Modern armor internal arrays & what defeated them or might

[Damian90]

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

So they never filled that part with special armor and welded backplate there?

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:

Hmmm. Ok but we know that allready, as I said, maybe next tank for discussion and estimations would be CR2, a preatty interesting design worth interest.

[militarysta]

So they never filled that part with special armor and welded backplate there?

Special armour for place where is ~20-10cm LOS?

I said, maybe next tank for discussion and estimations would be CR2, a preatty interesting design worth interest.

With british OPSPEC? Pointless :-)

Beter M1A2 or M1A1HA. More interesting.

[Damian90]

Special armour for place where is ~20-10cm LOS?

Maybe You are right.

With british OPSPEC? Pointless :-)

Beter M1A2 or M1A1HA. More interesting.

Still remember, we have pics of interior, exterior pics with weld lines, I think that You can make LOS messure rather easy.

As for M1's, sure we have LOS that is rather 95-100% correct if we consider other sources, but I don't think we can make better RHAe protection level estimates as we did earlier, we don't know everything about "special armor" inserts, so?

[vincere]

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?

Sir, I salute your in depth presentation. Very impressive.

[Damian90]

Ehm, sorry, my english is not good as I wish it should be, this is sarcastic or ironic post or what?

[militarysta]

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=284&p=11

1. Mask in Leo2A4 is 40-42cm LOS.

2x mask LOS for right turret part

2,4x mask LOS for left turret part.

~80-84cm for right part, ~100cm for left side (without EMES-15 it will be ~80cm).

BTW: there is diffrence beetwen mask in first 2-3 batch mask is ~25cm after (et least) 1985 - 42cm.

Draw in Wiedzmin post in otvaga show Leo2 for erly batch witch ~25cm mask. Even on that draw we can see that LOS is 3,3x mask LOS.

3,3x25cm = ~83cm

Ok, I can by hard to belive after Andriej T. "fake" so I will try to make a pohoto with measure on polish Leo2A4 (1986). I shoud cut any speculation about LOS in Leo2A4.

[Damian90]

Hmmm, I would not discuss with Wiedzmin comentarys, from my own experience with him on MP.net I know that his knowledge about western tanks is at least on typical stereotype level. He had even problems to understand report from M1's DU armor tests and the purpose of tests, it was even funny when he thinked that test purpose was to check armor protection, but actually it was to check what will happen if armor is completely ruined, this means massive concentrated fire on one vehicle from different weapon types, from RPG's to tank gun rounds.

As for Leo2's, so they only changed gun mask thickness?

[vincere]

Ehm, sorry, my english is not good as I wish it should be, this is sarcastic or ironic post or what?

Not sarcastic at all. The quality of information and debat on these forums has a relatively high standard. And I wanted to add my opinion that your posts backed by diagramatic representation in this thread make an above average contribution in the already high standard forum.

Better to ask than to have any "sarcastic bastage" thought fester

[Damian90]

Ah ok then, I must apologize You that i understanded that post as sarcastic. :-)

[vincere]

Ah ok then, I must apologize You that i understanded that post as sarcastic. :-)

No worries, it's so easy to misread things. Hey I'm distracting this thread from from the decent stuff so I'll shut up.

[Damian90]

Do not shut up, but rather ask if something is interesting You more than recent stuff.

[militarysta]

@Damian

As for Leo2's, so they only changed gun mask thickness?

On my best knowledges - yes. It was to thin in first 2-3batch. But, i must check Leo2A1.

Btw. If somebody have some doubt about mask thicknes, he can checkt this:

40cm.

As I said - LOS right turret part is 2xmask LOS. 2x40cm =80cm +inner wall (~4cm?) so it's ~84cm

Of course LOS thickness is not mm RHA vs KE value.

[Damian90]

You better read Wiedzmin's posts on OTVAGA forum, this guy is funnier and funnier. :-)

He said something like that, M1A1HA have ~590 mm RHAe frontal turret protection against KE, and that it was perforated by M829/M829A1, or something like that if I translated that properly, he is basing his arguments on some documents but I don't see there any such information. I need to read these documents more precisely.

