Modern armor internal arrays & what defeated them or might

[militarysta]

Ok, so here are APFSDS/HEAT without this mistake:

@Damian - I'm correct mistakes

@Alex

OTVAGA2004?

Ok, im really interested what they will say:-)

[Alex]

How about russian ATGM firing from tank gun (don't know how it at english).

I'll show your tables and than give link and tell that they think about it.

[Damian90]

How about russian ATGM firing from tank gun (don't know how it at english).

Gun Launched Anti Tank Guided Missile or GLATGM.

I think that overall idea is good but penetration level just to small to perforate frontal turret armor (and in some tanks even frontal hull armor) of modern main battle tanks. Logic step forward are GLATGM's with top attack mode like LAHAT and in future XM1111 (when fielded M1111) MRM-CE.

Alex, don't forget that there will be more tanks included, CR2, M1 series, Leclerc series, when time will permitt, Militarysta will make them, but for that time, I will try to dig up more info's.

[militarysta]

How about russian ATGM firing from tank gun (don't know how it at english).

For my it is good idea on Ukrainian on Russian "step" (fields?). But not in Western Europe.

In Poland range of fire is limited by terrein in 98% to only 1500m...

In Fulda gap is it 1300m. (96%) So Refleks, Invar, Świr, etc ar uslles in Western Europe - sabot is faster. That is reson why on West (Germany, England, USA, France) there is no GLATGM in Tanks.

Of course in desert GLATGM is ok -but not in Europe.

[Alex]

I mean you did HEAT table, and GLATMG it's also HEAT round, may be should put it in your table.

[militarysta]

I mean you did HEAT table, and GLATMG it's also HEAT round, may be should put it in your table.

Ok - here you are:

It's look nice, but we shoud remeber about HEAT vs. armour.

After Youm Kippur panic western armour designe was developed to stop big, and pretty good Soviet ATGMs and GLATMG, and BK-xx family.

for ex:

Gemrman DM-12 round can panetrate ~700mm RHA but only 400-450mm "cobhan style" German armour. Of course i'm not thinking about "Cobhan" but similar german solution in Leo2.

it is almost certain that "insert" in Leo2A4 was ~1,3 vs. HEAT.

So if we have in Leo2A4:

200mm RHA (50mm + 150mm) + 600mm x 1,3/1,35 it's give us ~200mm + 780 = 980mm vs HEAT(!) in fornt of turret

Of course mantle is only ~475mm vs HEAT, "box" after EMES-15 is ~ 750mm vs HEAT, and side of the turret in 30. is ~810mm vs HEAT.

Well it's preety good protection - isn't it?

Well...HEAT is not good solution in taht way...or I'm make a mistake and it's not 1,3.

But test DM-12 in Germany (and in Poland in 10TkBde) was clear:

700mm RHA

~400-450mm "coban style" armour (insert) in Leopard2.

oh, and here is final Leo2 vs. APFSDS protection.

As we can see it's far from perfect, but...it's ok - armour is only one element.

BTW: Leopard2 is very good tank for any estimates becouse we know many things about Leo2.

Current Leopard 2 users and used versions:

Germany: 125 A5, 225 A6 (70 A6M, 20 on loan to Canada), 45 A4 (+ ~150-200 A4 stock)

Netherlands: 82 A6 (+ 20 A4, 28 A6 reserve)

Switzerland: 134 Panzer87 WE, (+ 246 A4 reserve)

Sweden: 120 A5+ (Strv 122, 10 mineprotected 122B), 154 A4 (6 A4 rebuilt to CEV Kodiak)

Spain: 108 A4, 219 A6+ (Leopardo 2E)

Denmark: 57 A5+

Greece: 196 A4, 170 A6+ (Leopard 2HEL)

Norway: 52 A4

Austria: 114 A4

Finland: 91 A4 (20 A4 rebuilt as CEV/AVLB, 12 spares, 1 loss)

Poland: 128 A4

Turkey: 298 A4

Chile: 132 A4 (8 as spares)

Singapore: 102 A4 (30 as spares)

Canada: 40 A6M, 42 A4+ (8 as ARV/CEV/AVLB, 10 spares)

Portugal: 38 A6

So we heve 16 Leo2 users, and w heven't so terrible OPSPEC like in M1A2/CR2 or Leclerck2....

btw2: there is mistake "Poland: 128 A4" it's not true.

