Modern armor internal arrays & what defeated them or might

[Alan8325]

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

Heh. That's what I meant to say.

[militarysta]

About "wedges" in:

Strv.122

Leo2A6HEL/E

Leo2A7+

url=http://img257.imageshack.us/i/p1090470s.jpg/]

"Wedges" structure:

(click to zoom)

As we can see there is "in" wedges:

I. first layer:

- ~5mm thick (1) (??)

- ~5mm thick (2) (nicked metal material)

II. Air gap (between 2 and 3 on photo) - propably it have ~30mm thick in middle of wall wedge.

II. second layer:

- ~5mm thick (3) (??)

- ~5mm thick (5) (nicked metal material)

All is 40mm thick with 30mm air gap. of course LOS is mucht bigger (wedge angle)

After that we have triangle "something" inside wedge. - it have dual structure too.

All of that looks like NERA or NxRA.

So "wedges" in Leo2A5-A7 are similar in concept, (but completely different in structure and action) to Soviet/Russian havy ERA.

More about Leo2 (in Polish):

http://www.militarium.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4600&start=340

and more about tanks:

http://www.militarium.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

best regards

[militarysta]

ps.

LOS in Leo2A4:

turret detail (LOS right side)

week point - window, and "gap" for EMES-15:

url=http://imagefra.me/]

[militarysta]

LOS for Leo2A4, T-90A, T-90S:

[militarysta]

Amo storage in hull:

T-72, Leo2, M1A2

[Damian90]

Yup, Leclerc have rotating ammo drum in hull.

One more things, it seems that Leo2A1/A4 have 3 weak gaps in main sight area, and Leo2A5/A6 2 weak gaps.

Besides the most obvious main sight weak gap, there is also gunner unity sight/vision block hole, and also over 20-30 degrees from turret center line, hit in sight area can easy perforate thin steel bulkhead there... even auto cannon rounds can do that.

[Alex]

T-90S have not old cast ('litaya')* turret but similar to T-90A and looks like you have wrong images for frontal turret profiles for T90A (it's look like T-90M) and for T90S (it looks like T-90A).

Old T-90 have cast turret ('litaya bashnia").

Was a very little series T-90S with old turret for India (as I remember some thing about 60 tanks)

I don't know "cast" is it right word at english for pour turret at hot steel

[Damian90]

You see, this is because we don't have proper drawings, so for welded turret front aspect Militarysta used T-90M turret drawing, and old T-90 drawing for old cast turret of T-90 and old T-90S.

[militarysta]

, there is also gunner unity sight/vision block hole, and also over 20-30 degrees from turret center line, hit in sight area can easy perforate thin steel bulkhead there... even auto cannon rounds can do that.

impossible :-)

First: RHA plate next to "chamber" (behind EMES-15) has 165-85mm thickness, when we count LOS fort this place - immposible.

Green - most tipical firing angle

blue - worst scenario, but only for ~2degrees of firing angle (less 180mm) for rest angels in this scenario - ~300-400mm LOS (300mm side of the hull with a contribution on the left to EMES-15)

[Damian90]

Yes, this is Object-195, popularly known as T-95.

[hcrof]

Any date or location from that picture?

[Damian90]

Nope, but this is definetly Object-195, it is a big tank, very big, it is higher than most western tanks even when we know the fact that turret is unmanned.

Main gun is 152mm calliber.

There are other news from Russia, T-72BM Rogatka program was not cancelled as rumors say, and UVZ shows new version of T-72B, probably related somewhat to T-72BM Rogatka.

Production of T-90A is slowly closing down, probably due to fact that production lines need to be prepared for T-90M production, they also showed some test bed tank based on T-90.

[militarysta]

First:

Strv.122

Second:

FAKE:

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/57551.html

total bull****:

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/l21.jpg

BS2:

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/leo3.jpg

closer to the truth:

copy in all possible forums recommended - nationalism does not justify lying

[Damian90]

It would be good if we could find similiar photos of other western tanks.

We know thanks to National Geographic documentary about ANAD and LAPT/JSMC that also M1A1/A2 turret have even thicker frontal armor, and thanks to one book we know at least how looks RHA plates structure inside special armor chambers (without special armor inserts however). But what with other western tanks?

One is certain, all the best modern tanks (western and Russian/Ukrainian), have impressive frontal protection.

[Damian90]

These pictures shows actuall thickness of M1A1/A2 tanks frontal turret armor.

On the last picture we can see weld lines, these weld lines shows where special armor chamber ends, the pictures inside turret, shows where backplate ends, currently we can at least assume what is real turret front armor thickness with high degree of accuracy.

[militarysta]

Comparison of the weakened zones around the cannon.

MBT type area width/ LOS thickness area

Leo2A4:

~90/~42cm

M1A2:

~90/~45-48cm (raczej 48cm)

T-90A:

~90/<45cm

T-72B:

~80-85(??)/35cm(?)

btw - about mask in Leo2A4:

width - 90cm

LOS - 42cm

height - ~50cm

Mass: 551kg

BTW - Our best estimates gives Leo2 this value mm RHA vs.APFSDS:

Leo2A3 - 470mm

Leo2A4 (od 88) -580-600mm

Leo2A5/A6 - 680-700mm + NERA

Of course it not "truth revealed"

and may be mistaken.

BTW2

My article about Active Protection Systems:

http://gdziewojsko.wordpress.com/wozy-bojowe/aktywne-systemy-ochrony/

in polish, but google translator is quite good :-)

[Erwin]

This has been an interesting thread.

