Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:16 am

    George1 wrote:Tank That Sees Enemy First Almost Always Wins the Fight: T-14 Vs M-1
    The great thing about T-14; is that it is an exception to this "rule". The hull will easily be the best-armored of any MBT to date, and in my honest opinion, well enough so as to take the M829A3/4, and DM-63 with ease. Heck, it might even be able to defeat its' own APFSDS, the Vacuum-1. 

    I stand by the fact that common engagement ranges will be sub-1500 meters, in which case, even an early T-90 could see an Abrams with no issues (and vice versa).
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:24 am

    Mike E wrote:
    George1 wrote:Tank That Sees Enemy First Almost Always Wins the Fight: T-14 Vs M-1
    The great thing about T-14; is that it is an exception to this "rule". The hull will easily be the best-armored of any MBT to date, and in my honest opinion, well enough so as to take the M829A3/4, and DM-63 with ease. Heck, it might even be able to defeat its' own APFSDS, the Vacuum-1. 

    I stand by the fact that common engagement ranges will be sub-1500 meters, in which case, even an early T-90 could see an Abrams with no issues (and vice versa).

    Damaging a tank beyond the point it can carry out its operation is a kill and it does not matter to you if you have turned occupants to ashes, destroyed the engine, armament, tracks or entire electronics. Operation kill is counted as a destruction for Tank Forces, you achieved what was expected of you, only kids on internet try to argue the value beyond that point. In reality there is no value beyond that point.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 699
    Points : 760
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:21 am

    DSEI 2015: British Army considers new MBT in response to Russia's Armata
    Tim Ripley, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
    20 September 2015


    More Here: http://www.janes.com/article/54672/dsei-2015-british-army-considers-new-mbt-in-response-to-russia-s-armata

    Senior British Army officers and procurement officials are examining the future of the BAE Systems Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT), including possibly buying a new vehicle.

    The effort is a continuation of a project launched more than a decade ago to upgrade the British Army's tank fleet, but earlier this year army chiefs ordered a wider effort to look at radical solutions to the increasing obsolescence of the service's 227 Challenger 2s.

    Speaking at DSEI in London on 16 September, the head of the British Army, General Sir Nick Carter, confirmed that the future of the Challenger 2 was being considered at the army's highest levels.

    Asked if the army was looking to buy a new tank to counter the recently unveiled Russian T-14 Armata, Gen Carter said, "We have got issues with the tanks we've got and if we don't do something about it we will have issues - what we will do is in discussion."

    A senior army procurement officer told IHS Jane's that a new MBT was one option being considered, alongside a limited life extension programme (LEP) to replace obsolete parts or a wider upgrade. "We have not decided on the scope of the programme," he said.


    Industry sources told IHS Jane's that executives of several armoured vehicle providers had talked to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) about the future of the Challenger 2, including options for a new MBT.

    British Army officers have become increasingly worried about the Challenger 2's effectiveness, particularly the lethality of its L30A1 120mm rifled main gun and its suite of ammunition. One officer told IHS Jane's that "the appearance of the T-14 Armata has had a significant impact and assessments of the new Russian tank's armour and self-defence systems [have] suggested that the Challenger 2's 120mm main armament no longer cuts it".

    German Tanks Stand No Chance Against Advanced Russian Tanks – German Media
    18:15 18.09.2015 Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150918/1027192479/german-tanks-useless.html#ixzz3mQxhSWk6

    The German Armed Forces in its current state would not be capable of repelling a hypothetical attack by Russian tanks, the German media outlet Focus reported.

    According to the article, although the Bundeswehr has some of the best tanks in the world in service, their combat system is ageing and not that effective.

    Actual tank projectiles of the German military are incapable of producing enough kinetic energy to hit the armor of Russia’s modern T-90 and updated T-80 machines, Focus explained.

    Currently, Russia is implementing a modernization program for its tanks. The armor and weapons of T-90 tanks have been heavily upgraded since they entered service back in the 1990s. In 2017, the state-of-the-art Armata tank is scheduled to join the Russian military.
    Due to a reform of its military Germany has reduced the number of Leopard-2 tanks in service to 225.

    However, with the Ukrainian crisis sparking concerns in the West, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen ordered to buy back 100 Leopard-2 tanks for €22 million, which were to be recycled. As a result, the total number of Leopards in the Bundeswehr reached 328.

    According to German military analyst Hans Ruhle, the build-up of Germany’s armored forces is pointless as the combat system of the Leopard-2 is ineffective.

