Jump to content

Modern armor internal arrays & what defeated them or might


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm starting this thread with the specific goal of capturing, all in one thread, the stunning pics and discussions some of you have posted regarding shattered M1s, Merkavas, T-72s, etc., including technical details of target armor configuration, what did it, what worked, what didn't and why. To me, these are very valuable, and, since the pics aren't directly referenced in many cases, all too easy to lose track of in a sea of posts. I'll start with this:

HEAT warhead tests against an estimated threat advanced composite armor array (sans ERA) in the 1980s made the horrifying discovery that even minor repositioning of protective elements within could not only make the difference between successful penetration and outright failure, but couldn't be detected by National Technical Means (NTM, diplospeak for recon satellites). This meant that a known armor configuration against which we had designed, tested and fielded an effective counter (or so we devoutly hoped; actual track record on predicting threat armor array characteristics was awful) could be quietly and secretly changed into one which defeated that munition, and the U.S. would have no way of telling such a switch had been made--until the weapon failed to kill the tank! Since the weapon system in question was specifically intended to deal with the Fulda Gap and all those Russian tanks, this would've been disastrous. I saw the warhead test footage myself, and the campers definitely weren't happy after that.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Major Warford's Master's Thesis "The Threat of the Premium Tank." A first rate research paper when written, it is most useful in capturing the state of Russian armor technology for that period, as well as putting those developments into an ongoing developmental context.

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA255552

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems these days (and these wars) the trick to destroying 'supertanks' is overwhelming force. Forget about drilling a small hole through the special armor array, simply rip the turret off and throw it across the road. Crack the tank open like an egg. Of course theres the small matter of convenience. An RPG weighs a couple pounds and is aimed & fired from the shoulder. A super-size IED weighs a thousand pounds or more, has to be transported in secrecy, carefully positioned and then detonated at the right moment. In the game, if you're playing a big map with multiple routes of advance even the biggest IEDs are of little practical use - but when its nails you it nails you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MikeyD,

Proving yet again the wisdom behind the WW II German military expression "Klotzen nicht kleckern" or "Thump, don't tap!" It also proves the translated Russian military adage: "Quantity creates a quality all its own."

As for monster IEDs, I can already see the day coming when terrorists have some of the items below, with super corrosives being the new, non burning Molotov cocktail fill. How a substance that can eat through a tank is nonlethal is beyond me!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=124803.5;wap2

As for the game, there are aimable EFPs which can cover substantial areas, such as these from the Russian military export catalogue. The good stuff's doubtless even scarier.

Helicopter eater

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=317&linkid=2489&linkname=ANTIHELICOPTER-MINE

Tank eater

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=317&linkid=2488&linkname=OVERFLYING-TOP-ATTACK-ANTITANK-MINE

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about BTVT and Andrei's comparisions, He is manipulating in scales, look, Leo2 turret is smaller or in same size like Russian tanks turret's.

With friend we made such thing for APFSDS frontal turret protection:

f_25g5truxmxtm_664e3bc.gif

As You all can see, some tanks, especially Russian, but also Leo2, Leclerc, have weaker armor over gun mantle area. Unfortunetly, My frind doesen't have enough info's on FV4034 Challenger 2 turret, so update will be later, also for HEAT ammo, update will be later, but I don't know when.

Here Also how big is weak zone in some Russian tanks.

f_111f5afsfgnm_a071160.png

Ok and know about disabling or destroying modern tanks.

Overkill IED's are good idea... and bad idea, to make so IED You need massive amount of explosive material, that can be used to make more smaller IED's, and overkill IED not always kill crew, even if tank is "dead", more, mostly only hull is damaged beyond repair status, turret is in repairabale status and can be used on new produced hull (in US GDLS produce in low rate new hulls and turret when needed).