[militarysta]

"My Tank is better then others becouse is MINE" syndrom?

Well it's not our problem :-)

Of couse this what I had wrote about russian tanks or M1 famili is one big speculation.

But Leo2 family im sure.

[Damian90]

Ah here it is:

ДЗ на леопарде нету нигде, да и на Абрамсе на лбу нету ничего , а уж ДЗ которая по ОБПС работает...

и где керамика дает при 600мм габарите 800мм от ОБПС ? M1A1HA пробивался вон с помощью M829\A1 и неполное пробитие получил от XM900 105мм, габарит M1A1HA 850мм, стойкость от ОБПС вряд ли до 590 дотянет.

And translation :

DMZ on leopard no nowhere, and on Abrams on his forehead no nothing, and only the DMZ which in OBPS works ...

and where the ceramic yields at 600mm by 800mm envelope OBPS? M1A1HA penetrated out through M829 \ A1 and incomplete penetration has received from the XM900 105mm, 850mm gauge M1A1HA, resistance from OBPS unlikely to 590 dotyanet.

I don't know where he get such information, and especially information about ceramics in M1A1HA, I don't know, maybe by his logic Depleted Uranium alloy is... cermic? :-) Not to mention that actually we know that in western armor ceramics have verry little % participation, there are more metal alloys and other than ceramics non metal materials like resin, rubber or something.

Ok first document.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36714742/The-health-hazards-of-depleted-uranium-munitions-c

There are mentioned tests of M1A1HA armor but the goal of a test was not to check armor protection per se, but what will happen if armor package is completely destroyed. I don't know, maybe his english is not good and he don't understand text of document properly, translators are also not good.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36714737/The-health-hazards-of-depleted-uranium-munitions-e

Second text, see tests but nothing about penetration effects, non mentioned perforation of armor by specified ammo, only the effect of DU aerosol after hit, nothing about armor protection itself.

I don't know, or I'am blind or I wrongly translated his arguments!

"My Tank is better then others becouse is MINE" syndrom?

Or rather overreacted "patriotism".

Well it's not our problem :-)

No, but I don't like such actions... but yeah, there are estimations, and there is real world, up to this time M1 proved itself to have good frontal protection, tank size did not changed from the M1IP but weight from 55 tons increased to 63 tons, tank is 8 tons heavier, and the biggest weight increase is from armor. This means that it's density were increasing sistematicly with each armor upgrade, these are facts.

[militarysta]

M1 proved itself to have good frontal protection, tank size did not changed from the M1IP but weight from 55 tons increased to 63 tons, tank is 8 tons heavier, and the biggest weight increase is from armor. This means that it's density were increasing sistematicly with each armor upgrade, these are facts.

Like in Leoprd2.

LOS beetwen A3-A6 is the same ~80-84cm

"wedges" in Leo2A5-A6-A7 is obviously NERA or NxRA but wedges mass is only 2x500kg (~1000kg)

Turret mas change form 16t to 21t. Even if we don't count "wedges" with mass difrence beetwen Lh44/Lh55 (+380) we have ~3500kg mass diffrence between

Leo2A4 and Leo2A6.

[Alex]

T-90M and BMPT

[Chainsaw]

man, that BMPT really scares the **** out of me.

[Damian90]

T-90M is nice looking vehicle, and finally, dynamic protection over side of hull and turret.

I have here some interesting document.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2010/16.pdf

Most important informations are:

Upgrades for front hull, front and side turret armor upgrades, unfortunetly as allways, not precised.

And tanks deployment, seems that M1A2SEP's will be sended to POMCUS nr 5 and also ARNG will recive M1A2SEP's.

It seems that after return to US all HBCT's from middle east, their taken their tanks bac for rebuild/repair/modernisation process and this process fastened.

[Damian90]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2011/16.pdf

Update for 2011.

Some interesting conclusions I made digging up several source (mostly books).

