Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:08 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    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.
    Thanks in advance...

    And neither than you, in fact you probably know less given your statements.

    "highly doubt any version of Abrams has used ceramics after use of DU" - INB has always, always supplied ceramics for the Abrams. With BRL-1/2, with HAP, and soon with NGAP. There is absolutely nothing even suggesting otherwise, other than biases, of course. Laughing
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:12 pm

    max steel wrote:Can you compare Merkava-IV with its trophy defense with M1 ABRAMS and can RPG-30 bust Merkava-IV ?
    Trophy has receievd upgrades that might it capable of engaging multiple targets within a very short period of time; it could, and would, deal with the RPG-30. Even Arena-3 could, technically, engaging the decoy and real munition.

    RPG-30 could probably penetrate the glacis or LFP of a Merkava 4, but there's no way it could actually reach the crew compartment (because it is front engined). The side hull armor would be vulnerable, because it is said to be ~100-150 mm thick depending on the location. Rear hull armor is actually really, really thick, I doubt it could be penetrated by a -30.

    As for the turret and roof - No, unless it finds a low thickness area of which there are a few.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  max steel on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:17 pm

    ohk so it means you need proper anti tank weapons only to bust any tank including israelis merkava . After Hezbollah encounter with MerkavaIV back in 2006 we haven't seen it much in action . Tank wasn't destroyed but i read it was damaged . I don't know why RPG-30 was hyped then  Wink
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:47 pm

    Mike E wrote:Thanks in advance...

    And neither than you, in fact you probably know less given your statements.

    "highly doubt any version of Abrams has used ceramics after use of DU" - INB has always, always supplied ceramics for the Abrams. With BRL-1/2, with HAP, and soon with NGAP. There is absolutely nothing even suggesting otherwise, other than biases, of course. Laughing

    Of course i can't but i wasn't claiming exclusiveness for armor composition like you did and denied T-90A the use of ceramics and is nothing else but a T-72B armor composition...

    Based on your own statements you seem not to be less biased than anyone else.


    Mike E wrote:Trophy has receievd upgrades that might it capable of engaging multiple targets within a very short period of time; it could, and would, deal with the RPG-30. Even Arena-3 could, technically, engaging the decoy and real munition.



    As for the turret and roof - No, unless it finds a low thickness area of which there are a few.

    That has first to be proven if Trophy can engage in such a short period of time to intercept the RPG-30. They have claimed it but so far the RPG-30 wasn't exported not even in russian service for a long time.

    RPG-30 could probably penetrate the glacis or LFP of a Merkava 4, but there's no way it could actually reach the crew compartment (because it is front engined).

    And that argument fails again, it does not matter for the dozens of time. If the engine is dead, the tank is dead. Mission accomplished.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:46 am

    Werewolf wrote:Of course i can't but i wasn't claiming exclusiveness for armor composition like you did and denied T-90A the use of ceramics and is nothing else but a T-72B armor composition...

    Based on your own statements you seem not to be less biased than anyone else.


    Mike E wrote:Trophy has receievd upgrades that might it capable of engaging multiple targets within a very short period of time; it could, and would, deal with the RPG-30. Even Arena-3 could, technically, engaging the decoy and real munition.



    As for the turret and roof - No, unless it finds a low thickness area of which there are a few.

    That has first to be proven if Trophy can engage in such a short period of time to intercept the RPG-30. They have claimed it but so far the RPG-30 wasn't exported not even in russian service for a long time.

    RPG-30 could probably penetrate the glacis or LFP of a Merkava 4, but there's no way it could actually reach the crew compartment (because it is front engined).

    And that argument fails again, it does not matter for the dozens of time. If the engine is dead, the tank is dead. Mission accomplished.
    How again did I "claim exclusiveness for armor composition" for the T-90A, like you assert? 

    Once again; there's no evidence suggesting the T-90A did use ceramics, and in fact, it would be an odd decision given the slope profile of the Glacis.

    This picture looks to prove my point;


    It shows that the vehicle uses NERA, because of the armors' deformation. You can see a decent amount of spacing, which indicates the NERA sections have been spent (there's no room in the glacis for large spacing mind you).

