -- while we believe the requirements we have are fairly stable -- there's the chance that there's some adjustment and change over time as we go through the process," Carlsen said. "There's just a degree of instability or uncertainty that's appropriate for a cost-plus" contract.

According to a schedule provided by Carlsen, a preliminary design review is set for roughly mid-fiscal year 2012 -- 18 months after contract award.

In the next phase -- engineering and manufacturing development -- the RFP says the government plans to limit competition to contractors involved in the TD phase, but notes that this strategy "would require approval for other than full and open competition."

If the strategy is not approved, the Army will hold a full and open competition. Carlsen's schedule indicates milestone B and EMD contract award are set for early FY-13. He said the desire to limit the EMD contract award to the three contractors involved in the TD phase reflects the "reality."

"The potential for anybody else to have spent their own time and money over that time to come up with something at a similar level of fidelity is low," Carlsen said, noting that he doesn't believe the results would change if the Army were to make it an open competition.

The first GCV prototype is slated for early FY-15, and a critical design review would follow.

According to the RFP, the Army "may award one (1) or more contracts" in the production phase. The milestone C decision and low-rate initial production award are scheduled for FY-16. "It is anticipated that meeting delivery schedules and vehicle unit costs will be principal determining factors in [production and development] contract award," the document reads.

The RFP says the government "is seeking delivery of the first production vehicle seven years from the date of award of the TD phase contract.

"In meeting the defined requirements of the production contract, this first production vehicle will be a balanced design that is based upon risk reduction and requirements refinement accomplished during the TD and [engineering and manufacturing development] phases," it continues.

"We think this will be an amazing vehicle and will really launch the United States Army into this century," Chiarelli said last week. -- Marjorie Censer

I hope that after they end working on M1A3 or they will be at the near end of the work, under GCV developers starts to work on a new MBT for US.Army and U.S.M.C.

[Damian90]

Ok, with a friend we are started to make are own estimation for some modern Main Battle Tanks. These can be used in future patch'es. First will be a Leopard 2 series, estimates are good for versions in game. Second will be M1A1/A2 series and Challenger 2.

All estimation will be based on any data we can collect, also from great books like the New Vanguard series for Leopard 2, M1 and also Richard Hunnicut "Abrams : The history of American Main Battle Tank", Russian sources are also used.

We hope that estimation are close to true and my friend that is better matematic than me, is making everything to make estimations as close to reality as possible.

When more estimates will be made I post them here.

[Alex]

2 Damian90

Why you think that "beak" on Leo2A6 can give 5-10% protection against APFSDS?

And also:

[Damian90]

2 Damian90

Why you think that "beak" on Leo2A6 can give 5-10% protection against APFSDS?

Not me, my friend. Well, wedge is mainly anti HEAT screen, but it also gives boost in KE protection, this is very complex but t give some hint, it make penetrator to broke or something like that.

And also:

These estimation looks improper, my friend took all avaialbale photos, messure them and made estimations.

Estimations you posted are made by Harkonnen vel Andrei, well, we have an opinion that he is good expert on ex soviet countries tanks, but his "patriotism" tends to underestimate other, especially western/NATO tanks and over estimate ex-soviet tanks to the level of absurd.

Besides this, we not only take in to consideration thickness (and materials) of inserts but also outer and inner bulkheads of special armor cavieties. The outer bulkhead of western tanks seems to be thin, but inner bulkead seems to be thick. Of course Leo2 also have some ballistic gaps in frontal aspect of turret, but we did not include them in estimations of armor protection, what I can say, in gunners primary sight area, if sight housing is hit by degrees to the center like of the turret, it could be probably perforated by 30mm APDS round. Also vision block for gunner in armor abouve his head seems to weak armor there.