All modern MBT's have weak side hull armor, without up armoring side hull armor will be easy perforated by even older RPG's... of course it depends on what vehicle we talking, i.e. M1 will survive even warhed with 900mm RHA penetration level over forward 1/3 part of hull, to the forward part of turret ring. CR2, maybe, there is something (batteries?) over sides of driver station, so maybe they can work as fuell cells in M1. Leo2 and Leclerc have there weaker armor, but to recompansate this, they got thicker heavy balistic skirts there.

Merkava on the other side, in slick configuraion got side hull armor thicker and better protected than in any other tank, also Merkava have heavy balistic skirts on full lenght, not in only forward 1/3 part of the hull. But cost for this is less protection at front, so Merkava Mk.3 and Mk.4 got not better potection at front, probably comparabale to other modern tanks.

Also one thing, it seems that ceramics are not used as one of the main materials in modern armors! More likely modern armor is layers of different metal and heavy metal alloys, rubber, and some other materials + air gaps.

How that works? Like BDD armor but in more advanced manner, we can even call modern armors like NERA, so their are not so passive as is popular believed. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that side protection of Russian and Ukrainian tanks is not better than in western tanks, especially on turret, but thanks to turret geometry, side armor is difficult to hit up to 45 deegrees from frontal arc.

Side turret and hull armor in Russian/Ukrainian designs is something about 80mm RHA plate or in older cast turrets 80mm cast steel armor.

In western tanks side turret armor is much, much more thicker and it is layered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damian90,

A spectacular diagram that I may need a week to grok! Wow! I'm surprised that the Kontakt-5 performance reduction is only 20%, since my understanding, dating back to threat briefings in 1985, is that it defeats long rod penetrators via overloading the penetrator in shear, in addition to wreaking havoc on shaped charge jets. That was quite a shock the first time I heard about it. I'd expect that a sheared projectile would suffer major KE loss from baseline and would be in a less optimal penetration geometry, further reducing armor piercing performance. Delighted to have the projectiles shown!

One thing that has bugged me for years on end is the apparent shot trap on the entire M1 tank series fronts. With modern fire control systems and 1800 m/sec HVAPFSDS projectiles, how hard can it be to hit that area, especially considering that way back in WW II Witmann in his short 75 StuG III was able to discretely target T-34 turret rings and American gunners were ricocheting shots off Panther mantlets, which is why the "chin" was added to it in the Panther G? Even if the area's a bit smaller (don't know that it is) than the T-90A shown above, it's still feet across and reasonably tall, and that's without counting the nice slot in the armor so the driver can see. I think it would make a dandy funnel, and a most unpleasant place to be hit by Kornet E, etc. And if you go back to both the Sherman and the KV-1, in later models both have added direct armor protection of the turret ring, protection not in the earlier models. There's a reason for that. Somehow, the M1 designers missed that feature and haven't addressed it since. I don't get it. Seems to me any kind of real hit there would screw up turret traverse at best and might even kill the tank.

As for lower hull sides (area below the track guards) on Russian and Ukrainian tanks, they used to be made of mild steel, the apparent rationale being that such areas were masked by terrain anyway. Does this practice still continue, or is the hull pan, if you would, now armor plate as well?

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A spectacular diagram that I may need a week to grok! Wow! I'm surprised that the Kontakt-5 performance reduction is only 20%, since my understanding, dating back to threat briefings in 1985, is that it defeats long rod penetrators via overloading the penetrator in shear, in addition to wreaking havoc on shaped charge jets. That was quite a shock the first time I heard about it. I'd expect that a sheared projectile would suffer major KE loss from baseline and would be in a less optimal penetration geometry, further reducing armor piercing performance. Delighted to have the projectiles shown!

K-5 is reducing penetrator capabilieties by damaging it, making mushroom effect etc. But M829A3 is designed to defeat K-5 and other Heavy ERA's. M829A3 is 800mm long and have thicker diameter than other APFSDS.

DM53 LKEII is almost as long as M829A3 but it have much thinner diameter, so look how much it is reducing it penetration values.