    This picture is of a different arrangement (1987);


    But it gives you an idea of how little room there would be for spacing, and how the metal sections could deform. 

    No evidence for it + pictures proving it doesn't = T-90A doesn't use ceramics in the glacis.

    Trophy received an update specifically to improve response times. If Arena-3 can already....then Trophy with an update certainly can. 

    If the engine is dead, the tank can still fire its' main gun, the tank can still fire machine guns, the tank can still communicate with other units, the tank can still support a crew... That's "mission accomplished"?  lol1
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:04 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:Of course i can't but i wasn't claiming exclusiveness for armor composition like you did and denied T-90A the use of ceramics and is nothing else but a T-72B armor composition...

    Based on your own statements you seem not to be less biased than anyone else.


    Mike E wrote:Trophy has receievd upgrades that might it capable of engaging multiple targets within a very short period of time; it could, and would, deal with the RPG-30. Even Arena-3 could, technically, engaging the decoy and real munition.



    As for the turret and roof - No, unless it finds a low thickness area of which there are a few.

    That has first to be proven if Trophy can engage in such a short period of time to intercept the RPG-30. They have claimed it but so far the RPG-30 wasn't exported not even in russian service for a long time.

    RPG-30 could probably penetrate the glacis or LFP of a Merkava 4, but there's no way it could actually reach the crew compartment (because it is front engined).

    And that argument fails again, it does not matter for the dozens of time. If the engine is dead, the tank is dead. Mission accomplished.
    How again did I "claim exclusiveness for armor composition" for the T-90A, like you assert? 

    Once again; there's no evidence suggesting the T-90A did use ceramics, and in fact, it would be an odd decision given the slope profile of the Glacis.

    This picture looks to prove my point;


    It shows that the vehicle uses NERA, because of the armors' deformation. You can see a decent amount of spacing, which indicates the NERA sections have been spent (there's no room in the glacis for large spacing mind you).

    This picture is of a different arrangement (1987);


    But it gives you an idea of how little room there would be for spacing, and how the metal sections could deform. 

    No evidence for it + pictures proving it doesn't = T-90A doesn't use ceramics in the glacis.

    Trophy received an update specifically to improve response times. If Arena-3 can already....then Trophy with an update certainly can. 

    If the engine is dead, the tank can still fire its' main gun, the tank can still fire machine guns, the tank can still communicate with other units, the tank can still support a crew... That's "mission accomplished"?  lol1

    OMG... of course the glacis does not use ceramics, there is no tank that uses such armor composition for its hull, only and exclusively for turret.

    And if a tank is a mobility kill, crew usually bails out, they panic, everyone would panic in such a situation. A sitting duck that can't maneuver is a dead duck, yes Mission accomplished. If a sitting duck shows that the occupants are still alive who do you think has the better chances of completley fucking the other up?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:18 am

    Ugh, lol? Seems to me like the Abrams and Leopard 2 would both use ceramics in the hull and turret. Heck, the Leo Revo. uses ceramics in the side skirt panels now.

    In regards to your second statement, you're going 100% off of speculation and opinion. Maybe you'd "bail out and panic", doesn't mean they would. Leaving the tank would be the worst thing to do, if surrounded.

    T-90A's probably doesn't use ceramics either, it is said to be NERA as well. That doesn't mean it cant.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:25 am

    Mike E wrote:Ugh, lol? Seems to me like the Abrams and Leopard 2 would both use ceramics in the hull and turret. Heck, the Leo Revo. uses ceramics in the side skirt panels now.

    In regards to your second statement, you're going 100% off of speculation and opinion. Maybe you'd "bail out and panic", doesn't mean they would. Leaving the tank would be the worst thing to do, if surrounded.

    T-90A's probably doesn't use ceramics either, it is said to be NERA as well. That doesn't mean it cant.

    T-90A uses composite armor and NERA is just applique armor that was integrated into the armor, there is no such thing as NERA armor only.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:39 am

    Yes, there is. Technically it is called NxRA, AFAIK, but it acts just like NERA.

    Tell me how a rubber/steel/spacing composite isn't...
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:23 am

    Mike E wrote:There is no point in any of those upgrades.

