Modern armor internal arrays & what defeated them or might

[militarysta]

ps. this extra photos are for Wiedźmin whit dedication for GSPO Andriej:

or: http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5073/to2x.jpg

[militarysta]

Alex, I have some questions - can You ask somebody on otvaga?

1.

Destroyed ex DDR T-72M1. Tanks produced in 1989r in Czechoslovakia.

According to these tests (1993 Meppen in Germany)

this T-72M1 have about ~420mm vs KE (APFSDS) on front turret, but in some turret parts is ~480mm(!). During tests DM-33 penetrated for ~1600m turret without any problem.

(source: Deutsche Ayrspeys, L. Mann. 1993)

Can anybody confirm this resultat?

2.

Polisch PT-91 (http://www.bumar.gliwice.pl/index1.php?79,171) according to the manufacturer (producent dates) have ~500mm RHA vs KE on front Turret.

But DM33 have big problem to penetrated this tank on test (4 shoot to turret, 2x penetration without perforation, 2xricochet

What is proper penetration value for DM33? -any idea?

Acording to polish milit.instructions it is

DM33 -P0:600 P2500:490

(P0 - 0m; P2500 - 2500m)

and for 2000m is circa about ~500mm

My sources give DM33 ~480mm RHA for 2000m (NATO st. rha plate 90. degree)

[Alex]

I posted your question, and answered only Wiedzmin :-) He has told next:

DM-33 has penetrated turret not easy, quote "only DM33 APDSFS projectiles could achieve some degree of penetration of the turret front when fired at less than 1500 m."

Also he says that germans estimated turret as 500mm RHA

And he give this link.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/armour/t72/T72M1.html

This is all for now, also I remember that Fofanov estimated DM-33 penetration power as 450-470mm (but may be I'm wrong).

[Damian90]

Yup, it seems that are estimations were good, also assumption that Warsaw Pact T-72M/M1's were/are better armored than these exported to middle east, at least some of the T-72M/M1's that were manufactured in WarPac countries and exported to middle east can have however same armor protection as these used by WarPac countries Land Forces.

[militarysta]

Thanks Alex ;-)

Well, I dont like this link:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/armour/t72/T72M1.html

there is many mistakes

ex:

Left: Turret hit by 120 mm DM53 APDSFS kinetic projectiles. Keep note of the star markings due to the stabilizing fins.

Tehere where not DM53 on this test in 1993!

All markes have only 5 fins (DM33) not six fins (DM53).

It's one for many mistake there. So this lnk is poor.

For rest - thanx

[Damian90]

M19 ARAT-1 ERA (Dynamic Protection) is based on Russiand 4S24 Dynamic Protection. These types of ERA are multilayer and are capabale to defeat even tandem warheads of RPG's and some ATGM's.

4S24 is capabale to protect against RPG-29 something as light protected as BMP-2 and BMP-3 still light enough to preserve swimming capabilities of these vehicles.

M19 ARAT-1 have the same or similiar internal design.

Proof:

M19 ARAT-1 Dynamic Protection/Explosive Reactive Armor, same ERA is placed on M2A2/A3 Bradley and it's derivatives like M7 BFIST.

4S24 is on the right mounted on BMP-3 (much more possible), on the left much smaller Kontakt-5 or Relikt side hull cassettes on BMPT. We can see similarities and we currently know that NII Stali that is main developer of ERA for Russian armed forces have strong cooperation with US.

And a video material:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9uaIlgXync&feature=player_embedded

Would be good if campaing have been updated and M19 ARAT-1 in game can have enhanced capabilities.

[Damian90]

The special armor insert layout and Dynamic Protection on T-90A and T-80U/UD.

As we can see special armor insert on T-90Ais actually thicker but dynamic protection on T-80U/UD is better placed.

Some interesting details on T-64BM glacis.

First is protected by 4S22/Kontakt-5 dynamic protection, second one by Knife, besides showed on photos differences, we can se that Knife have smaller cassettes, this means that after Knife is ignited, there is less not protected space left.

K2 Black Panther after upgrade program, we can see influance of US TUSK kit, dynamic protection used on K2 in future can be derivative of M19 ARAT-1.