116Leo2A4 in 10TkBde

8 Leo2 in "tank school"

1 in museum

1-3(?) well... a very sensitive issue - Germans give Poland 128 Leopard2 but the contract provides:

a) they will by not polish "addons" on Leo2

Leopard will be have service on german rules

c) no one will check what is "insert" leo2A4 armour. - of coure our "genius" in OBRUM Gliwice broke this point and opened the armor to check what is the composition of the "insert". Of course German's where in furious...

about year of manufacture polish Leopard2:

6 tank - 1985, (Leo2A3 mod to 2A4)

96 - 1986, ( Leo2A4 "erly" and some "late" leo2A4 with improved armour, but how many?)

26 - 1987, (Leo2A4 "late" series - improved armour)

[Damian90]

Of course i'm not thinking about "Cobhan" but similar german solution in Leo2.

Ehm two things, first it is Chobham, second it is not codename of British developed and used by US and UK "special" armor. Codename was Burlington (there are even so called Burlington files with armor development history).

Chobham is general term to name western type "special" armors, but it is not codename for any of them.

German design was somewhat simpler, based on perforated steel, it got probably nothing common with Burlington.

So we heve 16 Leo2 users, and w heven't so terrible OPSPEC like in M1A2/CR2 or Leclerck2....

Yup, Yanks and Brits are insane with their OPSEC, but it is good thing. BTW there is no Leclerc version 2, there are 3 series, serie I (SI), serie II (SII) and Serie III (SIII) called also Serie XXI (SXXI), and in each serie there are several tranches with different upgrades. I don't know how though is French OPSEC, probably similiar to US/UK or Israeli standards.

c) no one will check what is "insert" leo2A4 armour. - of coure our "genius" in OBRUM Gliwice broke this point and opened the armor to check what is the composition of the "insert". Of course German's where in furious...

So they knew that our specialists opened armor cavieties? Cool :cool:

[Alex]

Hay guys, some of yours images is gone!

About chobham AndreyBT had some info, in his LiveJournal. It's about british 'chobham', he tell that it have bad firmness to second/next hits.

Sorry, that is 'OPSEC'?

P.S. I'm interest, why Poland buy german tanks, than you have your own tank industrial?

[Damian90]

Hay guys, some of yours images is gone!

The old ones as I suppose.

About chobham AndreyBT had some info, in his LiveJournal. It's about british 'chobham', he tell that it have bad firmness to second/next hits.

It is completely false statement, based on Israeli modular armor for Merkava Mk.4 that is in fact similiar but not the same as western armors. Western armors are welded and have thick enough steel bulkheads to resist multiple hits. Merkava Mk.4 armor modules got thin outer shell so they are more delicate for multiple hits. And that M1 tank with heavy damage of outer shell, first it was after large IED, welds just doesen't resist such force, and later ammo that was in fire exploded and damaged even further side armor cavieties over turret bustle. But I saw M1 tanks after hits from dedicated anti tank weapons and non have armor damaged in the way as Andrei suggest. He probably also don't understand western tank design philsophy, the most important part of a tank is crew, tank can be repaired, rebuilded or can be replaced by new one, new well trained crew is problem, so tanks are designed mainly to protect the crew, crew survivability is most important, second is tank survivability. This goal was more or less succesfull in different designs of western tanks.

I told him in 2009 that his statement are chidlish if he thinks that western armor are inferior to Russian or Ukrainian... but he have his "sources" (heh, what sources?! He even doesen't know that there were 3 different turret designs in M1 series upgrades!... now he knows...).

So this is false statement based on not wester armor and pics of fragments of armor, so these info's that Andrei serves are not true, rather next of his manipulations.