Of course Relict ERA have better performance even over M829A3, that is why US is developing AKE (Advanced Kinetic Penetrator) or in some sources M829E4/A4.

One thing that has bugged me for years on end is the apparent shot trap on the entire M1 tank series fronts. With modern fire control systems and 1800 m/sec HVAPFSDS projectiles, how hard can it be to hit that area, especially considering that way back in WW II Witmann in his short 75 StuG III was able to discretely target T-34 turret rings and American gunners were ricocheting shots off Panther mantlets, which is why the "chin" was added to it in the Panther G? Even if the area's a bit smaller than the T-90U shown above, it's still feet across and reasonably tall, and that's without counting the nice slot in the armor so the driver can see. I think it would make a dandy funnel, and a most unpleasant place to be hit by Kornet E, too. And if you go back to both the Sherman and the KV-1, in later models both have added direct armor protection of the turret ring, protection not in the earlier models. There's a reason for that. Somehow, the M1 designers missed that feature and haven't addressed it since. I don't get it. Seems to me any kind of real hit there would screw up turret traverse at best and might even kill the tank.

Weak zone in the M1 is one of the smallest I've ever seen if not the smallest. It is very hard to hit even with modern fire control system. Especially when M1 is fast manouvering in terrain. But if weak zone will be hit by projectile it is most likely that tank will be disabled, some crew members WIA or KIA.

As for lower hull sides (area below the track guards) on Russian and Ukrainian tanks, they used to be made of mild steel, the apparent rationale being that such areas were masked by terrain anyway. Does this practice still continue, or is the hull pan, if you would, now armor plate as well?

In all tanks with most wide spread suspension type, 2/3 upper part of side hull is 80mm RHA plate, lower 1/3 part of side hull when suspension is attached to, there is 50mm RHA plate.

Merkava have all suspension parts outside so side hull can have same thickness everywhere, and it is thicker than 80mm, maybe 100mm maybe even more, but still RHA. Only upper sponson areat over track's is made of modules of multilayer "special" armor.

Oh BTW, Russians showed some time ago a new T-90M with new turret.

Turret have Relict ERA, and small extendet bustle for CITV block, BMS system and new coms. CITV is also integrated with 7.62x54mm machine gun.

Still hull with Relict was not ready so they put turret on T-90A hull with K-5.

New T-90M is made for export, probably for Saudi Arabia. Russians wait for their new Burlak turret (You wan't know how it looks? Well very similiar to Object-640 turret, but not same).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New T-90M is made for export, probably for Saudi Arabia. Russians wait for their new Burlak turret (You wan't know how it looks? Well very similiar to Object-640 turret, but not same).

Not really, T90M it's initiative development, made by UVZ (ural vagon zavod), like analog of 'burlak' turret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i read all this it sounds like destroying modern tanks like the M1 is very hard.

But in CMSF i lost many of them to enemy ATGM.

And my T90S gets blown away from one hit from a Challenger in the scenario i played last night.

And where tanks were hit? Front or Side? If front there is huge probability (and mostly it is certain) that tank will be ok and ready to fight, no matter if it will be M1A1SA, M1A2SEP, FV4034 Challenger 2 or T-90AS (version in CMSF)... side hits are different story no matter turret (still in western tanks it got queit good protection) or hull, just without extensive up-armoring such armor will not protect against anything bigger than older RPG's or older ATGM's and old ammo for old and smaller caliber tank guns or IFV guns (only turret in such cases).

In CMSF original campaign in ver. 1.08 I don't lost any singel M1, why? I use proper tactics, always used them in way that M1's always be faced to enemy at front, so enemy fire will not exceed 45 deegrees from frontal arc center line of turret and/or hull. Sure I got some mobility kills or internal equipment damages, especially when one M1 took several hits from RPG-29's, RPG-7V's with PG-7VR granades, tank ammo hits etc. But most important thing is use of combined arms, not sending tanks where there are possible ambushes from sides, in fact in cities, it's better for tanks to stay behind and use them as mobile direct fire stations for supporting infantry that is somwhere in building ahead.