Also these upgraded Leopard 2A4's can be protected by Dynamic Protection, the bulk of these modules and demand of low mass indicates that the most probabale solution was dynamic protection elements encased in these modules. Other fact that suggest such design solution and use of dynamic protection is fact that these uparmor kits are designed for LIC and defeating HEAT warheads + EFP's and other similiar threats.

Also the dimensions of cassettes of modules suggest that Russian 4S24 ERA have big influance on these designs.

[hcrof]

Thanks Damian90 - I do enjoy reading your contributions!

[Damian90]

It is also worth to mention that UK is also using ERA based on M19 and 4S24.

It is used in WRAP2 kit on Warrior IFV's:

And Challenger 2 with current enhanced armor kit:

In case of Challenger 2, the uparmor kit is very solid, because dynamic protection is placed over thick Dorchester armor side hull panels.

Still the biggest mystery are M32 cassettes in TUSK-2 kit.

These "Scutum" tiles are very interesting, some theorys say that they help M19 cassettes to defeat EFP charges, other that this is additional protection against HMG rounds, but then why these are mounted also over turret side? I think that this is new type of dynamic protection of unknown purpose.

[flamingknives]

So M19 and/or 4S24 are the only ERA types out there, with everything being based on them?

I don't see what the defining feature of those two systems are.

[Damian90]

So M19 and/or 4S24 are the only ERA types out there, with everything being based on them?

No, but at least these two + some others are interconected designs, key feature is that all modern ERA's in the west looks similiar to 4S24, because of their bulk it is more than possible that there are multi layers of reactive elements with special insert/amortization.

I don't see what the defining feature of those two systems are.

Mainly several layers of reactive element and special insert.

And size of cassettes.

But to be more precise, M19 was developed by US and Israelis with NII Stali cooperation, so M19 is based at least at some degree on 4S24.

This was confirmed by Ukrainians, and Russians are not saying no.

More, dynamic protection package for M2 IFV was designed earlier than M19 ARAT-1 for M1 tanks, and both looks similiar, it was also said that actually M19 is the same dynamic protection as that used on M2 IFV's.

Later Israelis developed new ERA package for UK, so it is also possible or even more than possible that UK used ERA is similiar to US/Israeli/Russian ERA.

Rumor said that France also based ERA on Leclerc with AZUR on these designs.

And Rhinemetall and IBD armor packages for Leopard 2 tanks are probably also based on these design but enclosed in big modiles.

From where such conclusion? ok so it goes that way, the one of main demands for these up-armor kits was low weight, and 4S24 is light enough to allow BMP-3 swim.

So why not use effective and light design?

And thanks to encasing dynamic protection in big modules, ERA ignition effect that is not freindly for troops can be smaller.

Also Israelis are using probably encased dynamic protection in Merkava Mk.4 main armor modules, at least on turret.

Russians on OTVAGA forum, or on some other, observed interesting thing, something that looked like reactive element on damaged Merkava Mk.4 turret armor module.

Also Israelis don't hide fact that on many designs they use ERA or hybrid armor, like Super Blazer on Magach 6B Gal Batash.

Also Israelis developed something called ERA/NERA armor, or something like this, I don't remember perfectly.

[Pešadija]

Ah... this is all very nice, but doesn't anyone think that this bid for the tank to defend itself from every ground threat is transforming it into a bloated, progressively expensive contraption, instead of a suitably situational weapon?

[Damian90]

No why? Dynamic Protection is cheap, simple and light, and also effective, today even against tandem warheads or kinetic energy penetrators, and combined with modern multilayer laminate armors, make tanks at some of it's surface invurnabale, mobile weapon platform.

In fact when we go away from classic design and incorporate in to it more solutions we can have light, mobile, incredibly well protected combat vehicle.

Unfortunetly such vehicle can't use common chassis for other types of vehicles like they wanted in FCS program.

But of course dedicated tank chassis can use common parts with a common chassis for other vehicles like IFV etc.

With modular armor vehicle can be adapted for transportation demands and threats in area of operations. Of course it can't be to light.

I think that future MBT should look that way.

Compact design with unmanned or low profile two crewmmebers turret.