My opinion is, western and Russian/Ukrainian armors (in best tanks) are equall in protection, of course one will give a bit better protection, other a bit less, but all in all, they are equall. But armor is not all, firepower, also equall, but tactical mobility is better in western tanks despite they heavier weight, crew ergonomics? Better in western tanks. Strategic mobility? Better in Russian/Ukrainian tanks, because their lighter weight. C2? Better in western tanks, and we can make many such comparrisions.

I think that potential of Russian/Ukrainian designers was wasted by stupid demands of Soviet military, to make light weight MBT's with good protection... without weight limitations and with better engines availabale they could make much better tanks, same in the west, demands for first versions of M1 and Leo2 was combat weight under 60,000kg, first armors were designed to met this demand, with permission to design heavier vehicles from the start, they could made even better protected tanks.

There is also problem with armor estimations. We don't know how much of different materials are in armor, how they work, what are their true density, what are their placement, how they cooperate with each other to stop projectile, if they are passive or dynamic, and currently I think that such armors like Burlington (known as Chobham) is dynamic protection, not like ERA (DMZ or EDZ in Russia) but more likely like NERA or NxRA. So in fact our estimations or any estimations have a degree of mistake. I would rather say that in our estimations tanks protection could be even underestimated, because we don't know how trully modern multilayer laminate/composite armor work.

Besdies this, on posted by You Alex, pics of Burlington armor in proving grounds, I don't see any kind of big structural damage from multiple hits, it is rather normal as modern armor after several hits. Morevor I saw T-80U after multiple hits and it doesen't look better than western tanks... it doesen't look worse either, rather similiar. (of course I saying about hits in frontal armor).

Sorry, that is 'OPSEC'?

These pics? No, they were published several years back.

P.S. I'm interest, why Poland buy german tanks, than you have your own tank industrial?

Our industry can build only PT-91, this is only upgraded T-72M1, nothing special, it is better that we buy some western tanks that are better, we have some common equipment with some NATO countries (we buy not only tanks).

Poland was close to buy second transhe for second brigade, but of course some idiots from this industry protested. In such case we could scrap most of T-72M1's, after some time there probably were some money to upgrade PT-91's (new turret etc.) and we should have then two elite brigades with Leo2's... unfortunetly nothing of these happend. Hopefully new IFV will be produced under UPG-NG and PLC program.

[militarysta]

P.S. I'm interest, why Poland buy german tanks, than you have your own tank industrial?

Hi!

Well, ours Leo2A4 is the best what met polish Land Force in last 15yers...

1. We didn't bought this Leo2 - Germany gave us 128 Leopard2A4 with full service, supply, vehicles, ammo for only 1 Euro. Of course there where some costs - but for lest then 128-150mln zł ( ~50mln UDS) Germans gave us complete equipment for 10 Tank Bde in Świentoszów. What is most important - Germans trained us, taught us, and assured shooting training for more then one year - 10TkBde had german offciers, commanders, and - MILES - this was a revolution in traverse (poligon - траверс?) Ours Leopard2A4 where used in only 15-20%, and what is most important - about 40-50% of them are improved Tanks whit improved armour...

This brigade is armed, trained, prepared in the best germans standards - now this 116 Leopard2A4 is only good tanks in Polish Army. Of course this 116 Leo2A4 are serviced at germans rulles - the same about trening - propably this is source of sukces :-)

Unfortunetley Polish Army is far from perfect, but some "A" category units are well equipment and trained.

2. Polish PT-91.

There are two difrent tanks, whit simillar marks:

a) PT-91

PT-91MZ/E ("Malaj" and "Eksport")

First is basick (in armour) T-72M1, whit new 1000HP S-1000 engine (good power, theriblle combustion of fuel...), and new FCS "Drawa" whit Israel thermo ( it is terrible - about 40% cameras is generally inefficient :-/)

In theory it is good tank - without armour it should be simmilar to T-72BW. But it's not... Problems:

- we haven't good APFSDS amo. BM-15 and BM-22 is sh*** and polish/israeli "PRONIT" whit 540-560mm RHA for 2000m was developed, but is not in service yet...becouse in generals opinnion 125mm gun in Poland haven't future (standard NATO is 120mm) - so they don't bought amo...

- barrel - many years ago Slovak factory "ZS Dubnica" made some part of barrel in "scond" quality. Our genius in middle 90. bought it like "super occasion". Now many of this barrel have not 125 but 126-128mm! But "125mm gun in Poland haven't future (standard NATO is 120mm)" - so they don't bought new barrels for PT-91...

Stupid?

Welcome in Poland

- FCS "Drawa" is very, very good (like SAVAN-15(!)) but when PT-91 were build they don't change stabilization and "guidance mechanisms guns" (i haven't good word)

- theribble thermo form israel (erly 90.)

- theriblle combustion of fuel polish S-1000 is good engine, but fuel combustion... ex: 58 PT-91 in traverse (poligon - траверс?) "eat' more fuel then 64 Leopard2A4 whit 1500HP engine....

PT-91MZ - without armour is good tank - similar to T-90S but whit better engine and transmision.

Well on PT-91MZ/E cost ~3mln USD.

Poland got 128 Leo2A4 whit complete facilities (amo, wehicles, spare parts) for less then ~50mln USD.

And Leo2A4 is better in ALL parameters then PT-91MZ/Ex...

That's reson.

ps.

Poland was close to buy second transhe for second brigade, but of course some idiots from this industry protested

It's only one side...second - in that times in Poland where "Kaczyńscy" brother goverment. There where idiots. They were all bad - EU (to less catholicks) Russia - for reasons of history, Germany - for reasons of history (and they destroyed Warshaw during II WW). So for political reasons not acquired a second batch of free machines for "Germanic torturers".

Thanks Good one brother (jaroslaw) where sucked after parliamentary elections and second died in plane crash.

[militarysta]

BTW:

There is one misteke in thinking about "wedges" in Leo2A5/A6:

"Internal" plates in wedges are 30mm RHA monoblock

External forming "wedge" have a layered structure - total thickness is 40mm, but they are made of layers - this is not a monoblock steel!

In my opinnion it's only reson to have weight ~500kg for ONE wedge

BTW2: turret for Leo2A5 where taken for...old Leopard2A3/A4 on A3 armour standards - it's important becouse "my sources" :-) said that the insert was changed for new + wedges. In that way it have sense... and weight diffrence bettwen Leo2A4 and leo2A5 have sense in taht way...

[Alex]

So... I showed your images at OTVAGA forum, and had some answers now:

1. Leo2A4 (without amo&fuel) is 53800kg, not 52000kg

2. Not understand with "wedges" that is it construction and how are you know it?

3. Penetrations for HEAT rounds looks big, a special for M830

4. Soviet/russian tank armor not look realistic, big question, why gun mask don't have armor? (for me it's also not clear, you show 300-400mm for "Leo", but clear 'hole' for "T")

(if you interesting here is the link http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=97&p=28#p33477 on russian)

Now I all understand about Polish Leo. Seems tank industry not the elevating for Poland, it's commercially not favorably.

[militarysta]

So... I showed your images at OTVAGA forum, and had some answers now:

1. Leo2A4 (without amo&fuel) is 53800kg, not 52000kg

He he he

Leopard2A3/ erly 2A4 on 2A3 armour level, or Leopard2A4 since 1986 batch?

There is big difrence beetwen mas of Leopard2.

There is difrence between:

Leopard2A3 + erly 2A4

Leopard2A4 since 1986

Leopard2A5

Leopard2A6 (germany)

Leopard2A6EX (A6M, A6HEL, A6E, and Strv.122 with Lh44(2A5))

Point:

53800kg is correct but for Leo2A4 after some addons in armour (since 1986) - it is "late" model of Leo2A4 - about 27+ ~25 this tank we have in 10Tk Bde in Świętoszów, and is a more then 1500kg diffrennce between this "late" Leo2A4 and... Leo2A4 form earlier batch...propably reson is that there is no change in armour between Leo2A3 and Leo2A4 (elry). So mass is the same. Dynamometers showed (during the raising turrets) of more than 1.5 tons a strange difference in the weight of the turret between A3/A4 and A4(late). So 52000kg is in theory correct. 53800kg is correct too - but only for late Leo2A4.