GDLS produced in JSMC/LATP and DATP for US armed forces:

2,374 M1 tanks, 894 M1IP (Improved Performance) tanks, 3,280 M1A1 tanks, 2,289 M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) tanks, 116 M1A1D (Digital) tanks, 77 M1A2 tanks.

There are unknown numbers of M1A1HC (Heavy Common) tanks produced, but production started in 1990 and overall production ended in 1992/1993, so it is safe to estimate more than 1,000 M1A1HC tanks produced.

So US armed forces recived from 1980 to 1992-1993 around ~10,000 M1 tanks in different variants.

Now let's go to the combat losses, in 1991 ODS US.Army lost around 4 to 8 M1A1/M1A1HA tanks, some in combat due to friendly fire and secondary effect of it (engine fire for example) + at least 3 tanks in Camp Doha motorpool fire. In Operation Iraqi Freedom period US.Army and USMC lost maximum of 50 tanks completely written off from 200 damaged/destroyed but repaired or rebuilded.

US sold from it stock 58 additional M1A1 tanks for Saudi Arabia to be modified and upgraded to export M1A2S standard with current SA fleet of 315 M1A2 tanks, 59 M1A1SA tanks modified to export standard for Australia, 140 M1A1M tanks modified and upgraded to export standard for Iraq.

So to this day, if we don't get in to acount unknown numbers of M1A1HC's produced for US armed forces, US armed forces have ~8,723 M1 tanks in several different variants, but repair/rebuild/modernisation program aims to upgrade whole fleet in to three unified in many aspect standards :

High tech M1A2SEP's, and a bit lower tech M1A1SA's and M1A1FEP's.

Probably around ~6,000 M1 tanks are stored on US main teritories, the rest are stored in POMCUS magazines around the world + in repair/rebuild/modernisation facilities and other storage areas.

US also manufactured in knock-down kits, 1,005 M1A1 tanks for and in cooperation with Egypt, 218 M1A2 tanks for Kuwait, and 315 M1A2 tanks for Saudi Arabia.

So overall numbers of builded M1 tanks, will be around ~11,568 tanks, very close to original goal of 12,000 M1 tanks for US armed forces planned in 80's.

[militarysta]

@Alex - nice photo.

@Damian.

(and it may be interesting for Alex)

About that -

You better read Wiedzmin's posts on OTVAGA forum, this guy is funnier and funnier. :-)

He said something like that, M1A1HA have ~590 mm RHAe frontal turret protection against KE, and that it was perforated by M829/M829A1, or something like that if I translated that properly, he is basing his arguments on some documents but I don't see there any such information. I need to read these documents more precisely.

As I said, I can wrote some only about Leoard2 family with some posibility of beeing corect.

It's sure that LOS in Leo2A3-A6 is ~84cm. Any single person can chceck lenght Lh-44 to mask ratio (mask 40cm) and mask to front armour ratio (front armour ~84-88cm LOS).

We now the "old" Burlinghton have 1,15-1,2 vs HEAT*, and DM12 tested on Leo2A4 penetrated it for only ~450mm then normal 650-700mm**. So it's about 1,3-1,35 for Leo2A4 (~1985).

*Office of the MoD (E) 6MAR1970 "The Origins of Burlinghton" and "Progress report od Burlinghton" Annex A, 25 Feb. 1970

** some part of this information give Stefan on his site:

http://www.kotsch88.de/m_120_mm.htm (DM12) but he "forgot" about idea of this test - maybe this is the secret, and he applied some OPSPEC. In any case, from "friends" in Germany I know that it was a Leo2A4 for erly batch.

As I said vs.HEAT value for Leo2A4 it is about ~1000mm vs. HEAT

vs APFSDS vaue is propably ~470-500mm RHA for erly 2A4 - according to tests in Poland*.

*In Poland "Gliwice tank factory (OBRUM) and Łabędy-Bumar SA) "open" open one old Leo2A4 (1985 year od production) and researched it. The effect of this is the insistence of the Polish producer PT-91, with the same resistance of PT-91 and Leparda2A4 (1985) vs APFSDS.

PT-91 is ~480-500mm RHA vs.APFSDS. so erly Leo2A4 is the same (~480mm).