    In order to increase combat effectiveness, tank shells with depleted uranium are required, the expert pointed out. However, politically this is unacceptable.

    Most German operational tanks are of the A-6 and A-5 series. Some 100 Leopard-2 tanks are of the A-4 series. The Leopard-2 has been in production since 1979, and has been modernized several times.

    According to Focus, in 2017 Germany is expected to modernize tank ammunition which will exclusively involve the A-7, the latest version of the tank. Currently, Germany has only 20 tanks of the series in operation.

    UK + German govenor scare Apmata!
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:31 am

    Book. wrote:DSEI 2015: British Army considers new MBT in response to Russia's Armata
    Tim Ripley, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
    20 September 2015


    More Here: http://www.janes.com/article/54672/dsei-2015-british-army-considers-new-mbt-in-response-to-russia-s-armata

    Well the Brits can wait for Germany to create Leopard 3. Since WW2 it is a tradition that Germany spearheaded in Western tank technology, and the remaining of the West (UK, US, France,...) purchased German techs to created their own version.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 699
    Points : 760
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:55 pm

    General Dynamic M1 Abram 2050 update
    09.23.2015 18:43:07

    ABRAMS MODERNIZATION
    Modernization of Abrams allows transition and interoperability with GCV and the future HBCT. Abrams Modernization is essential to maximize the effectiveness of a GCV equipped HBCT. Abrams provides the ability to dominate land operations for the HBCT now and through 2050. As the most advanced Tank in the world, the Abrams MBT is the backbone of the U.S. Military. Abrams modernization is vital to maintain dominance on the battlefield, ensure synchronization with the Army’s strategy-based priorities and guarantees a quick response to changes in operational environments and adversaries.

    DEMONSTRATORS
    Through Independent Research and Development (IRAD) activities, the demonstrators provide the Abrams with a rapid prototyping platform, development integration, testing and demonstration of technologies and capabilities. These demonstrators quickly validate new technologies and demonstrate concept hardware; capture user feedback; and provide potential solutions to the Warfighter in less time.

    Here: http://www.gdls.com/products/modernization/abrams.php

    M1 Abram go MTU engine 1500

    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:43 pm

    Is there actual jackasses in the U.S. that think the Abrams will still be viable by 2050... Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:16 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Is there actual jackasses in the U.S. that think the Abrams will still be viable by 2050... Rolling Eyes

    It is already outdated by 2000's standards, actualy by russian standards of 90's. By 2050 the will be no country named USA anymore, no hope for that country nor their products.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  max steel on Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:48 pm

    What exactly us is modernizing in its abrams mbt ? I read rpg-30 can easily level abram and rest of nato tanks including type-099 let alone any russian anti-tank weapon .


    BTW when I was playing Battlefiled 4 i enjoyed using amerikan Anti weapon more than Russian iglas . No offense
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:01 pm

    max steel wrote:What exactly us is modernizing in its abrams mbt ? I read rpg-30 can easily level abram and rest of nato tanks including type-099 let alone any russian anti-tank weapon .


    BTW when I was playing Battlefiled 4 i enjoyed using amerikan Anti weapon more than Russian iglas . No offense

    Because western games are usually biased, let alone that Igla in Battlefield is SACLOS and not a Fire and Forget weapon, meaning you have to guide the Igla yourself, while stinger was overpowered with a mere 3 seconds reloading time.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 699
    Points : 760
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:40 am

    M1A3 prob same chasis?

    BF4 the igla no1. 2x damage
    but must skill shot
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:01 pm

    I love when US tank fans bash Russian and other European tanks while their Abrams still has to catch up in many aspects.
    Well at least it has good engine option now.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 699
    Points : 760
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:24 am

    ウクライナの親露派、戦車演習で軍事力誇示 Ukraine's Pro-Russia rebels stage rare tank exercises
    Published on Sep 24, 2015

    Ukraine's pro-Russian separation faction listed 24 days, publish the military exercises that use such as tanks , showed off a military power. Ukrainian government for these weapons, received secretly from Russia argues that the thing was. (C) AFP 9月25日年2015 Ukraine's Pro-Moscow insurgents Showed off Their Military Prowess on Thursday by launching exercises Involving Heavy Tanks That Kiev Claims They HAD Covertly Received from Russia



    Novo tank biathlon! russia
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:39 am

    Book. wrote:M1A3 prob same chasis?
    Well, we don't know if it will be called M1A3 or not.

    M1A2 SEP v3 is coming in a few years, and I'd largely identical to the v2 with the addition of a new armor package.