So I use it's that way, Infantry ahead and on flanks, MBT's on roads, IFV's behind them, if I got Stryker's I used them on flanks with their infantry squads.

No T90AK it's T90A with new system of command and control of battlefield (I dont know how it at english)

info about T90M (on russian) http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/xlopotov_8/t90m.htm

You mean BMS or Battle Management System like US FBCB2-BFT (Mounted on M1A1SA's) or FBCB2-EPLRS (mounted on M1A2SEP's).

Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damian90,

If I'm understanding your plot correctly, the German KE projectile (very late here, so will skip designator) suffers significantly when hitting Kontakt-5, as compared to the M829A3. It would help to see the estimated performance numbers for both before factoring in the Kontakt-5. In terms of rod diameter, they seem practically identical, but the U.S. penetrator is longer, thus is theoretically more vulnerable to shearing from Kontakt-5 plate internal movement upon detonation. Which of the projectiles shown is DU? Also, would it be possible to show earlier projectiles from 105 mm and M829A1 and M829A2 and their performance? My understanding is that against an export T-72, circa 1985, U.S. 105 mm KE failed utterly from the front, even the improved projectile. This effectively neutered both the masses of 105 mm gunned M60s and the new M1s. This is what drove the shift to the Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore and the crash deployment of the XM829, the famous "Silver Bullet" of GW I. BTW, where my post said T-90U, it should've read T-90A.

Regarding the M1 shot trap, I was particularly thinking of closer range MOUT "knife fights" whether against tanks or infantry with RPGs and ATGMs, as opposed to the long range shoots of both Gulf Wars. IOW, the kind of clashes we see in CM:SF when the Syrian T-90Ss duke it out with M1s. Those definitely aren't max range fights. That would tend, I think, to magnify the shot trap issue, particularly if an M1 suddenly finds itself under fire, say, while suppressing a building and either static or moving only slowly forward. Neither one matters much against modern cannon and fire control from up close.

Something else I'm most curious about is the status of the revolutionary so-called FST-1 (Future Soviet Tank). I've been waiting for a look at this beast since the late 80s and still have a stack of articles on it. It was supposed to have the crew in the hull, a 152 mm cannon/missile launcher mounted in a reduced size turret with remote sighting devices (thermal expected), an autoloader no longer in the fighting compartment (to protect the crew), the turret also equipped with an antisensor laser. Unless the description was fabricated, the level of detail suggests it/something like it was imaged by satellite during early testing. This formerly classified, somewhat redacted 1984 CIA assessment Soviet Tank Programs bears looking at. Skip the all but useless OCR version, go to the end of the document, the click the link, then go to page 23 of the original doc and start reading. The doc itself, once readable via the CIA FOIA viewer, is a treadhead gold mine.

http://www.faqs.org/cia/docs/26/0000261345/SOVIET-TANK-PROGRAMS-%28NI-IIM-84-10016_DS%29.html

This thread has some excellent information on the Black Eagle and other pertinent developments, with particular emphasis on renderings illustrating several different FST approaches. Also talks about the Burlak turret.

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f22-military-technology/71389-future-russian-tanks.html

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm understanding your plot correctly, the German KE projectile (very late here, so will skip designator) suffers significantly when hitting Kontakt-5, as compared to the M829A3. It would help to see the estimated performance numbers for both before factoring in the Kontakt-5. In terms of rod diameter, they seem practically identical, but the U.S. penetrator is longer, thus is theoretically more vulnerable to shearing from Kontakt-5 plate internal movement upon detonation.

M829A3 have longer penetrator, but penetrator have bigger diameter than other penetrators, obviously it is not seen here, but in reality diameter is bigger, besides this, M829A3 was designed after tests in US of 4 T-80UD with K-5 bought from Ukrain, these tanks have also new welded turret and some equipment from T-84U project, also US tested one (or more) T-80U, so it is less vurnabale to K-5, besides this, DU alloy is self shaprening, not like Tungsten alloy so there will be no mushroom effect.