    There is.

    Mike E wrote:A diesel engine would weigh more, and take up more space. In fact, it is estimated that the vehicle would gain no more range, because the fuel cells would have to be shrunken. Not only that, but the tank couldn't run of anything but diesel, and the engine would lose a massive amount of torque, which would undoubtedly slow it down. 

    Sincerely, I disagree.

    Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

    Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

    People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

    Not only that, but the tank couldn't run of anything but diesel

    Armata, T-72, T-80 and T-90 diesel engine can use several kinds of fuel.

    A diesel engine would weigh more, and take up more space. In fact, it is estimated that the vehicle would gain no more range, because the fuel cells would have to be shrunken.

    T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.



    Armata engine has only 1/2 the height of Abrams gas turbin. But it has 1500hp and can run with multifuel, from diesel to ethanol.

    And by the way there will be 1800hp Armata engine.

    http://in.sputniknews.com/russia/20150925/1015823565.html

    Mike E wrote:Same with spaced armor, which just makes the vehicle that much larger.

    Larger but not heavier. ERA and spaced armour is created to significantly reduce the penetration power of the projectiles without significantly increase the tank's weight and armour.

    And by the way I prefer ERA and spaced armour rather than DU.

    Mike E wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:And Abrams turret bustle is thin...
    Well, certainly for the roof. The sides are equal to what the rest of the turret is, so close to 400 mm in thickness. The rear is probably thin.

    The side armour of ammunition is quite thicker than top and rear, but not very thick. B41 aka RPG-7 put a hole in it.



    And even if it is thick, it will cost a significant additional weight and material. Meanwhile since T-64/72/80/90 put the ammunition in the hull, below the turret, it saves up a lot of weight, and the ammo is less exposed.

    Mike E wrote: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.

    Density of Vonfram is only slightly higher than uranium. But vonfram is tough, hard and heat resistant, meanwhile DU is soft and has lower melting point. When the penetrator collides with the target, the high energy of the collision can significantly increase the temperature of the penetrator, it can melt or increase the volume of the penetrator, and when the volume increases => contact size increases => pressure decreases => penetrating power decreases.

    So that means, the penetrator with very high melting point provides significant advanrages. Vonfram's melting point is 3422 degree Celsius, significantly greater than uranium (1132 degree). Meanwhile Uranium carbide ceramic is heat resistant, but then the density is lesser.

    The greatest advantages of DU is the price. DU is cheap and very available, while vonfram is very expensive.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:17 pm

    Ukrane Arm Security Report 2015 - Photo
    09.27.2015 23:11:19

    More Here: http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/20150922/








    Nice tank missle
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:04 pm

    That invented parasitic language hurts my eyes, that Latin i and genuine russian cyrillic words next to this inventions, just absurd.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:25 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:There is.

    Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

    Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

    People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

    Armata, T-72, T-80 and T-90 diesel engine can use several kinds of fuel.

    T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.



    Armata engine has only 1/2 the height of Abrams gas turbin. But it has 1500hp and can run with multifuel, from diesel to ethanol.

    Larger but not heavier. ERA and spaced armour is created to significantly reduce the penetration power of the projectiles without significantly increase the tank's weight and armour.

    And by the way I prefer ERA and spaced armour rather than DU.

    The side armour of ammunition is quite thicker than top and rear, but not very thick. B41 aka RPG-7 put a hole in it.



    And even if it is thick, it will cost a significant additional weight and material. Meanwhile since T-64/72/80/90 put the ammunition in the hull, below the turret, it saves up a lot of weight, and the ammo is less exposed.

    Density of Vonfram is only slightly higher than uranium. But vonfram is tough, hard and heat resistant, meanwhile DU is soft and has lower melting point. When the penetrator collides with the target, the high energy of the collision can significantly increase the temperature of the penetrator, it can melt or increase the volume of the penetrator, and when the volume increases => contact size increases => pressure decreases => penetrating power decreases.

    So that means, the penetrator with very high melting point provides significant advanrages. Vonfram's melting point is 3422 degree Celsius, significantly greater than uranium (1132 degree). Meanwhile Uranium carbide ceramic is heat resistant, but then the density is lesser.