    "M1A3", or as I call it, the "Next Abrams", is a new vehicle that retains the chassis, and only the chassis, from the A2. It is scheduled to be ready in 2027.

    RPG-30 would struggle against the frontal armor of any current MBT. Like all handhelds, it is best used against the side hull and turrets.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  max steel on Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:14 am

    If RPG-30 cant destroy a tank from front in a single shot then why usa added it in asymmetric warfare list ?

    The abrams usa exports contain chobar armor and they all got busted with ease as we observed in Yemen. The only difference btwn usa abrams is that they have uranium armor and russian anti-tank weapons including new rpg30 can take it down also ?

    Now what's up with the new armor package ? Another layer of Uranium ?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:28 am

    I have no clue; but it is very doubtful that any handheld posses the power to go through the LFP of an A2 Abrams, Glacis of a T-90A etc. 

    The export Abrams all use BRL-2 armor (no such thing as "Chobham", as I have stated before), last used by the original M1A1 for US model Abrams. 

    A1 HA, HC, A2, and A2 SEP all use a new armor package; called Heavy Armor Package. It includes Depleted Uranium, but is a different composite vs. Burlington to begin with. It should perform far better. 

    "With ease" is a dubious statement, because neither shot landed on an area with large amounts of armor. One went through the side-turret, and one penetrated the turret-roof, that doesn't show much.

    IMHO, RPG-30 couldn't penetrate the LFP/turret of an export Abrams with BRL-2. Maybe the turret ring or mantlet, though.

    Nobody knows a thing about the upcoming armor package; called Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). Based on what I know about INB's ceramic research, it will probably use a modified version of SiC, that is cheaper to produce and a little better performing. Some people are thinking it will ditch DU all together, but that would be unlikely.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:37 am

    max steel wrote:If RPG-30 cant destroy a tank from front in a single shot then why usa added it in asymmetric warfare list ?

    The abrams usa exports contain chobar armor and they all got busted with ease as we observed in Yemen. The only difference btwn usa abrams is that they have uranium armor and russian anti-tank weapons including new rpg30 can take it down also ?

    Now what's up with the new armor package ? Another layer of Uranium ?

    This time it is Depleted Adamantium sandwitched in Mythril of the Elves.


    I have no clue; but it is very doubtful that any handheld posses the power to go through the LFP of an A2 Abrams, Glacis of a T-90A etc.

    They will go through all LFP of chassis, they are the weakest part of all tanks from the frontal projection. The RPG-28 will certainly go through, not to mention it will screw up most turret armor since, lot of people base their knowledge still on very old, almost ancient by todays standards, of how HEAT weapons can penetrate composite armor. Your knowledge is based on MONO bloc HEAT rounds, having reduced performance against composite armor. BRL was devestate by Tandem HEAT round with the same rated RHA penetration value, but the precursor weakened the composition and protective capabilities of the BRL armor and eased the way of the main charge to penetrate more than a similiar mono-bloc HEAT round did before.



    The export Abrams all use BRL-2 armor (no such thing as "Chobham", as I have stated before), last used by the original M1A1 for US model Abrams.

    A1 HA, HC, A2, and A2 SEP all use a new armor package; called Heavy Armor Package. It includes Depleted Uranium, but is a different composite vs. Burlington to begin with. It should perform far better.

    "With ease" is a dubious statement, because neither shot landed on an area with large amounts of armor. One went through the side-turret, and one penetrated the turret-roof, that doesn't show much.

    IMHO, RPG-30 couldn't penetrate the LFP/turret of an export Abrams with BRL-2. Maybe the turret ring or mantlet, though.

    Nobody knows a thing about the upcoming armor package; called Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). Based on what I know about INB's ceramic research, it will probably use a modified version of SiC, that is cheaper to produce and a little better performing. Some people are thinking it will ditch DU all together, but that would be unlikely.

    That constant praising of DU is, highly overrated and inferior to ceramics, which are not only lighter, safer to handle without any health issues, not incendiary from spalling, no protective anti radiation equipment needed to change armor plates, much easier to replace and also have slightly higher protective capabilities. Ceramics aren't that expensive anymore, they are constantly used in body armor and available in different grades, qualities and shapes for aircrafts, body armor and vehicles.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:51 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    I have no clue; but it is very doubtful that any handheld posses the power to go through the LFP of an A2 Abrams, Glacis of a T-90A etc.