Which of the projectiles shown is DU?

M829A3 have penetrator made from DU alloy, DM53 LKEII is made from Tungsten alloy, Russian made rounds are also Tungsten alloy.

Also, would it be possible to show earlier projectiles from 105 mm and M829A1 and M829A2 and their performance?

;-)

US M829A2 120mm DU 730mm at 2km (1994) (other estimates 770mm)

US M829A1 120mm DU 610mm at 2km (1991) (Russian estimate 700mm)

US M829 120mm DU 552mm at 2km (1987) (other estimates 600mm)

US M392A2 105mm APDS 260mm at 1km, 250mm at 1.5km, 225mm at 2km (early 1970s) (Rushed into service after M392 problems in 1973 Arab-Israeli war)

US M728 (UK L-52) 105mm APDS 320mm at muzzle, 280mm at 1km, 240mm at 2km (mid 1970s)

US M735 105mm tungsten APFSDS 330mm at 1km, 300mm at 2km (1978)

US M735A1 105mm DU 370mm at 1km, 350mm at 2km (never deployed)

US M774 105mm DU 375mm at 2km (1981)

US FP105/Can C76 105mm tungsten 330mm at 2km (export only)

US M833 105mm DU 440mm at 2km (1984)

US M900 105mm DU 520mm at 2km (1991)

My understanding is that against an export T-72, circa 1985, U.S. 105 mm KE failed utterly from the front, even the improved projectile. This effectively neutered both the masses of 105 mm gunned M60s and the new M1s. This is what drove the shift to the Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore and the crash deployment of the XM829, the famous "Silver Bullet" of GW I.

Well Yes T-72M/M1 with K-5 was abale to survive frontal hit from 105mm ammo and early 120mm ammo. But M1 was from the start designed to have 120mm main gun, so why M1 and M1IP were equiped with M68A1/L52 105mm rifled gun? Because US wan't to equip with best 120mm gun availabale, they tested British L11A5/L55 120mm rifled gun, German RH-M-120/L44 120mm smoothbore gun, some domestic prototype designs... in the end they buy licence for RH-M-120/L44 and changed some thing in it, it got better barrel with more service life (about 1000-1200 APFSDS rounds shots against 900 or a bit more of original then produced RH-M-120/L44, now both have same service life time), simpler and lighter recoil system (coil spring not hydraulic) and some other changes like bore evacuator, thermal isolation etc.

Regarding the M1 shot trap, I was particularly thinking of closer range MOUT "knife fights" whether against tanks or infantry with RPGs and ATGMs, as opposed to the long range shoots of both Gulf Wars. IOW, the kind of clashes we see in CM:SF when the Syrian T-90Ss duke it out with M1s. Those definitely aren't max range fights. That would tend, I think, to magnify the shot trap issue, particularly if an M1 suddenly finds itself under fire, say, while suppressing a building and either static or moving only slowly forward. Neither one matters much against modern cannon and fire control from up close.

I know M1's hit in iraq from very close range and non hit ever have been placed in weak zone, it is just so small that in fight nobody will bother to try shoot at it. Weak zone is much bigger in Russian tanks or in Leo2 and is more likely to be hit, no matter if someone wan't to hit weak zone or it will be just simple lucky shot.

This thread has some excellent information on the Black Eagle and other pertinent developments, with particular emphasis on renderings illustrating several different FST approaches. Also talks about the Burlak turret.