    The greatest advantages of DU is the price. DU is cheap and very available, while vonfram is very expensive.
    Like....what?  tongue

    Which is why the US has added APU's and advanced fuel management controllers to the AGT-1500. Sure it will still consume more fuel than a diesel at lower speeds, but not by a whole lot. 

    Actually, it is kind of funny....because the M1's engine generates the most torque below maximum RPM, so at lower speeds, it will be faster to accelerate if needed. And in regards to efficiency, look above. 

    US has had multiple successful diesels before, during, and after the Abrams' development cycle. The decision to use a turbine was mostly political, but it had advantages as well. 

    Any of the large diesels can run other fuels; at significantly reduced power and high fuel consumption. It also doesn't help the their ECM's wouldn't be optimized for other fuels. All while turbines can basically run anything that is flammable at little to no consequence. Heck, the old Turbine car of the 1960's ran on perfume.

    HP/volume is far too generalized in this case. The AGT-1500 has a higher hp/weight than all but the A-85-3A, torque higher than all but the -3A, and in reality; is smaller than the diesel rumored to replace it. 

    Don't forget; I'm not comparing the AGT to Russian diesels, I'm comparing it to the MTU series engine that *would* replace it.

    Spaced armor still adds weight and size; because it is still armor. In the case of the M1A2; its' armor is already massively thick, so there simply is no room for spacing, unless you are suggesting they lower the actual armor thickness.

    ERA covering the front of an Abrams would add another 3 tonnes, or more. 

    It is estimated to be 400 mm, which is obviously thick for turret and bustle side armor. It getting penetrated by an RPG doesn't change the thickness.

    Ammunition isn't exposed in the hull of a T-64/T-72? lol, what about all the ammunition cook-offs? The only way hull-storage can be successful, is if it is completely isolated and protected ala Armata. 

    Tungsten alloys are a better form of armor than DU, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. In sheer density, DU comes out on top.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:05 am

    Mike E wrote:Ammunition isn't exposed in the hull of a T-64/T-72? lol, what about all the ammunition cook-offs? The only way hull-storage can be successful, is if it is completely isolated and protected ala Armata. 

    I never say that you cannot hit T-xx ammo. Yes, you can hit the ammo of T-xx, of course. But it is less exposed in T-xx than in Western tanks. Put it in the hull, covered by many things, less likely to be hit...

    People has been finding many ways to reduce the impact of ammo explosion. But still, the ammo is something should be covered and hidden as much as possible.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:27 am

    Yes and no. In the T-64/80, any penetrating hit to the crew compartment had a very high chance of igniting the esposed propellants. If the T-72/90 only loads the carousel, then it is not exposed.

    I see what you mean, the bustle is large and easy target to hit. That's true, but it's better that than risking the lives of the crew.

    T-90MS helped this significantly, by up-armoring the carousel, moving formerly exposed ammunition (outside of caro.) into an armored compartment, and putting the rest in an external bustle.

    T-14 solves it by isolating the ammunition completely, surrounding it with additional armor, and by adding blow-out panels (most likely).
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 879
    Points : 896
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  OminousSpudd on Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:58 am

    That now famous video of the Houthi Fagot taking out the M1A2S via blowing its bustle to kingdom come kinda makes it look like the crew got completely fried. So maybe bustles aren't all they're cracked up to be...

    There's certainly an argument to be made that all that turret keeps it pretty safe from frontal penetrations... just at the expense of higher possibility of catastrophic flanking shots.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:38 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:There is.

    Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

    Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

    People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

    Armata, T-72, T-80 and T-90 diesel engine can use several kinds of fuel.

    T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.



    Armata engine has only 1/2 the height of Abrams gas turbin. But it has 1500hp and can run with multifuel, from diesel to ethanol.

    Larger but not heavier. ERA and spaced armour is created to significantly reduce the penetration power of the projectiles without significantly increase the tank's weight and armour.

    And by the way I prefer ERA and spaced armour rather than DU.

    The side armour of ammunition is quite thicker than top and rear, but not very thick. B41 aka RPG-7 put a hole in it.