Turret of Leo2 was in fact designed with so many gaps because Germans wanted to start in US program for the XM1 and they were in a hurry, but after reading some books and seen some diagrams, I don't wonder why US decided to go with Chrysler Defence (later General Dynamics Land Systems) XM1 and stated that his ballistic protection was superior. The armor itself was probably comparabale, but XM1 doesen't have such ballistic gaps and crew survivability was greater. Also XM1 was from the begining designed to be powered by Diesel from General Motors XM1 program if the AGT-1500 gas turbine whas not adopted by the US.Army. So overall Chrysler Defence XM1 was superior to GM XM1 and Leopard 2AV.

PS. our estimations are also based on the worst possible level of protection made by Russians for the Leo2.

BTW soon there will be estimation for Russian/Ukrainian tanks, later for M1 and Challenger 2.

[Damian90]

Ok, here is still early estimations (later my friend will do better I suppose, he doesen't have much time) for some Russian tanks.

Surely T-72M1 and T-90A estimations will be usefull for Battlefront for CMSF T-72M1's (without ERA) and T-90SA.

Don't take this as a final version and true, but we hope this is as close to reality as possible.

[Alex]

Not me, my friend. Well, wedge is mainly anti HEAT screen, but it also gives boost in KE protection, this is very complex but t give some hint, it make penetrator to broke or something like that.

The 'Kontakt-5' ERA gives 20% against APFSDS (as you wrote) and 'beak' this 10-15mm of some sort of steel gives 5-10%? Don't you think that some thing wrong in this? If all was so simple, I think all tanks had this 'beak'. I clear understand how 'beak' work against HEAT it's divided armor, but against APFSDS...

Also I want to say, that ERA 'Kontakt-5" gives not 20% protection against APFSDS, it gives some about 50-60% but it depends from penetrator are long, if it short (like old models) than ERA can destroy it at 40-90%, but newest models, like M829A3 or DM53 have longest penetrator and 'Kontakt-5' work against it only at 20%.

Andrey_BT is a "Ukrainian" patriot he love only "Oplot"

And Damian I don't sure understand why "weak zone" at russian tanks extends on a cone at the end?

Also need to say, that western tanks have long turret back and it's very weak, but russian tank's have short 'ass'.

I think you see it before, but I think it's close to reality

[Damian90]

The 'Kontakt-5' ERA gives 20% against APFSDS (as you wrote) and 'beak' this 10-15mm of some sort of steel gives 5-10%? Don't you think that some thing wrong in this? If all was so simple, I think all tanks had this 'beak'. I clear understand how 'beak' work against HEAT it's divided armor, but against APFSDS...

The wedge on Leo2A5/A6 is 33mm thick, and it is a composite of two HHS plates with rubber between them, I don't see why such armor with additional plates inside, (yes there are two additional plates inside) won't give 5-10%? And K-5 gives 20% against modern APFSDS ammo, dunno what is in case of older ammo.

Andrey_BT is a "Ukrainian" patriot he love only "Oplot"

So he is ignorant, and I hate ignorancy.

And Damian I don't sure understand why "weak zone" at russian tanks extends on a cone at the end?

Also need to say, that western tanks have long turret back and it's very weak, but russian tank's have short 'ass'.

I think you see it before, but I think it's close to reality

Only Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 got weaker side armor over turret bustle, M1 and Leclerc got there thick composite armor. Side armor over crew compartment in all western tanks is 300mm with minimal thickness, and with safe manouver angles of 30-35 degrees it gives such protection as my friend estimated.

I am not Rusofob but Russian and Ukrainian sources tend to overestimate ex soviet designs and underestimate western ones to the level of absurd, completely ignoring that in many western tanks there are several subversions with upgraded protection or other upgrades.

Here is updated version for Rusian tanks protection.

And range of night sights.

In future we will add HEAT protection + M1 and CR2 estimates.

And Damian I don't sure understand why "weak zone" at russian tanks extends on a cone at the end?