Engine and transmission block should be as compact as possible, so in the hull there be enough space for APU and additional ammo (only in case of manned low profile turret).

Armor modular with different weight and protection levels.

Level one (expeditionary and air transport friendly), tank weight 40-45 tons, armor is optimized for defeating HEAT warheads (so it not need to be dense and heavy) and older types of APFSDS.

Level two (standard) 45-50 tons of combat weight, optimized for defeating most HEAT and APFSDS ammo.

Level three (standard heavy) 50-55 tons, better overall protection.

Level four (Heavy) 55-60 tons, good protection against all modern threats.

Level five (super heavy) 60-65 tons, next improvement in all around protection.

All armor packages should have interchangabale modules, so if needed some parts of armor will be protected by heavier and some by lighter packages.

Also several packages of modular dynamic protection packages + the heaviest variant.

Hybrid protection where outer layers in module are Knife type ERA with thin armortization layer betwenn layers of ERA, then composite layer, then ERA similiar to Relikt, then another backplate of composites.

Of course there can be more simpler and lighter types.

And of course soft and hard kill active protection system.

Inportant is also hydro-gas suspension system, we should completely resign from torsion bar suspension.

These and many more solutions can be integrated not only in to MBT design but also IFV, SPH, and many, many more AFV's, also wheeled.

[Pešadija]

But what I mean is, an ultra-modern ATGM sufficient to kill a tank is always much cheaper than the tank itself. Same goes for planes. Against a good AA missile, the only protection is flares or good ECM, expensive as hell.

My point is, I guess well equipped infantry is the queen of the battlefield at the end of the day, with its greatest strenght multiplier being the terrain it fights in.

[Damian90]

But what I mean is, an ultra-modern ATGM sufficient to kill a tank is always much cheaper than the tank itself. Same goes for planes. Against a good AA missile, the only protection is flares or good ECM, expensive as hell.

And a bullet is cheaper than a soldier. So what, we go rid off soldiers? Maybe we should replace soldiers with trained rats? Upss, nope, training a rat will be still more expensive than a bullet.

Without tanks or planes You can't go to war, You can't fight effectively on war.

Besides this, HEAT warheads are outdated as purely anti tank weapon, however they can be effective as multipurpose ammo, but the best way to kill a tank is to use APFSDS, and only effective APFSDS ammo can be fired only from other tank.

My point is, I guess well equipped infantry is the queen of the battlefield at the end of the day, with its greatest strenght multiplier being the terrain it fights in.

It's not true, infantry is just a part of a system, same as tanks, IFV's, artillery, ships, planes etc.

If someone forgets about system that is most important, and all it's subsystems are equally important, then he is an idiot and he will loose.

Great example is Israel in 2006, their MoD just loved airforces and forget about land forces, this is why land forces have so many casualties, why beloved airforces cannot achieve victory over Hezbollah.

Same in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, contrary to popular myth, airforces of coalition never destroyed as many tanks and other vehicles of Iraqi army as they claimed, most of these were destroyed ... oh my god ... by tanks and IFV's.

Same in 1999 in former Yugoslavia, the allmighty air forces were abale to only destroy the incredible ... 14 Yugo tanks.

This show how equally are important all subsytems of a main system called armed forces.

[Pešadija]

Well, of course tanks performed well.

A finely crafted if expensive tank performs well against a counterpart such as a cheap T-72 knockoff, right?

I wasn't being drastic and implying complete unusefulness of good hardware, I was just saying that somehow, offense seems always to be a step ahead of good defence.

But yes, the APFSDS is still the greatest tank killer on the ground.

[Damian90]

No You see, today it is popular beliefe that tank is outdated and need to be replaced... by what? A someones wet dream of ultralight vehicle that is supposed to be as survivabale as a tank? Like FCS crap?

US.Army thrown in FCS bilions of dollars gaining nothing and in end FCS become more expensive than a tank. And at least from late 80's in US GDLS and other companys designed good upgrades for existing tank fleet, with these they could have experience to design a new generation MBT... but nooo, top brass wanted FCS.