    And even if it is thick, it will cost a significant additional weight and material. Meanwhile since T-64/72/80/90 put the ammunition in the hull, below the turret, it saves up a lot of weight, and the ammo is less exposed.

    Density of Vonfram is only slightly higher than uranium. But vonfram is tough, hard and heat resistant, meanwhile DU is soft and has lower melting point. When the penetrator collides with the target, the high energy of the collision can significantly increase the temperature of the penetrator, it can melt or increase the volume of the penetrator, and when the volume increases => contact size increases => pressure decreases => penetrating power decreases.

    So that means, the penetrator with very high melting point provides significant advanrages. Vonfram's melting point is 3422 degree Celsius, significantly greater than uranium (1132 degree). Meanwhile Uranium carbide ceramic is heat resistant, but then the density is lesser.

    The greatest advantages of DU is the price. DU is cheap and very available, while vonfram is very expensive.
    Like....what?  tongue

    Which is why the US has added APU's and advanced fuel management controllers to the AGT-1500. Sure it will still consume more fuel than a diesel at lower speeds, but not by a whole lot. 

    Actually, it is kind of funny....because the M1's engine generates the most torque below maximum RPM, so at lower speeds, it will be faster to accelerate if needed. And in regards to efficiency, look above. 

    US has had multiple successful diesels before, during, and after the Abrams' development cycle. The decision to use a turbine was mostly political, but it had advantages as well. 

    Any of the large diesels can run other fuels; at significantly reduced power and high fuel consumption. It also doesn't help the their ECM's wouldn't be optimized for other fuels. All while turbines can basically run anything that is flammable at little to no consequence. Heck, the old Turbine car of the 1960's ran on perfume.

    HP/volume is far too generalized in this case. The AGT-1500 has a higher hp/weight than all but the A-85-3A, torque higher than all but the -3A, and in reality; is smaller than the diesel rumored to replace it. 

    Don't forget; I'm not comparing the AGT to Russian diesels, I'm comparing it to the MTU series engine that *would* replace it.

    Spaced armor still adds weight and size; because it is still armor. In the case of the M1A2; its' armor is already massively thick, so there simply is no room for spacing, unless you are suggesting they lower the actual armor thickness.

    ERA covering the front of an Abrams would add another 3 tonnes, or more. 

    It is estimated to be 400 mm, which is obviously thick for turret and bustle side armor. It getting penetrated by an RPG doesn't change the thickness.

    Ammunition isn't exposed in the hull of a T-64/T-72? lol, what about all the ammunition cook-offs? The only way hull-storage can be successful, is if it is completely isolated and protected ala Armata. 

    Tungsten alloys are a better form of armor than DU, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. In sheer density, DU comes out on top.

    You are way out of your field buddy.

    Here some facts to bring you done to earth, because this nonsense of gas turbines are not working for ground forces, logistics dictate what kind of engine your ground forces have to be equiped with. Fact is Diesel does not need an immense logistical chain like M1 has and had during its war campaign in Iraq, slew down the rest of ground forces due its high consumption, high failure rate compared to diesel engines and is absolutley unfeasible not evenf or the US, that is why they often had to use Diesel, which reduced their lifespan of the GTD to 300-500 hours.

    Diesel engines are not exclusive diesel engines, they can be powered by a range of fuels excluding kerosine. You are also very wrong on the consumption be it in low or higher speed requirements, it does not matter, the big issue with GTD is that they produce far more than 1500 SHP, they usually produce over 2000 shp, but the transmission for tanks is usually limited to less than that so, they have to be artificially throttled, but the SHP is still present, meaning they consume without adding anything for that consumption into motion.

    Compare the range of M1 Abrams with its fuel capacity vs range of Diesel powered tanks with their inferior fuel capacity but with higher range.
    T-90A 550km with 1600 l vs M1A2 430km with 1900 l kerosine.

    The T-90's V92S2 Engine also needs an main overhaul after 11000 km doubtful to reach close to that number.

    Yes and no. In the T-64/80, any penetrating hit to the crew compartment had a very high chance of igniting the esposed propellants. If the T-72/90 only loads the carousel, then it is not exposed.