Cool but Black Eagle is not correct name or designation, the only correct is Object-640... Black Eagle seems to be some fan boy made one and spread all over the world as ****ing flu. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else I'm most curious about is the status of the revolutionary so-called FST-1 (Future Soviet Tank). I've been waiting for a look at this beast since the late 80s and still have a stack of articles on it. It was supposed to have the crew in the hull, a 152 mm cannon/missile launcher mounted in a reduced size turret with remote sighting devices (thermal expected), an autoloader no longer in the fighting compartment (to protect the crew), the turret also equipped with an antisensor laser. Unless the description was fabricated, the level of detail suggests it/something like it was imaged by satellite during early testing. This formerly classified, somewhat redacted 1984 CIA assessment Soviet Tank Programs bears looking at. Skip the all but useless OCR version, go to the end of the document, the click the link, then go to page 23 of the original doc and start reading. The doc itself, once readable via the CIA FOIA viewer, is a treadhead gold mine.

There is nothing special in FST-1, in fact, nobody knows on what stage of development it was.

In other side we know how advanced was work on M1 Block-III MBT in US:

M1TTB:

m1ttb1.jpg w900.png

m1ttb2.jpg w490.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW all these drawings or 3D renders of T-95 and other FST's are fan boys made, nothing close to reality.

In fact T-95 can be tank with Burlak turret, or other new but conventional design, besides this, Russian doesen't need such tank, T-90A supported by older designs is more than enough.

And on this english language forum, these kids discussion is funny. :-P

Bunch of fan boys, for them everything is so simple, if tank got bigger gun these means that it must be better!

I don't know if they know that 140mm NATO prototype guns ammo have such capabilieties as many 120mm designs manufactered some years later. :-)

In fact bigger calliber is better in fighting with infantry and to destroy structures, but guns bigger than 120/125mm is just waste of space, also You can get smaller amount of ammo. So bigger gun doesen't automatically means it is better choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really seems like i mixed something up...

I just made a test with a M1A2 SEP against two AT-14 at 2000m

The M1 took 8 hits at the front before he was unable to move and the crew was still alive.

I played no CMSF for nearly a month so it looks like i mixed something here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simple, tanks You lost earlier were hit at sides and rear or top (in some circumstances, like RPG team on building roof) or eventualy overkill IED under tank.

It is just imposible to destroy M1 at front, only lucky hit at weak zones that really small or really most modern APFSDS ammo at distance smaller than hmmm, probably 700-500 meters... I think.

CR2 is slightly more vurnabale in Telic configuration, because Lower Front Hull is protected by light ERA, and then there is only not to thin, not to thick simple RHA plate, the enchanced variant got there Dorchester armor module, so then protection is same as in M1's.

Oh BTW, AT-14 as any anti tank weapon that use shaped charge jet, have same penetration values at any distance, only kinetic energy weapons have smaller penetration values if distance to target is bigger, or bigger penetration if target is closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very strong statement ;-)

Yes I know, and I will say the same for any other modern tank.

Besides this I'm saying about frontal protection without weak zones and for all... ok almost all besides incredibely huge, HEAT warheads, and APFSDS ammo in range that will be no smaller than 1000m, if range will be smaller than that, it starts to be dangerously. :-)

And I repeat myself, all modern and best armored tanks like M1A1HA+/HC/D, M1A1SA/FEP, M1A2/A2SEP, FV4034 Challenger 2, Leclerc S2 and Leclerc SXXI, T-80U/UD, T-84U Oplot/Oplot-M, T-90A, K2 Black Panther, maybe TK-90 and ZTZ-99A/A1, Merkava Mk.3A/B/C/D, Merkava Mk.4A/B. All of them have great frontal protection.

So i'm not saying that such tanks are indestructible, but attacking them from front is not a wise choice. :-)

Interesting to know, that numbers of frontal protection (for different tanks) we have in game? May be some one of developers can tell it for us?

Good idea, I'm also very interested how it looks in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So i'm not saying that such tanks are indestructible, but attacking them from front is not a wise choice. :-)

I remember story's at WW2 like soviet tanks crew T-34-76 was fighting against T-V 'tiger', when 76mm soviet gun was not effective far then 500m, to hit tiger in front. but we won that war :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...