    They will go through all LFP of chassis, they are the weakest part of all tanks from the frontal projection. The RPG-28 will certainly go through, not to mention it will screw up most turret armor since, lot of people base their knowledge still on very old, almost ancient by todays standards, of how HEAT weapons can penetrate composite armor. Your knowledge is based on MONO bloc HEAT rounds, having reduced performance against composite armor. BRL was devestate by Tandem HEAT round with the same rated RHA penetration value, but the precursor weakened the composition and protective capabilities of the BRL armor and eased the way of the main charge to penetrate more than a similiar mono-bloc HEAT round did before.



    The export Abrams all use BRL-2 armor (no such thing as "Chobham", as I have stated before), last used by the original M1A1 for US model Abrams.

    A1 HA, HC, A2, and A2 SEP all use a new armor package; called Heavy Armor Package. It includes Depleted Uranium, but is a different composite vs. Burlington to begin with. It should perform far better.

    "With ease" is a dubious statement, because neither shot landed on an area with large amounts of armor. One went through the side-turret, and one penetrated the turret-roof, that doesn't show much.

    IMHO, RPG-30 couldn't penetrate the LFP/turret of an export Abrams with BRL-2. Maybe the turret ring or mantlet, though.

    Nobody knows a thing about the upcoming armor package; called Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). Based on what I know about INB's ceramic research, it will probably use a modified version of SiC, that is cheaper to produce and a little better performing. Some people are thinking it will ditch DU all together, but that would be unlikely.

    That constant praising of DU is, highly overrated and inferior to ceramics, which are not only lighter, safer to handle without any health issues, not incendiary from spalling, no protective anti radiation equipment needed to change armor plates, much easier to replace and also have slightly higher protective capabilities. Ceramics aren't that expensive anymore, they are constantly used in body armor and available in different grades, qualities and shapes for aircrafts, body armor and vehicles.
    The LFP of an Abrams is the thickest section of the hull, and by a large margin too. It seems to vary between low and high 600's (mm) depending on where it is hit, in LOS thickness. - That is for the A2. 

    Tandem's are not some magic for-sure penetration....thing. The secondary charge is very small, and everything considered, the main charge will still be the one dealing with ceramics and the DU. Even against the non-DU Abrams....

    DU is not a replacement for ceramics, hence why HAP also includes them. It is there to provide high-density, which basically means it acts like a lot more steel than its' thickness in DU. 

    Ceramics are still expensive in comparison to steel.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:18 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    I have no clue; but it is very doubtful that any handheld posses the power to go through the LFP of an A2 Abrams, Glacis of a T-90A etc.

    They will go through all LFP of chassis, they are the weakest part of all tanks from the frontal projection. The RPG-28 will certainly go through, not to mention it will screw up most turret armor since, lot of people base their knowledge still on very old, almost ancient by todays standards, of how HEAT weapons can penetrate composite armor. Your knowledge is based on MONO bloc HEAT rounds, having reduced performance against composite armor. BRL was devestate by Tandem HEAT round with the same rated RHA penetration value, but the precursor weakened the composition and protective capabilities of the BRL armor and eased the way of the main charge to penetrate more than a similiar mono-bloc HEAT round did before.



    The export Abrams all use BRL-2 armor (no such thing as "Chobham", as I have stated before), last used by the original M1A1 for US model Abrams.

    A1 HA, HC, A2, and A2 SEP all use a new armor package; called Heavy Armor Package. It includes Depleted Uranium, but is a different composite vs. Burlington to begin with. It should perform far better.

    "With ease" is a dubious statement, because neither shot landed on an area with large amounts of armor. One went through the side-turret, and one penetrated the turret-roof, that doesn't show much.

    IMHO, RPG-30 couldn't penetrate the LFP/turret of an export Abrams with BRL-2. Maybe the turret ring or mantlet, though.

    Nobody knows a thing about the upcoming armor package; called Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). Based on what I know about INB's ceramic research, it will probably use a modified version of SiC, that is cheaper to produce and a little better performing. Some people are thinking it will ditch DU all together, but that would be unlikely.

    That constant praising of DU is, highly overrated and inferior to ceramics, which are not only lighter, safer to handle without any health issues, not incendiary from spalling, no protective anti radiation equipment needed to change armor plates, much easier to replace and also have slightly higher protective capabilities. Ceramics aren't that expensive anymore, they are constantly used in body armor and available in different grades, qualities and shapes for aircrafts, body armor and vehicles.
    The LFP of an Abrams is the thickest section of the hull, and by a large margin too. It seems to vary between low and high 600's (mm) depending on where it is hit, in LOS thickness. - That is for the A2. 