And turret for Leo2A5 had been taken from Leo2A4 on Leo2A3 standards -not for "late" 2A4. So we have bigger mass difrent there.

2. Not understand with "wedges" that is it construction and how are you know it?

There are very good pohotos of them, it first source. Second - i have some friends in Germany, but it's not good to write that in internet - OPSPEC.

"Wedges" are not so simple as they are looks. First external forming "wedge" have a layered structure - all is 40mm LOS thick. Second you have 30mm RHA plates inside "wedges". In my and my friends opinnion this wedges can "blunt" pin of rode. This part of rode (pin) is responsible for mor then 15% of RHA efficiency - when you "blunt" in enought befor basic armour - you can improve the effectiveness of armour very well.

This picture under is "simply" and VERY simply idea od that. On real is much more complicated and "wedges" works in diffrent (but simmilar in idea) way:

But there is some problem about structure of external plate (with is forming "wedge") - it's not "monoblock" it have multi structure with steel and "x". It's OPSPEC.

So "blant" the tip of rod is frst way (rather better vs. WH rod then DU), second - L: D ratio and That bending force will induce a wobble in the rod, much like the wobble an arrow has as it leaves a bow from curving around the front piece. This wobble will persist over the short distance to the main armor and most likely the rod will impact at a small but significant andle off perpendicular. This means instead of a circular hole it will form an oblong....the larger the L: D ratio the more pronounced the deviation from a circle. Because the hole is larger the energy required is greater per depth of penetration. Even a degree off perpendicular can have a huge effect on penetration. .

3. Penetrations for HEAT rounds looks big, a special for M830

Well - old M830 is US copy of DM-12. DM-12 have guaranteed 650mm RHA, and test in Poland shows it very well. But DM-12 in some conditions could penetrate 700mm RHA plate. I know it coud look stange but it's fact.

Diamiter of head is not only.

BTW: LAHAT have the same head like Spike. It's 750mm RHA for old, and 800mm+ for new head ("warhead"?)

4. Soviet/russian tank armor not look realistic, big question, why gun mask don't have armor? (for me it's also not clear, you show 300-400mm for "Leo", but clear 'hole' for "T")

[militarysta]

OK

Finall version Leo2:

vs. APFSDS:

vs. HEAT (new):

next - M1A2

[Damian90]

next - M1A2

Yup, and I can quarantee, with more data and informations, it seems that M1 is a freek'in monster in terms of armor thickness, especially frontal turret armor, it seems that earlier my claims that 880mm is frontal armor thickness, I underestimated M1.:eek:

But we should wait for final estimations.

Well - old M830 is US copy of DM-12.

Licenced version, in fact it is DM-12 but with US designation, there are some minor changes in fuze assembly though.

[militarysta]

IMORTANT!

Ours estimates have some simplification, and estimation on the basis of very incomplete data - so it's obvious that contain some mistakes.

Two best known tanks: Leopard2 family, and T-90A (will be T-80U and T-72BW soon) are estimated with a rather minor error then M1 family - when OPSPEC is critical, and where there were many more estimates and assumptions.

These estimates can change when better data will be found.

BTW: I didn't vs. HEAT estimates for T-90A becouse:

1) in my opinnion T-90A have 540-960mm vs. HEAT on fornt turret and ~780mm vs HEAT in 30. - this is for "basic" armour.

2) Polish ERAWA-2 (ERA) armour can reduce HEAT warhed for 40-60% so propably K-5/Relikt cant do the same (or even better...).

It's means that K-5/Relikt + basic armour in T-90A turret can stop 90% HEAT warhed. Propably US-Army has the same opinions - becouse now there are TOP-ATTACK weapons in use (Javelin, TOW-2B, etc). The same in Israel - LAHAT and Spike...