    I see what you mean, the bustle is large and easy target to hit. That's true, but it's better that than risking the lives of the crew.

    T-90MS helped this significantly, by up-armoring the carousel, moving formerly exposed ammunition (outside of caro.) into an armored compartment, and putting the rest in an external bustle.

    T-14 solves it by isolating the ammunition completely, surrounding it with additional armor, and by adding blow-out panels (most likely).

    No the ammunition in T-64/72 isn't exposed, it is behind main armor that means the enemy needs potent weapons to get through and you are again out of your field about ammunition cook-offs. We discussed this already and under the worst conditions T-80 with an inferior ammunition storage which represents a higher surface for AT weapons, sustained only 1out 25 tanks with ammunition cook-offs that is.


    http://www.file-upload.net/download-10940088/-------------------------------------.xls.html

    That was done by marat or something, known russian on youtube also BitnikGr had made a translation of his video about Chechnya.

    The figures are of damaged/destroyed tanks of T-80 25 and only 1 with cook offs that was identified, so much for the "high amount" of cook-offs. Factually T-90A when leaving out the ammunition from the turret is safer than any western tank, including Abrams, since it has exposed ammunition bustle and exposes it to frontal projection as soon as it turns its turret more than 20° of the frontal arc.

    Damage of those T-80's were by D-30, T-72A friendly fire, Mines, RPG's, SPG's and ATGM's of Russian inventory, meaning they were on par with technology of russia and not some outdated export models like Abrams has faced in Iraq.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3035
    Points : 3160
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:41 am

    Why is there a debate about gas turbine engines? Russia would use them if they were worth it. The USSR used them
    in the T-80 as everyone knows and that experience counts for something. The T-14 engine is an impressive achievement
    of engineering. It is more impressive than any gas turbine used in tanks.

    I will repeat what I posted a long time ago: in tank warfare the one who gets off the first shot wins. For any armour
    there is a shell that can penetrate it. And for any shell there is an armour that can defeat it. But on the battlefield
    who are stuck with what was available at the time.
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 904
    Points : 959
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 26
    Location : Oldenburg

    Leclerc layout

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:30 pm

    I am looking for some good images showing the general layout of Leclerc, including ammo location.

    My question is in relation with Yemeni conflict where Emirati Leclerc tanks are currently stationed - I want to know how much of tank fireworks we could possibly see.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10258
    Points : 10744
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  George1 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:49 am

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I am looking for some good images showing the general layout of Leclerc, including ammo location.

    My question is in relation with Yemeni conflict where Emirati Leclerc tanks are currently stationed - I want to know how much of tank fireworks we could possibly see.







    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:12 am

    There's certainly an argument to be made that all that turret keeps it pretty safe from frontal penetrations... just at the expense of higher possibility of catastrophic flanking shots.

    Part of the problem is that tank armour is based on experience of tank on tank engagements and the layout offers the best compromise of weight vs protection from the various angles.

    In combat the most common place for a hit is the turret front, but an informed enemy will know the vulnerable places on your vehicles to hit for maximum effect.

    When they are not familiar with the internal layout and lack decent ATGMs then the IED is the next best option where it doesn't matter how much armour you have... 100kgs will kill you right through the armour.

    Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

    True, but when power is not needed it can easily be switched off or just run in idle mode in a gas turbine electric drive system.

    Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

    For a tank in combat acceleration is key so rapidly moving from cover to cover is normal and uses enormous amounts of fuel.


    People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

    Gas Turbines are widely used for electrical power generation... mainly because they are smaller and more compact than large diesels. Connected to a transmission they are not efficient at moving large vehicles. Connect them to a dynamo and you have a very efficient electricity generation system.

    T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.

    Two things... first you are comparing brand new diesel engines with an engine from the 1980s. Second I think that picture of the Abrams includes two very large air filtration systems to ensure clean air for the GT.

    Any of the large diesels can run other fuels; at significantly reduced power and high fuel consumption. It also doesn't help the their ECM's wouldn't be optimized for other fuels. All while turbines can basically run anything that is flammable at little to no consequence. Heck, the old Turbine car of the 1960's ran on perfume.