    Tandem's are not some magic for-sure penetration....thing. The secondary charge is very small, and everything considered, the main charge will still be the one dealing with ceramics and the DU. Even against the non-DU Abrams....

    DU is not a replacement for ceramics, hence why HAP also includes them. It is there to provide high-density, which basically means it acts like a lot more steel than its' thickness in DU. 

    Ceramics are still expensive in comparison to steel.

    Wrong, HEAT precursors have shown in tests against burlington armor that they have managed to penetrate enough amount of armor to actually weaken the core of the armor among them used for tests with ceramics, that have degrated their protective performance even before the main charge which is the bigger, not the smaller one, could put to use.

    I wasn't talking about ceramics vs steel, but ceramics versus DU, they are far superior overall than DU and denser aswell which is the important factor for its purpose of use. There is a good reason why no one else uses DU, it has no purpose, much better alternatives, better designs and certainly a lot better tanks on the market for less costs while being on higher shelf of technological level and protection.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:00 am

    Care to list a source or two? Like I said; precursors are too weak to have a significant effect on an armor array. At best it might get through a layer or two of steel or ceramics.

    This is funny. *I'm not talking about steel, I'm talking about DU. HAP uses ceramics AND DU, they don't replace each-other, they compliment each other*.

    Ceramics denser then DU  lol1

    SiC and Alumina are multiple times *less dense* than steel, and steel is under *half* as dense as DU. Do the math.

    Ceramics provide hardness, and the "grinding" effects against jets.

    DU provides density.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3378
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  kvs on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:12 am

    Mike E wrote:Care to list a source or two? Like I said; precursors are too weak to have a significant effect on an armor array. At best it might get through a layer or two of steel or ceramics.

    This is funny. *I'm not talking about steel, I'm talking about DU. HAP uses ceramics AND DU, they don't replace each-other, they compliment each other*.

    Ceramics denser then DU  lol1

    SiC and Alumina are multiple times *less dense* than steel, and steel is under *half* as dense as DU. Do the math.

    Ceramics provide hardness, and the "grinding" effects against jets.

    DU provides density.

    I think it is the hardness that is the key here. Even though DU is denser it is soft like butter when compared to the right ceramics.
    Metal projectiles literally spread like a fluid when they hit the ceramic but will burrow into the DU, which is a metal itself. This is
    an important feature of ceramics.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:16 am

    I'd say the same thing, but the density of DU takes a lot of energy to get through

    As mentioned, ceramics and DU are two different materials with two different roles.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:33 am

    The advantages of DU here is, it is damn cheap. Nuclear reactors of countries like U.S. and Russia created tons of it.

    In the case of density, I prefer vonfram. It is better than DU, although it is expensive.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:35 am

    Tungsten is great, but it needs to be an alloy to have acceptable ballistic performance, which effectively means it will end off being less dense.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:56 am

    Mike E wrote:M1A2 SEP v3 is coming in a few years, and I'd largely identical to the v2 with the addition of a new armor package.

    "M1A3", or as I call it, the "Next Abrams", is a new vehicle that retains the chassis, and only the chassis, from the A2. It is scheduled to be ready in 2027.

    RPG-30 would struggle against the frontal armor of any current MBT. Like all handhelds, it is best used against the side hull and turrets.

    One of the most meaningful upgrade of M1 Abrams should be replacing the gas turbin with diesel engine. Other upgrades should be application of ERA and spaced armour, actually in tank armour I prefer spaced armour and ERA than DU. And the thickness of side and rear amour should be taken care of. Russia estimated that 30mm gun of BMP can penetrated the side and rear of Abrams. But the problem here is Abrams is damn heavy, I wonder if we can put additional armour on it.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:53 am

    Mike E wrote:Care to list a source or two? Like I said; precursors are too weak to have a significant effect on an armor array. At best it might get through a layer or two of steel or ceramics.

    This is funny. *I'm not talking about steel, I'm talking about DU. HAP uses ceramics AND DU, they don't replace each-other, they compliment each other*.

    Ceramics denser then DU  lol1

    SiC and Alumina are multiple times *less dense* than steel, and steel is under *half* as dense as DU. Do the math.

    Ceramics provide hardness, and the "grinding" effects against jets.

    DU provides density.

    Do not remember the source and haven't saved it on my hard drive unfortunatley, will post it if i find it.

    You do not know the composition of any tank and i highly doubt any version of Abrams has used ceramics after use of DU.

    I meant harder not denser.

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:19 am