Actually US is still in good position because of big fleet of tanks (~8000-9000 M1 tanks in various variants, currently under repair-upgrade-modernization program to three unified variants). Situation in Europe is worser, UK have currently no capability to produce tanks, not to mention that major repairs and upgrades need to be done at units level because big factories are being closed or will be closed in future.

The best situation in Europe currently have France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in case of tank production capabilities.

Maybe also My country will join if there will be political willignes and money to start future main battle tank program codenamed Wilk or Wolf in english.

Still the most worring tendency from political point of view is such favorizing air forces in funding process.

Why airforces? They proved to be not effective in fighting with land forces, only to supporting them, so why spend so much money in something that is not so effective?

Unless of course they will tell true, and true is that however they are not effective in destroying enemy land forces, they are effective in destroying civilian infrastructure, but then do we really need so expensive toys for flyboys?

I don't think so, Navy and especially land forces need much more funding because they are more effective and are risking their lives much more than flyboys.

So land forces should have priority. Good idea is rotation in funding priorities, let say 2 years priority for land forces, then navy, then air forces and again, again, and again.

This would give probably better spending and would allow faster and more effective modernizatsion of armed forces.

A finely crafted if expensive tank performs well against a counterpart such as a cheap T-72 knockoff, right?

Yes but again modern tank is a system, important is not only quality of tank, it's survivability and crew surviability but also crew training etc.

I wasn't being drastic and implying complete unusefulness of good hardware, I was just saying that somehow, offense seems always to be a step ahead of good defence.

It is actually not true, it is rather a... rotation, by some period armor is better, then sword is better, and later armor, and again, and again.

But yes, the APFSDS is still the greatest tank killer on the ground.

Yup, besides this it much harder to design light enough and dense enough armor to defeat APFSDS ammo, while HEAT is opposie. Besides this it was prooven that APFSDS rod after armor perforation is much more dangerous to crew inside than HEAT jet.

[Pešadija]

Well, Britain does compensate scarce quantity with one of the best tanks around, right?

I don't know which European tank to prefer, Leopard 2A6 and surressors or the challenger 2.

Getting back to armor and means of destruction...

What do you think of systems such as the Krasnopol?

Can they be a way of safely eliminating tanks from safe ranges?

[Damian90]

Well, Britain does compensate scarce quantity with one of the best tanks around, right?

I don't know which European tank to prefer, Leopard 2A6 and surressors or the challenger 2.

Depends, both are not safe when it comes to ammo storage, Challenger 2 however have better front turret armor integrity and better up-armor package.

In any case as a crewman, I would go in to battle only in some modern variant of M1A1 or M1A2.

Crew safety and survivability is the most important to me.

Getting back to armor and means of destruction...

What do you think of systems such as the Krasnopol?

Can they be a way of safely eliminating tanks from safe ranges?

Sure it is good way, if You know where these tanks are. Besides who said that in future tanks will not be abale to do the same, LAHAT currently have 8000m of effective range, the US future GLATGM XM1111 MRM-KE/CE will have 12000m of effective range, who knows with what designers of tank munitions will come up in future.

The original idea of FCS, where new vehicle was actually a tank, have very interesting idea of placing VLS launcher system behind turret, so actually tank could have multipurpose missiles there or anti-air missiles.

Tak have great capabilities, the only problem is as I said, currently air forces get most of funds for R&D, + politicians in their great stupidity don't see nececity for upgrading land vehicles... pitty.

[Pešadija]

That's good, but that's still quite shorter than standard howitzer range.

I just know I wish I had krasnopol for my Msta howitzers to get blue tanks precisely, hell dammit.

Yeah, ground forces are indispensable more than ever against insurgency type of wars.

Say, how's the ground forces of your Poland faring? Not been keeping up to status since the banana slip of the CCCP.

[Damian90]

That's good, but that's still quite shorter than standard howitzer range.

Currently yes but in future who knows, and the best part that, tanks fire missiles that are more accurate than any howitzer. So actually howitzers especially this smaller with shorter range can be in future completely or partialy replaced by tanks with their PGM's.

I just know I wish I had krasnopol for my Msta howitzers to get blue tanks precisely, hell dammit.

Well I You only know where they are and these tanks are not moving, normally tanks in advance are very fast and You can just miss most of them.