Its not extending, in russian tanks protection is not same on turret front in different places, it's just show what is protection in weak zone and what is protection in not weak zone. Ah... my english is to bad and I don't know if I can wrote what we wanted to show. :-)

[Alex]

Ah... my english is to bad and I don't know if I can wrote what we wanted to show. :-)

It's my problem too ;-) Ты по русски не говоришь случайно? :-)

The wedge on Leo2A5/A6 is 33mm thick, and it is a composite of two HHS plates with rubber between them, I don't see why such armor with additional plates inside, (yes there are two additional plates inside) won't give 5-10%? And K-5 gives 20% against modern APFSDS ammo, dunno what is in case of older ammo.

So if you clear know it (about 33mm and construction), I agree, it maybe can give 5-10% protection against KE. But this "beak" don't look so seriously.

Only Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 got weaker side armor over turret bustle, M1 and Leclerc got there thick composite armor. Side armor over crew compartment in all western tanks is 300mm with minimal thickness, and with safe manouver angles of 30-35 degrees it gives such protection as my friend estimated.

Yes, but armor at turret sides, also not so heavy and it's a weak zone too.

http://btvt.narod.ru/1/tank3.htm

I am not Rusofob but Russian and Ukrainian sources tend to overestimate ex soviet designs and underestimate western ones to the level of absurd, completely ignoring that in many western tanks there are several subversions with upgraded protection or other upgrades.

Not really, this is problem of competence, and this problem have not only a Russian source, but western too (and also chines, Indian and etc). Many western "expert's" think if russian tank have lower (than wester tanks) mass it's mean that it have liter armor.

If you will look at Andrey_BT, you can see, that he underestimate western tanks, but If you will look more attention you will see, that he also underestimate russian tanks, and only "Oplot" is' most perfect tank for him. Of course it's not mean that he is incompetence, but it's mean that he is biased some times. So I want to say, that in russian internet you can see a 'popular/appreciable' sources/'expert's' like Andrey_BT, but also has not so popular peoples like Khlopotov, Fofanov, Muhin, and they don't have some illusions.

I think your range of night sight is very optimistic for T-72, 650m more real as I heard.

Its not extending, in russian tanks protection is not same on turret front in different places, it's just show what is protection in weak zone and what is protection in not weak zone.

Hm... But western tank's also have not same protection at frontal projection.

[Damian90]

It's my problem too ;-) Ты по русски не говоришь случайно? :-)

I don't know if I correctly understanded, no I don't speak Russian. :-)

I try to learn but this is slow process and I mostly use translator.

So if you clear know it (about 33mm and construction), I agree, it maybe can give 5-10% protection against KE. But this "beak" don't look so seriously.

The wedge was mainly anti HEAT screen, but they probably made from this some sort of heavy ERA substitute, a dynamic protection but without explosives, it is not so good vs. KE penetrators as heavy ERA but anyway boosts protection.

Yes, but armor at turret sides, also not so heavy and it's a weak zone too.

It depends on thcikness, angle of hit and internal materials. I know that side turret armor in M1 series is 400mm thick, so at angle of 30-35 degrees projectile need to penetrate around 800mm of armor + in different generations inserts design probably was changed, Andrei made a bit biased conclusion that there are only 3 plates inside of armor cavietie, maybe yes but tank that he was seeing was M1A1HA from 1988, after it there were another 2 armor upgrades, lat in XXI century, besides this his conclusion was based only on a photo that show only a small fragment of armor inserts. So it depends on many things. But yes indeed Russian turret design was briliant, they made what they can to lower the weight for army demands and in the same time constructors made the best protection availabale.

Not really, this is problem of competence, and this problem have not only a Russian source, but western too (and also chines, Indian and etc). Many western "expert's" think if russian tank have lower (than wester tanks) mass it's mean that it have liter armor.

If you will look at Andrey_BT, you can see, that he underestimate western tanks, but If you will look more attention you will see, that he also underestimate russian tanks, and only "Oplot" is' most perfect tank for him. Of course it's not mean that he is incompetence, but it's mean that he is biased some times. So I want to say, that in russian internet you can see a 'popular/appreciable' sources/'expert's' like Andrey_BT, but also has not so popular peoples like Khlopotov, Fofanov, Muhin, and they don't have some illusions.