Since 1986/1987 in half batch technology od Leopard2 armour was changed.

In my opinnion it was ~580-600mm RHA vs APFSDS for this "improved" Leopard2A4.

Acording to btvt T-80U with K-5 is ~600mm RHA vs. KE

About M1A1HA - I can't write something as surely as in the case leopardów2.

This below is a big speculation, and may be erroneous:

M1A1HA LOS is 96cm. about 150-200mm RHA plates inside* (more on less) and ~760-810mm "special" armour.

If we got 1.3 for "special armour" (Like in LeoA4) it give us:

150-200mm + +988- 1053 = 1139-1253mm RHA vs. HEAT.

*(Of course we don't know how many mm RHA is insert M1A1HA armour.

Some sources gives 3x50mm paltes, some 2x50mm + 100mm etc. )

But ~1140-1250mm RHA vs HEAT looks good.

BTW: why next generation (Kornet, Chrizantiema) Russian ATGM have about 1200-1250mm RHA? Metis-M with 980mm was not enought? 9М120 with ~950mm was to little?

Maybe ~980-1050mm RHA vs HEAT for Leo2A4, and ~1200mm for M1A1HA is true and Russian designers have once again increased penetration to make sure that anti-tank ATGM can destroyed tank, which entered service in the late 80's (Leo2A4 since 87, M1A1HA, etc)?

~700mm RHA vs. KE for M1A1HA looks propably.

M829A1 have ~650mm for 2000m so in close distanse it is possible to pentrate ~700mm.

AGM-64 with 300mm diamiter HEAT warhead should penetrated ~2000mm RHA.

So it's not suprise that this weapons can penetrated M1A1HA.

If Leo2A4 (~840-880mm LOS) for 1987 have ~600mm vs KE and

T-80U (~600-680mm LOS? + ERA) for 1988 have ~600mm vs KE

so M1A1HA with 960mm LOS should have what? In my opinnon 700mm is max.

BTW: why next generation (BM48 3BM44M) Russian APFSDS have about 600-650mm RHA? Maybe APFSDS the mid 80's (3BM32, 3BM42) were probably too weak to overcome (on typical distances) improved protection Leo2A4 and M1A1HA?

:-)

[Damian90]

AGM-64 with 300mm diamiter HEAT warhead should penetrated ~2000mm RHA.

Maverick missile designation is AGM-65. ;-)

To the rest I would agree, still we don't know everything about "special" armor characteristics, so any estimation is only speculation... Interestingly it is very similiar to our earlier estimations but still, I wonder how the special armor works, without such knowledge I think that any estimation based only on armor thickness is a bit pointless, it gives a knowledge on what level the protection can be, but we still can't be sure.

[militarysta]

BTW: I made some mistake - of course I didn't told about angles under which the warhead strikes.

All for frontal armour:

For Leo2A4 it'll be (for +/- 0-25.) for ~880mm RHA vs HEAT up to ~1050mm RHA vs. HEAT.

For M1A1HA it'll be (for +/- 0-25.) for ~960mm RHA vs. HEAT up to 1250mm RHA vs HEAT.

It means that some ATGMS (like 9М120) theoretically can perforated frontal armour in leo2A4 and M1A1HA - but it was depended on the angle under which struck ATGMS, so probaly nex generation (Kornet, Chrizantiema) was necessary to be sure in armor penetration. Of course answer for that was Leo2A5 and M1A2 etc...

Propably same problem was with APFSDS -

For leo2A4(late) 500-590(600?)mm RHA vs.KE

for M1A1HA 560-700mm RHA vs. KE

And 3BM32 and 3BM42 were "on the border of the effectiveness" so next generation APFSDS was nessesery...

[militarysta]

M1A3

[Damian90]

First thoughts.

Turret is new, inspired by CATTB. Crew is probably 3 man + mechanical loading system for main gun.

Main gun is also something new, or XM360E1 or XM291.

Hull is standard M1A1/A2, probably it is used as test bed for new turret and works as a test bed.

Still it is early prototype, we need to wait for something better at least a year.