Yeah, ground forces are indispensable more than ever against insurgency type of wars.

Ground forces are allways important. You know that in 1999 if NATO would not hit Yugo civilian objects and destroy their economy, they would must go with land invasion... however attacking civilians was more effective than attacking Yugo land forces.

Say, how's the ground forces of your Poland faring? Not been keeping up to status since the banana slip of the CCCP.

Well, Navy is in the worst situation, we can't finish our corvette Gawron several years by now. Our AA is also in not too good shape, mainly because our politicians are idiots. We developed by ourselves effective and modern SPAAG Loara and were developing it's missile version Loara-R, of course our briliant politicians decided to close program when we invested so much money with good effects and with perspectives for export...

Same with heavier missiles AA system, no replacement at all, besides some plans.

Land forces are in good shape, we got 116 Leopard 2A4's in 10th Armored Cavalry Brigade from 128 recived from Germany, rest are in training center and in reserve. of course when we got chance to get another 116 Leo2's our briliant politicians said no. If such thing would happend we could have entire division equipped with these tanks.

So we got two battalions with Leo2A4's, four battalins with Polish T-72M1 modernisation the PT-91 (PT-91, PT-91M and PT-91MA1 variants) and six IRCC battalions with T-72M1's.

However WarPac countries T-72's got better armor than middle eastern counterparts, so good that it was capabale to stop even DM-33 APFSDS rounds at turret front. So situation is not that bad.

We got our new and very good wheeled IFV and APC Rosomak in various variants, it is Polish variant of Finish Patria AMV.

Still however we don't have good tracked IFV, only old BMP-1 and derivatives, Poland had aroun 60 BMP-2's but sold all of them in 90's IRCC.

Some perspectives for new IFV and other based vehicles gives WPB Anders, an Universal Combat Platform (WPB - Wielozadaniowa Platforma Bojowa), showed in WWO - Wóz Wsparcia Ogniowego or FSV - Fire Support Vehicle variant with RUAG 120mm smoothbore gun in low profile turret and in BWP - Bojowy Wóz Piechoty or IFV - Infantry Fighting Vehicle variant. So there are some perspectives.

As I mentioned earlier there are plans for new Polish MBT under Wilk or Wolf program.

But all AFV's program probably will start after 2018.

Problem are combat helicopters, we have only Mi-24D and Mi-24W, some will if not all sended to Afghanistan will probably never back from there, and no replacement from them is seen.

We got also Mi-8 and Mi-17 variants, good helicopters, but we also seek other machines, one of preffered choices could be S-70i Black Hawk variant.

In case of solders equipment, we got Spike ATGM's in production, new wz.96 Beryl assault rifle variants and upgrades, also MSBS-5,56 or Modułowy System Broni Strzeleckiej - 5,56 or Modular Firearms System, under it will be assault rifle and other weapons of 5,56 calliber, first demonstrators have been shown allready.

Also Polish future soldier program Tytan (there was also other one called Ułan-21) is under development.

So it looks more or less like this.

[Damian90]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Air_Force#Aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Navy#Ships_and_naval_aircraft

This might also help. It seems to be accurate.

[Boche]

Well, Britain does compensate scarce quantity with one of the best tanks around, right?

I don't know which European tank to prefer, Leopard 2A6 and surressors or the challenger 2.

Getting back to armor and means of destruction...

What do you think of systems such as the Krasnopol?

Can they be a way of safely eliminating tanks from safe ranges?

Leo 2E

(message limit)

[Damian90]

Nah, Leo2 got just better gun and engine, rest is better in Challenger 2, maybe besides commander independent viewer.

Main problem is that, Challenger 2 needs total redesign of turret if they would want to reeqiup it with smoothbore gun, maybe also some hull redesign would be needed, this is why UK MoD resigned from changing main weapon.

Oh and one more think, Leopard 2E is actually Leopard 2A6, but have only APU + reinforced turret roof and glacis, other things were not upgraded like turret armor, it have only slightly better integrity.

[Pešadija]

And of the two packages proposed to replace the 2A6 who do you think is better, the 2A7 or the so called "MBT revolution pack"?