Fully agree with that. PS. I know Vasili Fofanov from TankNet, great knowledge and fine man. :-)

I think your range of night sight is very optimistic for T-72, 650m more real as I heard.

Hmmm maybe.

Hm... But western tank's also have not same protection at frontal projection.

It looks that way, protection in most designs is almost same over frontal turret armor, but weak zone is gun mantle/mask, of course sometimes protection is different in all places as in Leo2, but after I read some historys of Leo2 design stages, well, one of the most biggest lies in history is statement that this is the best western tank...

[Damian90]

Alex, something about wedge protection on Leo2's.

My friend explained that in this way.

You need to consider that wedge is made from 3 different layers with air gaps between, all layers have different density, are placed on different angles etc. so penetrator will be shattered... eh damn, I can't find proper words in english.

(info about max 33mm thick of wedge outer layer was old and wrong it seems... sorry for making desinformation :-( )

Besides this both frontal wedge's weight 500kg, this is something for something such thin.

As for K-5/Relikt performance, You must know that 40-60% boost in protection is when penetrator hit at angle of 30 degrees, this is optimal for all heavy ERA's, but in reality, this is very rare, still heavy ERA gives significant boost in protection.

And something more. :-)

[hcrof]

A very interesting discussion. Thanks

Damien, is there any chance of saying which country produces each type of round? I had assumed it was just US/Russia but then I saw Norinco mentioned which is Chinese.

[Damian90]

3BM-xx rounds are Russian, Mxxx(Ax) rounds are US, DM-xx rounds are German, Norinco rounds have unknown to US designation, of course it is Chinese, IMI/Pronit is... Polish APFSDS made on Israeli technology, it is 125mm caliber for our T-72M1's and PT-91's. :-)

Dunno if it was finaly fielded or not, we also produce 120mm (currently only training I think) APFSDS rounds and (training and combat ammo) 120mm HE rounds for our Leo2A4's.

[Alex]

Damian thanks for Leo2 protection pfotos, very interesting.

But why you write 3BM42M 600-600mm?

[Damian90]

Damian thanks for Leo2 protection pfotos, very interesting.

Yeah, but we got new photos of gunner primary sight hole, and we need to reconsider armor protection estimation for this part of armor, it seems that lower part of frontal turret armor there where we estimated 1000mm LOS thickness is not correct, thickness there is similiar to left side of frontal turret armor... ah well, mistakes happen.

But why you write 3BM42M 600-600mm?

Ehm, it is 600-600+mm of RHA penetration, this means that there is from 600mm to more than 600mm of RHA penetration level at this distance.

[militarysta]

Hello :-)

1. Sorry for my terrible english.

2. There was a small mistake in APFSDS diagram. Of course BM42 have ~460-480mm RHA for 2000m 90. So the correct diagram look that:

About HEAT round (USA, Soviet/Russia, Germany)

btw: DM-12 realy have 650mm RHA. During polish test in 10TkBde ( Świętoszów), i was hard to believe, but old DM-12 really have this 650mm+ RHA.

Of course it have only ~450-500mm RHA on Cobhan-style armour.

About Leopards.

Well there is a problem with right side of turret. The only thing I am sure is that:

Problem is here:

Right and left turret armour have the same LOS - between 75-80cm.

There is only "window" for EMES-15.

And about wedges in Leo2A5/A6. Im my opinnion there are only "addon".