So making estimates for T-90A about HEAT is pointless.

[Damian90]

Yup, estimates for M1 could be changed, I have some point that armor is a bit more thick, But I must think about that and check my sources + some vids.

Anyway great work, we need only M1A1HA+/HC and M1A2 variants estimations. :-)

[militarysta]

IMPORTANT

to: Alex

there is small problem with Leo2 armour.

First plate have between 30-50mm steel, then is 600mm chamber for some "insert" and end plate have about 150mm steel. All is ~780-800mm LOS.

So my estimatoes for Leo2 have ~15-30mm RHA margin of error. All is about first plate - it's more than 30mm but I have some doubt - im not sure about 50mm it could be for example:40mm... But sure is:

a) 600mm chamber for some "x" insert

more then 150mm RHA (or HSS) on end amour LOS. - this plate is invicible for us under "open" the "chambers" - so many people haven't idea about this 150-180mm and they think that all is 30mm+600+30-50mm - but it is false. Real is:

30-50mm + 600mm + 150-180mm

like here:

Ps. and RHA plate in T-90 in 45 degree have of course minor value then in 30.

[Damian90]

Well, I made this, it represents Frontal armor, side armor, crew compartment, engine compartment, fuell cells etc. It is not perfect but I think it is close to reality.

Red lines represent fronatl armor outer plate, insert and inner plate, same for blue, the green lines represent side turret armor that is lower than blue lines indicate that it is thinner, like Gunner Primary Sight "chimney" or CITV port and assembly "chimney". Green also represent internal armored sliding doors to ammo compartment, and side hull armor placement n the ride side under fuel cell sponson.

I hope that drawing is clear enough. :-)

[Damian90]

Polish Universal Tracked Platform/Fire Support Vehicle-Light Tank ANDERS.

[Erwin]

Wow. That looks a lot like the experimental tank the US was designing. I guess the Poles did it and probably at a fraction of our cost.

[Alex]

Interesting Idea, but not sure that "tank@ is good. It have total mass at 35tn, and can protect only at 30mm at front as I know, T-55 batter

[Alan8325]

It looks more like a functional equivalent to the Stryker FSV, designed to provide heavy fire support for mechanized infantry while maintaining roughly the same weight and mobility as the IFVs. Of course this also means it has the same armored protection as the IFVs, which is effective against autocannons and below, basically.

[Wicky]

In the Polish ANDERS vid - What are the 'tubes' on the side, at the front and rear, that poke out?

[Damian90]

Wow. That looks a lot like the experimental tank the US was designing. I guess the Poles did it and probably at a fraction of our cost.

US designs were more advanced, and this is still only technology demonstrator, not even a prototype, prototype can be totally different.

Interesting Idea, but not sure that "tank@ is good. It have total mass at 35tn, and can protect only at 30mm at front as I know, T-55 batter

As I said it is only technology demonstrator, prototype and possible final product can be different. Also ballistic protection at least against HEAT can be preatty high due to used turret design (it is low profile turret with cre in it's basket below slide ring). Besides this, as I said, it is not a tank in sensu stricto, it is Direct Fire Support Vehicle, in this variant, it can be also IFV, or any other needed variant.

It looks more like a functional equivalent to the Stryker FSV, designed to provide heavy fire support for mechanized infantry while maintaining roughly the same weight and mobility as the IFVs. Of course this also means it has the same armored protection as the IFVs, which is effective against autocannons and below, basically.

From known sources basic protection level is higher than STANAG level 4 (or something like that), it can be also equipped with addon armor modules.

And no, it doesen't have nothing similiar to Stryker FSV, more likely MGS.

In the Polish ANDERS vid - What are the 'tubes' on the side, at the front and rear, that poke out?

These "Tubes" are protection elements of Ukrainian Zaslon Active Protection System, vehicle was also equipped with mock-up of Israeli ASPRO-A/Trophy Active Protection System.