    The engines of Soviet/Russian tanks have digital engine controls and can operate on a wide range of fuels and their mixtures at full power with no change in fuel consumption. The radial jet engines of the Su-25 can do the same... land on a motorway and pull over to a fuel station and fill er up with anything they have...

    Compare the range of M1 Abrams with its fuel capacity vs range of Diesel powered tanks with their inferior fuel capacity but with higher range.
    T-90A 550km with 1600 l vs M1A2 430km with 1900 l kerosine.

    To be fair werewolf, the Abrams engine is carting around an extra 20 tons of dead weight... that would effect fuel consumption too.

    Why is there a debate about gas turbine engines? Russia would use them if they were worth it. The USSR used them
    in the T-80 as everyone knows and that experience counts for something. The T-14 engine is an impressive achievement
    of engineering. It is more impressive than any gas turbine used in tanks.

    Currently with mechanical transmission and conventional drive it makes sense to use diesel engines, but when hp requirements go to 3,000 or 5,000hp and the drive train is all electric then it actually makes sense to move to a gas turbine.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:41 am

    This is more information on what Werewolf posted about earlier; the ineffectiveness of Nozh and Duplet.

    http://www.i-mash.ru/materials/technology/57490-dinamicheskaja-zashhita-nozh-mify-i-realnost.html - Original source for what WW posted.

    http://www.i-mash.ru/materials/design/62578-dz-duplet-put-v-tupik.html - Additional information.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:40 am

    Israel Defense Industries Unveil Prototypes for New Generation Armored Vehicles
    OCTOBER 28, 2015 7:15

    Israel defense industries are building the Eitan, which will half as much.

    The Namer APC. Israeli defense industries are building the Eitan, which will weigh half as much.

    Israeli defense manufacturers unveiled a prototype for a new armored personnel carrier, named Eitan, which will accompany and weigh just half as much as Namer APCs.

    According to global weekly Defense News, which reported the unveiling, the Eitan is meant to replace Israeli infantry’s older M113s, one of which was destroyed by Hamas fighters during the 2014 Gaza war in an attack that killed all seven soldiers manning the vehicle.

    “Sources here said it will weigh no more than 35 tons and will incorporate a new generation of active protection, an advanced turret and a full complement of munitions and sensors,” Defense News reported.

    Commander of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Ground Forces Command, Maj. Gen. Guy Zur, said the new tank “may be less good [than the Namer], but it will be affordable and allow us to equip a large part of our force.”

    The Israeli Defense Ministry’s MAFAT Research and Development Bureau is also working on a research-and-development project called Carmel for a treaded, medium-weight combat vehicle, according to the report. At about 32 tons, the Carmel weighs in at about half of the IDF’s Merkava Mk4 tank.

    Sources told Defense News that Carmel was no replacement for the Mk4, which is set to remain in production until 2020. “The operational requirement will be something entirely different,” said one source.

    Zur noted that both vehicles were expected to enter Israel’s ground forces, but not in the immediate future. He said Eitan could be deployed in as little as five years, but Carmel would not be active until probably 2025, or even 2027.

    http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/10/28/israel-defense-industries-unveil-prototypes-for-2-new-armored-vehicles.

    Israel try the 30+ ton lite tank.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:20 pm

    Replacing a 15 ton tracked vehicle with a 35 ton wheeled vehicle = logic
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:04 am

    Replacing a 15 ton tracked vehicle with a 35 ton wheeled vehicle = logic

    Tracked vehicles are not inherently better protected than wheeled vehicles.

    Tracked or wheeled often indicates tactical mobility vs strategic mobility rather than protection levels as such.

    I was expecting the Boomerang wheeled vehicles to be in the same 25 ton class as the 25 ton Kurganets and in such a case if they had similar firepower and similar protection levels that the wheeled boomerangs would be more popular in some regions (ie western regions with good roads). If the fire power is the same and protection is comparable then the wheeled vehicles are cheaper and easier to operate.. faster and less of a pain to service and maintain... I could see them becoming very very popular in a range of roles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:23 am