All is about weight:

(without amo&fuel)

Leo2A4 - 52t

Leo2A5 -57,3t

Leo2A6 (German) - 57,6t

Leo2A6M - 60,2t

(combat)

Leo2A4 - 55,15t

Leo2A5 -59,5t

Leo2A6 (German) - 59,9t

Leo2A6M - 62,5t

turret weight:

Leo2A4 - 16t

Leo2A5/A6 - 21t

Best:

diffrence beetwen Lh-44 and Lh-55:

Lh44 is 3780kg

Lh55 to 4160kg

so there is only + 380kg for Leo2A6

wedges weight is 500kg for one (so two is 1000kg)

Ok, so with some reserve we can say that Lh-55+wedges take only ~1500kg. So without this 1,5t the diffrence between Leo2A4 and Leo2A5/A6 is 3500kg!

In my opinion the insert was changed for a new with higher density.

If You have any questions just ask - i will try (with my broken english :-)) answer.

[Alex]

Hm... Not sure that all 3500kg is front protection. How I understand Leo2A5/6 also have more heavy armor on turret sides, and it also mast have some weight. And has I understand Leo2A5/6 have a new sight, some new electronic and anti-fire/flame systems, all it have some weight (for example 'Oplot-M' panoramic sight mass is 400kg). Also new L-55 gun have new shock-absorber system and maybe new stabilizations system, all it have mass. And as MAIN Leo2A5/6 have longest 'ass'.

And I think my poor english don't give my a chance to explain my thoughts, but what sort of armor material can lift up armor weight so hight? I think DU (Uranium), but Germany have a bad situation with it, they don't have it a lot even for shells. If it not DU, than that?

Why there is no 3BM44 and 3BM48 in the table?

P.S. If you interesting I can show your table on one good russian tank forum, and will see that peoples say.

[Damian90]

Hm... Not sure that all 3500kg is front protection. How I understand Leo2A5/6 also have more heavy armor on turret sides, and it also mast have some weight. And has I understand Leo2A5/6 have a new sight, some new electronic and anti-fire/flame systems, all it have some weight (for example 'Oplot-M' panoramic sight mass is 400kg). Also new L-55 gun have new shock-absorber system and maybe new stabilizations system, all it have mass. And as MAIN Leo2A5/6 have longest 'ass'.

Turret electro-hydraulic stabilisation system was replaced by lighter fully electric system. Sight is same, EMES-15. In west as many things possible are made from lightweight materials. And as longer ''ass'' in newer Leo2's you mean hull lenght? It is same. And as You see gun is also only slightly heavier. The bigesst weight increase in western tanks is almost ever new armor.

And I think my poor english don't give my a chance to explain my thoughts, but what sort of armor material can lift up armor weight so hight? I think DU (Uranium), but Germany have a bad situation with it, they don't have it a lot even for shells. If it not DU, than that?

Germans use Tungsten, UK and France also. US is mistery, they use DU but I wouldn't be suprised if in alloy from what they made heavy metal armor layers there is besides DU also Tungsten. US use also Graphite.

Why there is no 3BM44 and 3BM48 in the table?

Militarysta probably didn't consider them as they are not so widespread in service.

[militarysta]

Hm... Not sure that all 3500kg is front protection. How I understand Leo2A5/6 also have more heavy armor on turret sides, and it also mast have some weight. And has I understand Leo2A5/6 have a new sight, some new electronic and anti-fire/flame systems, all it have some weight (for example 'Oplot-M' panoramic sight mass is 400kg). Also new L-55 gun have new shock-absorber system and maybe new stabilizations system, all it have mass. And as MAIN Leo2A5/6 have longest 'ass'.

As said Damian: "Turret electro-hydraulic stabilisation system was replaced by lighter fully electric system. Sight is same, EMES-15. In west as many things possible are made from lightweight materials" Gemans Leo2A5/A6 ar not Strv.122 Leo2A6HEL or Loe2A6E. Germans tank haven't addons on turret top or hull. Electric system are rather light. ex: New PERI-17A2 (Ophelios) have less weight then old PERI-17... In my opinnion this free 3000kg takes new mantle and new insert...

I count it man times - 3000kg is "free" so - where it is? In my opinon - only in armour.

ps. Oplot-M' panoramic sight mass is 400kg - it's not suprise it is terrible big

And I think my poor english don't give my a chance to explain my thoughts, but what sort of armor material can lift up armor weight so hight? I think DU (Uranium), but Germany have a bad situation with it, they don't have it a lot even for shells. If it not DU, than that?

Tungsten + RHA with molibden (alloy steel with molybdenum) of course it is OPSPEC but some peoples says that Tungsten is used... i don't know. DU is not only good material.

Why there is no 3BM44 and 3BM48 in the table?

There are in service? "apparently" 3BM48 have ~650mm RHA but if im right only new T-90A wit longer casette in auto coud have it - im right?

P.S. If you interesting I can show your table on one good russian tank forum, and will see that peoples say.

GSPO? :-) In my opinnion it's propably the best tank forum, well but there is small problem with my "estimates" - they have some mistake. I shoud improved it for Leopards etc.

But if You want - ok :-)

BTW: Im really interesting how Andriej/Harkonnen explain his fake about total 65cm Leo2A4 LOS... Two my freind mesure lef side of turret (80-85cm), im count it (75-80cm) -so i'havent any doubt. But im really interested why Andriej always said 65, 65 65, 65 (bla bla bla)...

EDIT: of course He always coud said "I have my sources" but it's not answer :-) I'm think he have some plans/estimates for Leopard-2AV or Leopard2A1 - this famoues photo of "nacked" Leo2 is Leo2A1. But there is big difrence between Lep2A1 and Leo2A3... ex: mantle in Leo2A3 (42cm) is 30% more thick then in Leo2A1 (25cm)... So if He have dates for Leo2Av/A1 - 65cm coud be. But for Leo2A3/A4 it's fake

@Damian - hi!

[Damian90]

There are in service? "apparently" 3BM48 have ~650mm RHA but if im right only new T-90A wit longer casette in auto coud have it - im right?

These rounds are in service, but in limited numbers, and yes, only for T-90A.

GSPO? :-) In my opinnion it's propably the best tank forum, well but there is small problem with my "estimates" - they have some mistake. I shoud improved it for Leopards etc.

But if You want - ok :-)

BTW: Im really interesting how Andriej/Harkonnen explain his fake about total 65cm Leo2A4 LOS... Two my freind mesure lef side of turret (80-85cm), im count it (75-80cm) -so i'havent any doubt. But im really interested why Andriej always said 65, 65 65, 65 (bla bla bla)...

EDIT: of course He always coud said "I have my sources" but it's not answer :-) I'm think he have some plans/estimates for Leopard-2AV or Leopard2A1 - this famoues photo of "nacked" Leo2 is Leo2A1. But there is big difrence between Lep2A1 and Leo2A3... ex: mantle in Leo2A3 (42cm) is 30% more thick then in Leo2A1 (25cm)... So if He have dates for Leo2Av/A1 - 65cm coud be. But for Leo2A3/A4 it's fake

I think Andrei's estimates are based on old schematics for older types of turrets in M1 and Leo2.

In M1's turret design (and armor thickness also, structure and materials were changed even more than 4 times) was changed 3 times, in Leo2 also.

@Damian - hi!

:-) Hi, and You made another mistake.

http://img40.imagefra.me/img/img40/8/8/12/rossomak2/f_iwl0m_143d454.gif

M830 HEAT-MP-T is same round as DM-12, so penetration level will be 600-650(max)mm of RHA for both. M830A1 MPAT-T round have smaller warhead so penetration level is smaller.

And 3BM-31M should be 3BK-31M.

[Alex]

As I know 3BM48 in service a little.

About 3BM44 my mistake it's not in service, and I not sure is this shell calls "round raised power" (povishennogo mogushestva) for gun 2A81 or some thing that calls "Svinec-2"

Not GSPO - OTVAGA2004, not so popular, but Fofanov, Muhin, GurKhan and some more tank experts 'live' there.