It's surprising that after all the hoohah about T-34 genre sloped armor, modern western tanks are returning to the near vertical slab look. Why is that?

Also, since the biggest threat these days is ATGM's that can attack from above, is anything being done about that? Otherwise, it seems that these expensive weapons are only good vs relatively primitive 2nd and 3rd world countries, and deathtraps vs anyone possessing Javelin-type ATGM's.

[Damian90]

It's surprising that after all the hoohah about T-34 genre sloped armor, modern western tanks are returning to the near vertical slab look. Why is that?

Frontal turret and hull armor is allways angled, in case of side armor there is not much sense to angle it, besides if it is a modular armor like on Merkava Mk.4 where under modular armor turret have vertical bulkheads in sides, on the front however Merkava Mk.4 turret still have additional, welded not modular steel armor.

Also, since the biggest threat these days is ATGM's that can attack from above, is anything being done about that? Otherwise, it seems that these expensive weapons are only good vs relatively primitive 2nd and 3rd world countries, and deathtraps vs anyone possessing Javelin-type ATGM's.

Yes there are countermessures against ATGM's attacking from the top, first, made the roof thick, like on Merkava Mk.4 or Improved Leopard 2 (other western tanks were tested with similiar solutions), or use there a dynamic protection, like Russiand and Ukrainians are doing.

Second solution are active protection systems.

Third solution is better camouflage:

You see, You can even make tank almost invisible in thermals. :-)

Oh, and one more thing, T-34 was not the first tank with sloped armor, there were earlier designs with sloped armor, and even "boxy" German tanks have some armor parts sloped at some degree.

Of course such called "specialists" on Discovery Channel or Wikipedia authors don't know that. ;-)

[militarysta]

Damian - second picture with Intermat is geek Leo2A6HEL.

BTW:

there was no change LOS thickness of front armour beetwen Leo2A4 and Leo2A5/A6 in Germany Turret for A5 was taken from old Leo2A3( mod to A4). Strv.122 is strange, bud in my opinnion LOS is the same like in germans 2A5.

Andriej T. wrote total BS on His page (and unfortunetly on btvt) about Leo2 LOS thickness - propably he made a mistake and count LOS for Leo2A4 like for Leo2A1.

Many years ago Paul Lakowsky wrote this:

The 830mm comes from two independant measurements made by two Leopard 2 tankers of their own tanks.

And it was true. Writing about 65cm LOS for Leo2A4 is BS.

About russian tanks and M1 family I haven't proper dates (EG: draws T-90M turret) and literature is full od mistakes.

But Leopard2 im preete sure.

BTW: I did the same like Lakowsky and ask some TK about Leo2. He mesured Leo2A4 for me. And is ~800mm LOS.

So we can stop talking about 65cm LOS in front Leo2A4.

BTW: all draws are from Andriej T. or BTVT - so fo course scale and draws shows les then 80cm.

Propably next time i made photo with Leo2A4 and cm mesure on it - it will cut all speculations about LOS for front armour.

[Damian90]

Damian - second picture with Intermat is geek Leo2A6HEL.

Yeah I know, first pic is M1A1/A2 with Intermat paint, and second Leo2A6HEL with Intermat paint. You know if someone allready ordered that paint? IRCC US.Army and USMC still use CARC paint but, who knows, maybe they buyed it and still don't use if it is not needed.

Same for Greece, what paint they use?

About russian tanks and M1 family I haven't proper dates (EG: draws T-90M turret) and literature is full od mistakes.

Yeah, it seems that even Hunnicutt made disinformation in his books, like drawings with bad positions of weld lines, Zaloga tried to use proper calculations for armor protection against KE and CE ammo, still without any details, but close to all other estimations, even ours.

So we can stop talking about 65cm LOS in front Leo2A4.

I agree, we better start talk about Challenger 2, this new 360 degree walkaround on MoD site gives use great oportunity to made some calculations, what do You think?

[militarysta]

Ech...only for Leo2 I have proper dates* - so when I can wrote something about eg. Leo2A4 with 100% sure (EG: 80cm LOS), i can't do that about other tanks.

*from Polish 10TK Bde and ex German TC from 294 / 304 TK reg.

[Damian90]

You know, as for CR2, we have internal pic that shows where armor ends, we have outer pics that shows special armor chamber, I think it is possible to make some messures.

BWT not dates but data. ;-)

[militarysta]

BTW: LOS for side tower is less then 30cm: ~25-28cm ( at 30. we have ony 500mm LOS)

So it's look like that:

ps.I know - my broken english.

(Thanks Gen.Jaruzelsky ;-))

pps. of course Leo2 on photo is not from 1987. It just a photo.

[Damian90]

Ah, so actually it was right that Leo2 side turret is thinner than in M1 or CR2?

One question because I can't find answer in books. The ammo loading hatch in turret left side, it was only welded without any changes or the hole was filled with "special" armor like the rest of side turret armor have?

[militarysta]

Ah, so actually it was right that Leo2 side turret is thinner than in M1 or CR2?

Yes, hard to say it, but You have right :-)

One question because I can't find answer in books. The ammo loading hatch in turret left side, it was only welded without any changes or the hole was filled with "special" armor like the rest of side turret armor have?

This part was to thin to use "special armour".

Ps.

about this:

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=284&p=10

As I said draws form Andriej T. and btvt about Leo2A4 LOS are fakes.

It's look diffren for pohotos or other draws: