Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:38 am

    Its true that Innovation has risk , but without taking the risk you cant
    move beyond what you have to build a break through product.

    Every design choice limits your options and every design requirement further makes some design choices better than others.
    The BMP-3 is protected from 30mm armour piercing ammo from the front, but decisions had to be made to retain amphibious capability like having to have the engine in the rear to balance the weight of the turret and front armour.
    The BMP and BMP-2 both have the engine in the front of the vehicle for easy access at the rear, but as protection requirements increased the armour and main weapon/turret have gotten heavier.

    The point is that the Russians don't need a new tank right now... upgrading the existing model, and putting that model in production and also upgrading 4-5 thousand more tanks to make them largely compatible is their focus right now.

    We really do not know the real reason why T-95 was cancelled ,but
    perhaps i would think after being 20 years in development even if it had
    many key new features in it , Russia would do a better job by building a
    new design and taking positive qualities of T-95 and look and
    incorporate what is available now in its FMBT design.

    It was a big heavy tank to fight 24 hours a day in Europe against NATO. The main reason for cancelling it would no doubt be it would be expensive and contain a significant number of foreign parts so of course they are going to cut funding right now because they have about 20,000 tanks they have to do something with... producing more brand new tanks would be hard to justify.

    I believe T-95 was cancelled not because it was expensive , heavy or
    lacked innovation it was cancelled becuase they could today build a much
    better tank than what T-95 could deliver ,keeping their doctorine of
    mobility in mind , so put it simply an FMBT designed and developed in
    next 5 years will be a better and newer T-95.

    I don't agree with the first part but I agree with the second part. It was certainly heavy for Russian/Soviet tank makers and even the tank makers themselves said it was expensive and some of the parts they were getting were not of good enough quality and they had to make them themselves.


    I really like the idea that Russians are now moving to Electric
    Tanks ,keeping featured of T-95 and building a common platform for
    different vehical ,thats one way to innovate and spread the cost to keep
    unit cost minimum.

    I like it as long as they can cash in on the technology by also making electric cars and trains etc.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:52 pm

    A comparison of the T-90 to the Leopard 2A6 and the Arjun that I wrote for another forum.

    T-90's qualities are emitted from their small stature, including short silhouette, great maneuverability, cheap production costs, etc.

    The 3 Isles of Tank dominance comes from Firepower, Protection, and Mobility.

    The 3 Isles of Battlefield dominance comes from Quality, Quantity, and Strategy.

    Tank Dominance is apart of the Quality Topic.


    In the Sub-Topic of Tank Dominance, how things stand.

    Mobility Specifications:

    The T-90A has an 840 HP diesel engine (the newest model has a 1,200 HP engine), can carry a maximum of 1,600 liters of fuel with external tanks, and can travel 650 km with that fuel, which equates to an impromptu fuel efficiency of 2.46 liters per km. The T-90 has a ground pressure of 0.91 kg/cm2. The Top speed of the T-90 is 65 kph on road. The T-90 can ford 1.2 m of water unprepared, traverse a 2.8 m long trench, and climb over a 0.85 m tall obstacle. The T-90 has an APU.

    The Arjun has a 1,400 HP diesel engine and can carry 1,610 liters of fuel, which will allow it to travel 450 km, which equates to an impromptu fuel efficiency of 3.58 liters per km. The Arjun has a ground pressure of 0.84 kg/cm2. The Top speed of the Arjun is 72 kph on road. The Arjun can ford 1.2 m of water unprepared, traverse a 2.43 m long trench, and climb over a 0.91 m tall obstacle. The Arjun has an APU.

    The Leopard 2A6 has an 1,480 HP diesel engine, and can carry 1,200 liters of fuel internally which would allow it to travel 450 km, which equates to an impromptu fuel efficiency of 2.7 liters per km. The Leopard 2A6 has a ground pressure of 0.83 kg/cm2. The Top speed of the Leopard 2A6 is also 68 kph on road. The Leopard 2A6 can ford 1.2 m of water unprepared, traverse a 3 m long trench, and climb over 1.1 m tall obstacle. The Leopard 2A6 has an APU.

    Analysis:

    If in question is the T-90M with a 1,200 HP engine, than HP/Weight ratio wise, they would all be roughly equal, with each tank having a HP/Weight ratio of 24. However, if not in question is the T-90M, than the T-90 will be struck down. But I will be using the T-90M has the comparison. Fuel efficiency wise, the T-90 is somewhat superior to the Leopard 2A6, and outright superior to the Arjun. Speed wise, they're all quite close to each other, with only a 7 kph difference between the farthest kids off the field. However, the Arjun is capable of the fastest speeds, and is thus superior in that sub-category. Ground pressure is an indicator to maneuverability, specifically traverse speeds. The Leopard 2A6 and the Arjun are quite close to each other in this sub-category, with only an 0.01 kg/cm2 difference between the two. The T-90 is a bit sluggish compared to the two in this sub-category. Obstacle clearance wise, they are all equals in the Fording capability point, but the size of the larger tanks allow them to traverse taller obstacles and longer trenches, which allows the Leopard 2A6 to pull through on the Obstacle clearance sub-category. They all have APUs, so everyone wins there.

    Visual Breakdown of Mobility Comparison:
    ----------------------------------------
    [indent]|T-90|Arjun|Leopard 2A6|[/indent]

    • Horsepower/Weight ratio|Superior|Superior|Superior|
    • Fuel Efficiency|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • Maximum Speed|Inferior|Superior|Inferior|
    • Ground Pressure|Inferior|Superior|Superior|
    • Obstacle Clearance|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Auxillary Power Units|Superior|Superior|Superior|


    Mobility Totals:
    T-90 - 3 Superiors
    Arjun - 4 Superiors
    Leopard 2A6 - 4 Superiors



    Protection specifications:
    (for this section, I will be using Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalency to compare the tanks and I will be using data over it's Frontal Arc)


    The T-90 uses a 2nd or 3rd generation Composite armor called, "Combination-K" along with Kontakt-5 ERA for Frontal protection. It has up to 920 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Frontal Turret, and 710 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Glacis. It has up to 1340 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT on it's Frontal Turret and about 1,030 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT on it's Glacis. The T-90M is equipped with Shtora-2 Passive Defense System which protects the T-90 from laser-guided ATGMs. The T-90 also has Nakidka camouflage, which reduces a Gunner's ability to detect the T-90. Finally, the T-90 has several 81 mm Smoke-grenade launchers, which disrupts a Thermal Imager's ability to aquire the T-90.

    The Arjun also uses Composite armor, called "Kanchan" armor. The Arjun has up to 570 mm RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Frontal Turret and 410 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Glacis. It has up to 830 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT projectiles on it's turret and up to 730 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT projectiles on it's Glacis. An Additional NERA layer is being developed for the Arjun but I have not took that into account as no estimate of it's capability has delivered itself to me. The Arjun has the ALWCS protection suite, which provides similar capabilities to the Shtora jammer and Smoke grenades on the T-90. The Arjun also has the Mobile Camouflage System to conceal it's presence.

    The Leopard 2A6 uses 3rd Generation Composite armor. It has up to 940 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Frontal turret and 620 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Glacis. The Leopard 2A6 also has up to 1,960 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT projectiles on it's turret and 750 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT projectiles on it's Glacis. The Leopard 2A6 has spall liners. The Leopard 2A6 also has 76 mm smoke grenade launchers that can conceal the tank from Thermal Imagers.

    Analysis:

    The Arjun seems inadequate in terms of RHAe when compared to the other two tanks. However, the T-90 achieves it's relatively high RHAe ratings from it's usage of Kontakt-5 ERA, which provides 250 mm of RHAe v.s. KE and 600 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT alone. If one were to strip a T-90 of it's ERA, it's baseline protection is inferior to the Arjuns and down-right paper compared to the Leopard 2A6. The T-90's Turret protection v.s. KE is on par with the Leopard 2A6's protection on the turret, with only 20 mm deviation. Turret protection v.s. HEAT wise, the Leopard 2A6 reigns supreme over the other two comparison tanks. Glacis KE protection wise, the T-90 holds a small lead over the two tanks. The T-90 also holds a clear lead in Glacis HEAT protection compared to the other two tanks. Additional protection from other types of weapons seems to be equal between the T-90 and the Arjun, but the Leopard 2A6 lacks some of those additional protection. I should note that in a study on tank round impact probabilities done in 1991 after the Gulf War, showed that 60% of tank rounds tend to impact 1.5 m off the ground. For the T-90, that means 60% of the rounds will hit the Front Turret, at about the same height of the Gun. For the Leopard 2A6, that means 60% of the rounds will hit on the upper part of the Glacis. For the Arjun, that means that 60% of the rounds will hit at about the lower Front Turret, parallel with the mantle.

    Visual Breakdown of Protection Comparison:
    ------------------------------------------
    [indent]|T-90|Arjun|Leopard 2A6|[/indent]

    • Turret Protection v.s. KE|Superior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Turret Protection v.s. HEAT|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Glacis Protection v.s. KE|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • Glacis Protection v.s. HEAT|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • Anti-ATGM capability|Superior|Superior|Inferior|
    • Camouflage|Superior|Superior|Inferior|


    Protection totals:
    T-90: 5 Superior
    Arjun: 2 Superior
    Leopard 2A6: 2 Superior


    Fire Power specifications:

    The T-90 has an 125 mm L/48 smooth bore gun with an autoloader capable of firing at 8 rounds per minute. It can fire APFSDS, HEAT, HE-FRAG, and ATGM munitions. The 3BM-42M is the projectile designation of the APFSDS the T-90 can fire. It's projectile is made of Tungsten and weighs 4.6 kg, and it's projectile will travel at 1,750 meters per second with about 60 meters per second velocity drop per km. It's estimated to penetrate 650 mm of RHAe at 2 km. The 3BK-31 is the projectile designation of the most modern HEAT round that the T-90 can fire. It has a Triple-tandem charge, and is credited with a penetration of over 800 mm of RHAe. The 9M119M Reflex is the designation for the ATGM that the T-90 can fire. It is a Tandem-charge HEAT projectile with a range of 6,000 m and is guided by SACLOS. It's penetration is about 900 mm of RHAe, and over 1,000 mm of RHAe if ERA is not present. For Fire control, the Commander has the CATHERINE-FC 3nd Generation Day/Night thermal sight, which can ID a tank at night over 2.3 km and ID a tank at day at over 8 km.

    The Arjun has an 120 mm L/50 rifled gun with a manual loader capable of firing up to 8 rounds per minute. It can fire APFSDS, HE, HEAT, HESH and ATGM rounds. The APFSDS round (unknown designation) has a Tungsten projectile. All other figures are unknown to me. It's penetration estimate is 650 mm of RHAe at 2 km. The Arjun's HEAT round is unknown to me. The LAHAT ATGM is a SALH guided Tandem-HEAT round. It has a maximum range of 8 km but could be extended to 13 km if the terrain allows. It's warhead is capable of penetrating over 800 mm of RHAe, and about 900 mm if ERA is not present. The Commander of the Arjun has a Day/Night Thermal imager from Bharat Electronics. It's capabilities are unknown to me but are presumably similar to the T-90's capabilities.

    The Leopard 2A6 has an 120 mm L/55 smooth bore gun with a manual loader capable of firing at 4 rounds per minute sustained and up to 10 rounds per minute if you have a strong loader. It can fire APFSDS, MPAT, and ATGM rounds. The DM63 is made of Tungsten and weighs about 5 kg estimated. It will travel about 1,730 meters per second from the L/55 with a velocity drop of about 55 meters per second per km. It's estimated penetration is 720 mm of RHAe at 2 km. The MPAT round is designated the DM12 is a Tandem-HEAT round which can penetrate about 650 mm of RHAe. The Leopard 2A6 can also fire the LAHAT, to which's specifications are above (penetration of 800 mm of RHAe and 8 km maximum range). The Commander and Gunner has a 3rd Generation Day/Night thermal imager from Rheinmetall Defense Electronics. It has a maximum range of 10 km, and presumably a maximum ID range at night of 2.5 km and a maximum ID range at day of 8 km.

    Note*
    Although information in regards to Indian systems aren't as forthcoming as I like it to be, it's safe to assume that the Arjun's Sensor capabilities are slightly superior to the T-80s, to which it was derived from. Knowing this, the T-80's Day/night Thermal sight, the 1G46 PERFECT Day sight and the AGAVA-2 night sight, which has ID ranges of about 5 km and 1.5 km respectfully. Knowing this, I'll magically upgrate the Arjun's unknown performances to 150% of what the T-80 had, so the Arjun's sensor capabilities will be 7.5 km Day ID range and 2.25 km Night ID range. You can throw this part out if you want, at least until the Arjun's sensor data are found.


    Analysis:

    The German long rod DM63 round pulls out as the top performer in the APFSDS sub-category, with about 70 mm more penetration than the APFSDS rounds of the two tanks. The Russian 3BK-31 is the god-king in the HEAT sub-category, and you shouldn't blame it, as the Triple-tandem charge is a rarity in the world. I should note that it was designed to penetrate the many different layers of a Composite armor array. Although the Russian 9M119M round has slightly superior penetration, the LAHAT has a farther range than the Reflex, so thus, the LAHAT is the better ATGM. Fire Control wise, the German electronics by far pulls out ahead of the rest of the competitors, in Night ID sub-category. They're all roughly tied in the Day ID sub-category. Finally, the T-90 still has the best in the rate of fire category, as it's auto-loader ensures consistency, while Human manual loaders can vary depending on level of fatigue, size of the person, etc.

    Visual Breakdown of Firepower Comparison:
    -----------------------------------------
    |T-90|Arjun|Leopard 2A6|

    • KE Penetrator|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • HEAT Penetrator|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • ATGM round|Inferior|Superior|Superior|
    • FCS - Daytime ID range|Superior|Superior|Superior|
    • FCS - Night Time ID range|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Rate of Fire|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|


    Firepower totals:
    T-90 - 3 Superiors
    Arjun - 2 Superiors
    Leopard 2A6 - 4 Superiors


    Totals:
    T-90 - 11 Superiors
    Arjun - 8 Superiors
    Leopard 2A6 - 10 Superiors


    Conclusion and Notes:

    I should note that I have left several facts and additional analysis out of this report. The clear height advantage of the Leopard 2A6 (0.8 meters taller than the T-90 and 0.7 meters taller than the Arjun) allows it to take advantage of the terrain better, by situating itself in the Hull-down position more often. This tactic, will expose the Front Turret of the Leopard 2A6 to enemy fire, which happens to be the most protected part of the Leopard 2A6. I have also left out Maintenance from this report, as information regarding these tanks are already scarce (save the Leopard), my attempts at finding breakdown averages bared no fruit. But you should take note of these maintenance failures. The Fire Control System of the Arjun tank seems to malfunction at temperatures over 42 degrees Celsius, and there are reports of the T-90S malfunctioning due to the heat in the Indian deserts. I have also left out Gun-accuracy from this equation, simply because I could not find the max deviations for the guns in question.

    Overall, the "best" tank of the 3 is the T-90, with the Leopard 2 pulling a close 2nd. The game changer was the Protection levels, to which the T-90 had an advantage on because of the Russian's habit of spamming ERA on their tanks. The T-90 also happens to be the cheapest, worth about $2.2 million USD a piece, compared to the $3.7 million USD that the Arjun is worth and the $5.8 million USD that the Leopard 2A6 is worth. So to sum it up, the T-90 is a nice tank.

    Sources:

    Arjun from Wikipedia
    T-90 from Wikipedia
    Leopard 2 from Wikipedia
    Leopard 2 from fprado.com
    T-90 from Vasiliy Folfanov's Tank page
    Tank Protection Levels site
    Random Indian Defense Blog
    CATHERINE FC brochure
    [quote]

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:01 pm

    Nice analysis ,but there are some caveats

    1 ) Do not rely on Wiki for Arjun information , they have been adequately manipulated or there is no authentic base to that information , with some pointing to some blog or website that are known to be biased wrt Arjun.

    A good information is the one provided by what appears to be from DRDO/CVRDE , check this link , i got that from Ajai Shukla blog link Ajai Blog

    BTW in that Ajai Blog link that i gave you check for Ghorcharrah Gabbar comments if you are keen to get the other side of view on T-90 vs Arjun debate , its interesting since the person claims to be a T-72 tanker in the Indian Army and still vouches by it.

    2 ) Kanchan armour performance figures for Arjun is unknown , the DRDO wants to keep that a secret , with just information stating to be quite good , so any figures for kanchan is just speculation ATM.

    3 ) Lahat has been tested with Arjun but its not integrated with Mk1 , it will be integrated with Arjun Mk2 which is under works and will be heavier like 60T plus , Lahat and Reflex has similar performance figures and not 13 km etc both are rated at ~ 5 km.

    4 ) d_berwal who happens to serve the army rates arjun better in driving easyness due to use of joystick and rates its FC better than Indian Bhishma , but with T-90M i suppose the gun will be a newer one and FC will be better.


    Can you provide me the link to the forum where you had originally posted this information ?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:34 pm

    The Trophy seems to be a nice Active Defence System and last week it managed to kill a RPG in real combat , from the video below it seems to have quick reload capability


    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:57 pm

    Austin wrote:Nice analysis ,but there are some caveats

    1 ) Do not rely on Wiki for Arjun information , they have been adequately manipulated or there is no authentic base to that information , with some pointing to some blog or website that are known to be biased wrt Arjun.

    A good information is the one provided by what appears to be from DRDO/CVRDE , check this link , i got that from Ajai Shukla blog link Ajai Blog

    BTW in that Ajai Blog link that i gave you check for Ghorcharrah Gabbar comments if you are keen to get the other side of view on T-90 vs Arjun debate , its interesting since the person claims to be a T-72 tanker in the Indian Army and still vouches by it.

    2 ) Kanchan armour performance figures for Arjun is unknown , the DRDO wants to keep that a secret , with just information stating to be quite good , so any figures for kanchan is just speculation ATM.

    3 ) Lahat has been tested with Arjun but its not integrated with Mk1 , it will be integrated with Arjun Mk2 which is under works and will be heavier like 60T plus , Lahat and Reflex has similar performance figures and not 13 km etc both are rated at ~ 5 km.

    4 ) d_berwal who happens to serve the army rates arjun better in driving easyness due to use of joystick and rates its FC better than Indian Bhishma , but with T-90M i suppose the gun will be a newer one and FC will be better.


    Can you provide me the link to the forum where you had originally posted this information ?

    Pretty much all Modern armor estimates are just that, estimates. You can determine the effectiveness of an armor by doing 2 things, knowing it's composition and knowing the effective of that composition. Kanchan armor is technically Composite, which means that it's a bunch of stuff lobbed into one, we know there's RHA in it, there's Ceramics, there's Fiberglass in it, etc. From photos, one can estimate the amount of space the armor gets to take up, which we can then through deduction figure out the approximate thicknesses of the various layers. Once we know that, we can do some fancy shmancy math and we get a RHAe out of it.

    It's how people figured out the protection of the Abrams and the Challenger and the like.

    Here's the link to the forum I first posted this on:

    http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/3275-best-tanks-in-the-world/page__pid__421631__st__640#entry421631


    Yes, it is a game I play :v

    Oh and, your Trophy video reminded me:

    http://www.defencetalk.com/first-anti-tank-missile-interception-for-the-trophy-system-israel-32544/

    Big day for Modern APS.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:38 am

    The 3 Isles of Battlefield dominance comes from Quality, Quantity, and Strategy.

    I rather disagree. During WWII the Russians had thousands of T-26 tanks yet the large numbers had little effect on their performance in battle. The quality of their manufacture also had very little to do with their performance.

    I think there is a direct relationship between Quality and Quantity, as these are to some extent opposites... if they hadn't taken the time to make Panthers vehicles that would last 30 years they could probably have produced a lot more and from cheaper and less strategic materials.

    Regarding strategy that would apply to anything and is quite independent of design.

    Ground pressure is an indicator to maneuverability, specifically traverse speeds.

    I totally disagree. I think total weight has as much to do with manoeuvrability and total weight together with power to weight ratio is more important to traverse speeds. For a tank it is acceleration and speed from cover to cover that is far more important than top speed. There is no speed a modern tank can move at that will protect them from being hit by a missile or being tracked by an enemy tank gun. Accelerating quickly however means you can move from covered position to covered position much faster which of course is much more relevant than top speed. Top speed is normally on flat hard level roads which is a very vulnerable place for a tank to be.

    The Leopard 2A6 and the Arjun are quite close to each other in this sub-category, with only an 0.01 kg/cm2 difference between the two. The T-90 is a bit sluggish compared to the two in this sub-category.

    Ground pressure like this would be important for travelling over deep snow or through deep mud. I have not read of any problems with the T-90 in this regard, in fact they seem to like to drive the T-90 through all sorts of difficult obstacles to show it off.



    • Horsepower/Weight ratio|Superior|Superior|Superior|
    • Fuel Efficiency|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • Maximum Speed|Inferior|Superior|Inferior|
    • Ground Pressure|Inferior|Superior|Superior|
    • Obstacle Clearance|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Auxillary Power Units|Superior|Superior|Superior|
    Real obstacle clearance is performed by engineer units, Fuel efficiency is really a problem for logistics... the Abrams would rate poorly in this category yet the gas turbine engine it uses is a necessity considering its total mass, top speed is irrelevant, as is ground pressure unless it is excessively high or excessively low.

    Regarding protection, I assume all the numbers are estimates and I don't know where you got them from but I don't have any accurate figures so I wont comment except to say that T-90M will likely have Relict rather than kontakt.

    Although the Russian 9M119M round has slightly superior penetration, the
    LAHAT has a farther range than the Reflex, so thus, the LAHAT is the
    better ATGM.

    I suspect the chances of either weapon being used at max range is fairly low with normal tank engagements in places that are not flat open deserts so I question your assertion that extra range = superior weapon... especially at night when both vehicles can't correctly ID targets at more than 3kms anyway.

    The Russian 3BK-31 is the god-king in the HEAT sub-category, and you
    shouldn't blame it, as the Triple-tandem charge is a rarity in the
    world. I should note that it was designed to penetrate the many
    different layers of a Composite armor array.

    The RPG-28 uses a single 125mm calibre shaped charge warhead with a small precursor charge to defeat ERA and its armour penetration is listed as "more than 900mm behind ERA", so I would expect with an extra 125mm calibre HEAT warhead that the penetration of this 3BK-31 would likely be better.

    The clear height advantage of the Leopard 2A6 (0.8 meters taller than
    the T-90 and 0.7 meters taller than the Arjun) allows it to take
    advantage of the terrain better, by situating itself in the Hull-down
    position more often.

    The height of the Sherman during WWII was considered a disadvantage that made it a target. Height is irrelevant in a hull down postion... important factors in hull down positions are the distance from the gun bore to the top of the tank and the elevation range of the main tank gun. The only time the M60 was found to be more useful than smaller tanks was in the desert where its height allowed it to see further. It also meant it was visible from further away and it also meant it was a larger target so the advantage was not considered useful. In more cluttered terrain it just makes you a bigger target. Ask an F-14 pilot fighting a Skyhawk or F-5.

    and there are reports of the T-90S malfunctioning due to the heat in the Indian deserts.

    The Thales thermal sights failed in Indian deserts and required Israeli air conditioning units to cool them down. A Russian company has since developed an efficient compact air conditioning unit that will be fitted as standard to the T-90M.

    d_berwal who happens to serve the army rates arjun better in driving
    easyness due to use of joystick and rates its FC better than Indian
    Bhishma , but with T-90M i suppose the gun will be a newer one and FC
    will be better.

    It will have a new gun, able to use new longer penetrators with the new auto loader and the driver will have new steering wheel controls to drive the vehicle. (note even the BMP-1 has a steering column like a car, but the reason they haven't fitted such controls to their tanks is because in their tanks there is very little space in front of the driver so side sticks means less space in the driver compartment is wasted).

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:03 am

    Quality not in manufacture but in the Quality of the design.

    And Garry, we're comparing tanks, not systems, always remember that.

    In regards to the 3BK-31, that'd be a false assumption.

    The extra warheads aren't there to provide extra penetration, it's there to destroy the different layers of armor in Composite armor.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:37 am

    The photos I have seen show the shaped charge liners are made of the same material... surely if they are to defeat different materials in composite armour each charge would be optimised to penetrate different the different materials by having different liners optimised to penetrate the different layers?

    The Metis M1 has a 130mm calibre and a single rear large warhead and a penetration of 950mm with a small precursor warhead charge to defeat ERA.

    And Garry, we're comparing tanks, not systems, always remember that.

    Wouldn't you say that the better German tank tactics was part of the system rather than the tank, yet at the same time the system effected the design of the tank in that German tanks were over crewed compared to the tanks of other countries like the T-26 and Char tanks. German tanks had commanders with no gun to aim or fire or even load... they commanders just commanded the tank! (imagine that!)

    The System effects the tank design and how it will be used also effects the design.

    Being able to drive over the majority of existing bridges for instance... the 52 ton T-10 was the heaviest tank the Soviets had ever had in service, so suggesting their ideal tank would be say a 75 ton design is a little silly I believe. Heavy tank designs have been considered obsolete in Russia for quite some time largely due to the effect of modern air power and ATGMs, but also because of the cost involved.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:05 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:Pretty much all Modern armor estimates are just that, estimates. You can determine the effectiveness of an armor by doing 2 things, knowing it's composition and knowing the effective of that composition. Kanchan armor is technically Composite, which means that it's a bunch of stuff lobbed into one, we know there's RHA in it, there's Ceramics, there's Fiberglass in it, etc. From photos, one can estimate the amount of space the armor gets to take up, which we can then through deduction figure out the approximate thicknesses of the various layers. Once we know that, we can do some fancy shmancy math and we get a RHAe out of it.

    Yes these are just estimates and like any estimates it can be closer to truth or just off the target.

    Just because Kanchan or other armour are composites armor does not mean they are of the same composition , materials and effectiveness might vary from good to excellent

    Hence I have my doubts over known penetration capabilities of any armour , unless you get some figures from its makers.

    It's how people figured out the protection of the Abrams and the Challenger and the like.

    They figured out but its not certain if they figured out right.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:29 am

    The points you bring up Austin are very valid and even more so because the estimates are very dependant on what is being used.

    For instance if the threat is x model rocket for the RPG-7 then the first thing you do is examine how that particular rocket warhead works and then the design of the armour is to defeat the way that it works.

    Lets say the rocket in question is rocket number 4 and its penetration figures are given as 500mm of RHA.

    The new armour designed to defeat that particular rocket might be so effective that it stops penetration, so you could describe this armour as being the equivalent of MORE than 500mm of RHA because it can stop this particular rocket that has this penetration capacity.

    It might however be that the composition of composites in the armour are very effective against the copper liner of rocket number 4 and rocket number 5 which has an armour penetration of 450mm might have a completely different liner for which the various layers of your armour have little effect and rocket number 5 completely penetrates it easily. Now none of the armours on tanks are actually as thick as the protection they represent and it would only be if they were all homogeneous steel plate that you could use standard estimates and compare them directly.
    Different liners, different focal lengths of warheads, different sized HE warheads driving the shaped charges, different detonating speeds for different explosive charges, and of course different fuses as well as diameters and angles of impact will all effect the real performance of an anti armour weapon.
    Angles of armour also effect its protective performance too, but the angle of impact can negate that as a very shallow armour angle is not a shallow angle for a top attack weapon...

    Also with estimates there is the issue of new designs... the west was very skeptical when the Russians said they had ERA that was effective against both HEAT and APFSDS rounds too, and they did some quick tests based on how they thought it might work and found it didn't. Of course their understanding of how it worked was wrong and it did work requiring a redesign of their APFSDS rounds to solve the problem.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:21 am

    GarryB wrote:The photos I have seen show the shaped charge liners are made of the same material... surely if they are to defeat different materials in composite armour each charge would be optimised to penetrate different the different materials by having different liners optimised to penetrate the different layers?

    The Metis M1 has a 130mm calibre and a single rear large warhead and a penetration of 950mm with a small precursor warhead charge to defeat ERA.

    Again, remember that vile 4 lettered word, RHAe, it's not as accurate as most people may think. The thing about Composite armor is that because it has varying thicknesses of varying materials, the effective of the first layer will do one thing to the penetrator and then another to the same penetrator and so on and so forth. The single warhead on the Metis M1 just delivers a generic big boom, what the 3BK-31 does is prepare the armor for the next penetration, and then prepare it again for the final penetration, which instead of just adding up each warhead's penetrations, just makes it easier to defeat Advanced armor arrays.

    And Garry, we're comparing tanks, not systems, always remember that.

    Wouldn't you say that the better German tank tactics was part of the system rather than the tank, yet at the same time the system effected the design of the tank in that German tanks were over crewed compared to the tanks of other countries like the T-26 and Char tanks. German tanks had commanders with no gun to aim or fire or even load... they commanders just commanded the tank! (imagine that!)

    The System effects the tank design and how it will be used also effects the design.

    Being able to drive over the majority of existing bridges for instance... the 52 ton T-10 was the heaviest tank the Soviets had ever had in service, so suggesting their ideal tank would be say a 75 ton design is a little silly I believe. Heavy tank designs have been considered obsolete in Russia for quite some time largely due to the effect of modern air power and ATGMs, but also because of the cost involved.[/quote]

    No, tactics are apart of the Tank. You're saying that Tanks don't need obstacle clearance because that's what Engineers are for, but Engineers are apart of the system.


    Yes these are just estimates and like any estimates it can be closer to truth or just off the target.

    Just because Kanchan or other armour are composites armor does not mean they are of the same composition , materials and effectiveness might vary from good to excellent

    ...but I just told you, we know that Kanchan armor has: RHA, Fiber Glass, and Ceramics (probably Alumina). It also has other materials to which properties we can deduce later. From people who've been to Tank exhibitions and has touched the Arjun, they can measure it's varying armor layouts, so we know how much armor they get to work with. We know the physics of armor so we can deduce the layout of the armor. The Arjun's protection estimate should be accurate to the 70 percentile.

    l plates in different directions, and in general, just feeds the Projectile with more steel and then guillotines the


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:55 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:...but I just told you, we know that Kanchan armor has: RHA, Fiber Glass, and Ceramics (probably Alumina). It also has other materials to which properties we can deduce later. From people who've been to Tank exhibitions and has touched the Arjun, they can measure it's varying armor layouts, so we know how much armor they get to work with. We know the physics of armor so we can deduce the layout of the armor. The Arjun's protection estimate should be accurate to the 70 percentile.

    All plates in different directions, and in general, just feeds the Projectile with more steel and then guillotines the

    DRDO has not been open with its armor composition of Kanchan , infact they have been secret to the extent that they have hidden with people involved in trials of arjun as state by very senior officer , very few people known exactly how good kanchan is.

    So i would just leave it there , since any thing more would be speculation on my part.

    Ok some questions

    1 ) How has the performance of Kornet ATGM been again Israel Merkava3/4 , Has Korner been effective most of the times or just dud ?

    2 ) How well T-90 turret is minus the ERA viz a viz protection it offers ? I understand the basic turret is RHA or composite armour , can it fend against RPG or small/medium arms ?

    3 ) Will T-90M has blow off panels ? Does Blow Off panels offer significant level of protection to the crew of tanks and how does it work ?

    Thanks


    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:02 pm

    1. The Kornet is proving to be one of the most effective weapons in their arsenal, and have caused many casualties to the Israelis. That incident where that Kornet didn't explode but instead got lodged into the Merkava was a rarity.

    2. From: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html


    Steve Zaloga's new book1 suggests the T-72B MBT has BDD-type armor in the turret along the lines of T-55M and T-62M MBTs. T-72B(M) and T-90 turret reportedly have BDD type armor as well. The array has 380mm cast steel and 435mm insert, but the composition is probably improved. The probable upgrade path is the replacing of Aluminum bulging plates with Titanium. Building on the figures for previous BDD equipped tanks we get

    TE vs KE TE vs HEAT
    T-72B Aluminum/rubber sandwhiched between cast steel 0.41 0.34
    T-72B(M)/T-90 Titanium/rubber sandwhiched between cast steel + air gap 0.56 0.79

    T-90 turret projection without Kontakt-5 could thus be 38cm x 0.92 + 43.5cm x 0.56 = 59cm KE (the free edge effect will reduce this further to 0.95 x 59cm or 56cm KE) and 38cm + 43.5cm x 0.79 = 72cm HEAT.

    For the Weaker part of the Front turret:

    70-72cm LOS x 0.72 [Cast/Ti-BDD] = 50-52cm x 0.993 = 49-51cm plus K-5 = ~67-69±2cm KE4
    70-72cm LOS x 0.88 [Cast/Ti-BDD] = 61-63cm plus K-5 = 104±5cm HEAT4

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:48 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:1. The Kornet is proving to be one of the most effective weapons in their arsenal, and have caused many casualties to the Israelis. That incident where that Kornet didn't explode but instead got lodged into the Merkava was a rarity.

    Thanks IronsightSniper.

    Did the Kornet managed to penetrate Merkava Mark 3/4 ? Does Kornet has the capability to penetrate the frontal of Abrams 2 ?

    What happens lets say if a ATGM manages to badly hit the tank but cannot penetrate it , does it have a voilent impact on the crew to the extent that they are mentally not in a postiton to carry on the fight since the violent blast impact has taken its toll although they survived without a scratch.

    Why dont ATGM designed to target the tracks , atleast a hit even from RPG-29 would make the tank immobile and a sitting duck ?

    Is there any new ATGM under development that will replace the Kornet , logically it should be the Hermes but any thing besides that ?


    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:29 pm

    The Kornet did penetrate the Merkava 3 and 4. Although as expected, the Merkava 4 crews had a higher survivability rate.

    The Kornet can only penetrate the Glacis and Lower hull of the Abrams if the engagement were to occur to the Abram's frontal arc.

    Shock wise, no. I've seen a video of an M1A2 Abrams get ambushed by the side with an RPG-29, the RPG-29 gunner shot and hit the side rear of the Turret, killing the Gunner. That Abrams stopped for a second and then moved on. Spall liners on modern tanks shield the crew from excessive shock waves, so crews aren't scared shitless when they're hit.

    The tracks don't give off anything that can allow a seeker to home in on it. It's up to the gunner to aim for the tracks.

    AFAIK, the Kornet is still top-of-the-line, and Russia's not considering putting it into mass-service due to cost and weight, so a replacement is kinda jumping the trigger.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:54 am

    The single warhead on the Metis M1 just delivers a generic big boom,
    what the 3BK-31 does is prepare the armor for the next penetration, and
    then prepare it again for the final penetration, which instead of just
    adding up each warhead's penetrations, just makes it easier to defeat
    Advanced armor arrays.

    So what you are trying to say is that the Metis M1 offers a powerful single stab with an initial jab to get rid of any ERA, while the 3BK-31 has an initial jab to remove ERA and then two powerful hits each one digging through a "trap" layer designed to reduce its performance.

    What I am trying to say is that two separate 125mm shaped charge warheads should penetrate better than a single 125mm charge.

    No, tactics are apart of the Tank. You're saying that Tanks don't need
    obstacle clearance because that's what Engineers are for, but Engineers
    are apart of the system.

    Sorry, do you mean "a part" or "apart"? They mean the opposite.
    Engineers are part of the system and will be called up when needed... building bridges, clearing minefields, blowing up obstructions etc etc.
    If a T-90 and a Leopard come to an obstacle that the Leopard can climb over and the T-90 can't... the Leopard will go over and the T-90 will go around.
    The way around might be mined so that is good news for the Leopard. The way over the obstacle might be lined up by an RPG team wanting to shoot the Leopard in the weak belly armour... bad news for the Leopard.

    At the end of the day the crew will know what they can or cannot deal with and what they can they will and what they can't... well they will deal with that too.

    From people who've been to Tank exhibitions and has touched the Arjun,
    they can measure it's varying armor layouts, so we know how much armor
    they get to work with.

    Without taking a core sample you can only get an overall thickness which tells you little about the structure of the armour. The Indians have little history in developing composite armours so for all we know they might have made some basic errors in design that lead to the armour being effective against the ammo they have tested it against but not effective against western type ammo, or they might have corrected errors in western armour making standards and come up with an excellent armour structure that is 20 tons lighter than an Abrams but is just as well protected.
    You can make educated guesses but educated guesses are most accurate when there is a track record, and this is a first for India so personally I wouldn't even bother speculating.

    The Indian Army did want to know the secrets of T-90 armour, which the Russians declined to sell to them... which is perfectly understandable, but then if they really wanted to know a few core samples of worn out T-90s would give them an idea if they really wanted to know.

    The fact that they wanted to buy the technology suggests it is good enough to be worth buying and it wasn't that they were just curious.

    ) Will T-90M has blow off panels ? Does Blow Off panels offer
    significant level of protection to the crew of tanks and how does it
    work ?

    Explosives will generally take the line of least resistance. A gun works because it is easier for the burning gasses to expand down the barrel pushing the bullet ahead of it than to push the sides of the chamber or the bolt to the rear. Equally in Vietnam wearing sandals was preferred by some because if you stand on a small mine it will take off your toes whereas a shoe will take your foot off at the ankle and a boot your leg 3 quarters of the way up your shin. A very small mine however (called toe poppers) you were better protected by a heavy boot.
    The point is that with an explosion giving it an outlet directs the main blast force out the outlet.
    Think of it like 1,000 people in a dark movie theatre. If someone yells fire people will panic and everyone will rush to the exit. They might push against bare wall but when it doesn't give way they push towards the exit light instead.
    The difference of course is that the blow out panels are designed to blow out and release pressure and energy.
    A blow out panel on an ammo cache is like breaking a firecracker in half and then lighting the fuse.
    A firecracker will explode with a loud bang because the hole the fuse burns through is tiny and the gas can't escape quickly enough out that hole to relieve the pressure of all the powder burning at once.
    With it broken in half however there is plenty of space for the powder to burn without pressure building up so you get what we used to call here a fizzer with a hiss and spray of burning powder like a sky rocket but shorter burning.

    What happens lets say if a ATGM manages to badly hit the tank but cannot penetrate it ,

    The impact of a 152mm 43kg HE shell on a Tiger or Panther tank turret was devastating and even if it didn't penetrate the armour it often blew the turret off the tank.
    A much lighter ATGM hitting a modern heavy tank... they would probably feel it but might not even know what it was till they got out later and saw the damage.

    A 90% penetration can lead to spalling where flakes of metal on the opposite side of the impact point can be ripped from the armour and bounce around the inside of the tank at supersonic speed.
    Most modern tanks have anti spall liners, and even the ones that don't spaced armour will prevent this being a problem most of the time anyway.
    This is the basis for the HESH warhead where the main round is a big soft blob of HE and when it hits the target it flattens and then detonates. It doesn't penetrate the armour, it sends shockwaves through the armour and defeats the vehicle with spall damage.
    HESH is a full calibre round that needs rifling and is the main reason the British army keeps rifled main tank guns.

    Why dont ATGM designed to target the tracks , atleast a hit even from RPG-29 would make the tank immobile and a sitting duck ?

    Because even an immobile tank is dangerous. When you come up against a tank you know you can't penetrate then you have to get creative and try for a side or rear shot.

    Setting up a fake minefield... or even a real one will channel the enemies tank forces and you should position your anti tank forces to places where they can take side shots. Natural barriers and choke points can be used for this purpose... fords in otherwise deep rivers can be mined for example, and covered with AT rockets and machine guns and snipers so clearing those mines manually is costly to the enemy.

    Is there any new ATGM under development that will replace the Kornet ,
    logically it should be the Hermes but any thing besides that ?

    Chrisantema is replacing ATAKA in the ground forces, and with a 1250mm penetration and 6km range in the ground launched model is certainly an improvement on both ATAKA and KORNET.

    I would think that ground launched HERMES with a range of 20-100km and a near 30kg warhead and terminal guidance should be a good replacement... for tactical air power...

    The tracks don't give off anything that can allow a seeker to home in on it. It's up to the gunner to aim for the tracks.

    If the tank has been driving anywhere the tracks will be warm.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:02 am

    On a bit of a tangent:

    Ground Troops and the GOZ

    Discussions of service wish-lists for State Armaments Program (GPV)
    2011-2020 have tended to overlook the Ground Troops. It seems they
    don’t enjoy the same priority as other services.
    But in late February and early March, there was a flurry of
    press detailing what the land forces intend to procure, at least in the
    short term.
    Arms-expo.ru, Lenta.ru,
    and other media outlets put out brief items on Ground Troops’
    acquisition. They indicated the Ground Troops will emphasize air
    defense, command and control, fire support, and BTRs and support
    vehicles.
    But the best run-down of all came from Ground Troops CINC General-Colonel Aleksandr Postnikov himself in Krasnaya zvezda.
    Postnikov told the Defense Ministry daily that the main feature of
    GOZ-2011 is the transition from the repair and modernization of existing
    systems to the purchase of new, modern ones to reequip Ground Troops
    formations and units completely.
    First and foremost, according to the CINC, the Ground Troops will buy
    modern digital communications equipment and tactical-level automated
    command and control systems (ASU), like Polyana-D4M1 for air
    defense brigades. He said Ground Troops’ Air Defense will also receive
    modernized S-300V4 systems, Buk-M2 and Buk-M3, short-range Tor-M2U(M)
    SAMs, and manportable Igla-S and Verba SAMs.
    Postnikov says they will continue equipping missile and artillery
    brigades with the Iskander-M, new MLRS, self-propelled Khosta and
    Nona-SVK guns, Khrisantema-S antitank missiles and Sprut-SD antitank
    guns.
    The Ground Troops CINC says he foresees purchases of a new
    modification of the BTR-82A, BREM-K armored recovery vehicles built on a
    BTR-80 base and BREM-L on a BMP-3 base, Iveco, Tigr, and Volk armored
    vehicles, and new KamAZ trucks from the Mustang series.
    NBC defense (RKhBZ) troops will get the heavy flamethrower system
    TOS-1A, RPO PDM-A thermobaric missiles with increased range and power,
    and VKR airborne radiological reconnaissance systems. Engineering units
    will get the newest water purification system on a KamAZ chassis
    (SKO-10/5).
    In the longer term, Postnikov sees rearmament as one of his main
    tasks, and he repeated President Medvedev’s statement that the Ground
    Troops should have 30 percent modern equipment by 2015, and 70 percent
    by 2020. He laid special stress on getting YeSU TZ into the troops.
    Postnikov’s Glavkomat has a Concept for the Development of the Ground
    Troops Armament System to 2025 emphasizing standardization,
    multi-functionality, modular construction, and electronic
    compatibility across several general areas: armor and military
    vehicles, tube artillery and MLRS, SSMs, antitank systems, air defense,
    reconnaissance-information support, UAVs, communications, automated
    command and control, and soldier and close combat systems.

    For those unfamiliar with the YeSU TZ, it means Unified Tactical Level Command and Control System (YeSU TZ).

    The post above is from here:

    http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/ground-troops-and-the-goz/

    And more info about YeSU TZ:

    http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/more-on-the-unified-tactical-level-command-and-control-system/

    Anyway regarding the article above that I have reposted I found this interesting:

    Postnikov says they will continue equipping missile and artillery
    brigades with the Iskander-M, new MLRS, self-propelled Khosta and
    Nona-SVK guns, Khrisantema-S antitank missiles and Sprut-SD antitank
    guns.

    Will continue... meaning all these things... a new Iskander.... new MLRS (the light 6 tube launcher for SMERCH perhaps?)... 120mm mortar equipped 2S1 122mm self propelled guns ((K)Hosta), 120mm mortar equipped Nona-SVK (BTR-80 chassis) and Krisantema-S (BMP-3 chassis replacement for MTLB based Shturm-S vehicle) and Sprut-SD (2S25 BMD-3 chassis with 125mm gun in turret) are all in production and entering service...

    That is good news.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:24 am

    Thank You so much Garry for that wonderful explanation , makes thing simple and clear.

    One of the reason why Arjun has rifled guns is because IA too want to have HESH rounds.

    I am quite dissapointed that 2011-2020 does not specify buying T-90M tanks , this is clearly not done Sad

    BTW Garry do you know if T-90M has blow up panels on the turret at its rear ?

    IronsightSniper , do you have any link to the video where the RPG-29 shoots the Abrams that you had written about ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:46 am

    On paper HESH is a great idea because it means you can defeat personel inside very hard targets without having to penetrate them... that includes tanks and concrete structures... and for blowing holes in walls for infantry to climb through it is infinitely better than shaped charge HEAT which is designed to make rather small holes in very very thick hard structures.

    Having said that, as I said spaced armour is very common and anti spall lining is common now too.
    Even the BTR-82 series is having its anti radiation liner replaced with a more practical anti spall liner, but of course the armour of the BTR-82 would simply collapse under the force of a 120mm HESH warhead anyway.

    I am quite dissapointed that 2011-2020 does not specify buying T-90M tanks , this is clearly not done

    The focus has shifted from upgrades to new builds, but I suspect that the exception here will be tanks.
    The list above is short term... I suspect 2011-2012... and I think from 2013 they will likely start very low rate production of a fully upgraded T-90 and also upgrades of T-72s from stocks that are in good nick to maximise commonality of parts and therefore support and training with the new T-90 standard then once they have completed upgrades of maybe 4,500 T-72s to T-90M-1 standard they will apply the new T-90M upgrade to earlier model T-90s which will leave them with two types of T-90Ms... T-90M and T-90M (minus 1 or -1)

    The minus 1 T-90s are actually upgraded T-72s and will be used in training and exercises along with electronic simulation whereas the top standard T-90Ms will be used for war and parades and will be kept in quality storage rather than left to open storage decay.

    Only the heavy brigades will require T-90s with other brigades having 125mm gun armed vehicles (BMD-3 in the form of Sprut for medium and something Gilza or BTR-82 based for the light brigades), so the tanks could be centralised for the four military regions, hopefully with lots of An-70s and Il-476s to get them to where they are needed quickly.

    Garry do you know if T-90M has blow up panels on the turret at its rear ?

    As far as I know the bustle autoloader is designed as a monolithic add on, so one presumes it can be attached and removed in one piece.
    With the Black Eagle design it was supposed to be removed by a crane and replaced in the field so when it was empty the tank would move to the rear and the reloading truck would remove the whole auto loader and replace it with a new one stocked with ammo like a rifle magazine.
    Sounds complicated but when an average T series tank is empty it moves to the rear and finds a reloading truck and they hand in ammo one projectile and one stub propellent case at a time... and you have to be very careful because those propellent cases are highly flamable...

    Because the T-90M or whatever it is called can be fitted with this autoloader or operate without it I would suspect there might be an attachment structure on the back of the turret and an armoured door that allows the autoloader mechanism to ram rounds and charges straight into the breach of the gun so that component must reach right into the turret but the ammo in the loader is still separated from the crew, so perhaps a frame on the rear of the turret where the autoloader/bustle attaches and a small automatic hatch to allow the loading component to enter the crew compartment with a round to load and to reach in far enough (to the breach) to load it and then retract back into the autoloader and shut the hatch for safety.
    The crew would have the rear turret armour protecting them plus more armour making up the front of the autoloader turret bustle and the armoured cover when the loading mechanism has completed loading.
    I suspect considering the whole purpose of the turret bustle is to remove live ammo from the crew compartment that it is designed to blow out or up or rearward... anywhere but down into the engine or forward into the crew compartment.
    Just my opinion of course.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:59 am

    I think the current priority with tanks is first to focus on what to do with the surplus which is something like 15,000 vehicles.
    Second will be to get the 6-8,000 tanks they will be left with organised so they all have the same engines and transmissions and electronics and sensors and guns etc etc.
    Third priority will be what comes into service in 2020 to replace them.

    I think number one is number one, with work on number two also being worked on and likely tested this year or next, which means they will be able to start doing something about the second thing from 2012 onwards...
    Number three is a direction for the Russian Tank industry to work on and there will be work that also takes into account technology developed for the T-95 but not implemented obviously... if it can't be made to work with the T-90 upgrade then it can be kept for the next gen replacement tank that will likely be called T-95 no matter when it arrives.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:13 am

    Garry , right now they have a fleet of more then 20 thousand tank of various modification.

    The idea is as part of rearmament and modernesitation program , they will reduce the tank force by half and move toward a small force of 10 thousand tank , but the small force will be more capable and modernised tank like T-90 and other types.

    http://www.russiandefenseblog.org/?p=881

    BTW there are lot of fan following of T-80 tanks that I have seen on blogs/forum etc , so can you just explain me briefly why is T-80 a better tank compared to say a late model T-72 ?

    Thanks for your time patience and effort in explaining me the nuances of Tanks and the same I would extend to IronsightSniper thumbsup

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:40 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    The single warhead on the Metis M1 just delivers a generic big boom,
    what the 3BK-31 does is prepare the armor for the next penetration, and
    then prepare it again for the final penetration, which instead of just
    adding up each warhead's penetrations, just makes it easier to defeat
    Advanced armor arrays.

    So what you are trying to say is that the Metis M1 offers a powerful single stab with an initial jab to get rid of any ERA, while the 3BK-31 has an initial jab to remove ERA and then two powerful hits each one digging through a "trap" layer designed to reduce its performance.

    What I am trying to say is that two separate 125mm shaped charge warheads should penetrate better than a single 125mm charge.

    The problem again is that the 3BK-31 isn't 3 separate warheads that you can just take the penetration values of each and add them up. The round itself is designed so that each warhead will detonate at the exact same time, but are misaligned so that they won't hit each other. That way, the first warhead will detonate any ERA but will just really destroy the initial RHA layer and prep the DU layer of an Abrams. The second warhead will penetrate the DU layer and then prep the Ceramic layer of an Abrams. The final warhead will penetrate that Ceramic layer, then the backing RHA layer, and finally fully penetrate the tank.

    No, tactics are apart of the Tank. You're saying that Tanks don't need
    obstacle clearance because that's what Engineers are for, but Engineers
    are apart of the system.

    Sorry, do you mean "a part" or "apart"? They mean the opposite.
    Engineers are part of the system and will be called up when needed... building bridges, clearing minefields, blowing up obstructions etc etc.
    If a T-90 and a Leopard come to an obstacle that the Leopard can climb over and the T-90 can't... the Leopard will go over and the T-90 will go around.
    The way around might be mined so that is good news for the Leopard. The way over the obstacle might be lined up by an RPG team wanting to shoot the Leopard in the weak belly armour... bad news for the Leopard.

    At the end of the day the crew will know what they can or cannot deal with and what they can they will and what they can't... well they will deal with that too.

    The thing is, roadblocks are generally there like minefields. They're there to make the tank go around, not go over. The tank that goes around will meet the Ambush. The tank that goes over will flank.

    From people who've been to Tank exhibitions and has touched the Arjun,
    they can measure it's varying armor layouts, so we know how much armor
    they get to work with.

    Without taking a core sample you can only get an overall thickness which tells you little about the structure of the armour. The Indians have little history in developing composite armours so for all we know they might have made some basic errors in design that lead to the armour being effective against the ammo they have tested it against but not effective against western type ammo, or they might have corrected errors in western armour making standards and come up with an excellent armour structure that is 20 tons lighter than an Abrams but is just as well protected.
    You can make educated guesses but educated guesses are most accurate when there is a track record, and this is a first for India so personally I wouldn't even bother speculating.

    The Indian Army did want to know the secrets of T-90 armour, which the Russians declined to sell to them... which is perfectly understandable, but then if they really wanted to know a few core samples of worn out T-90s would give them an idea if they really wanted to know.

    The fact that they wanted to buy the technology suggests it is good enough to be worth buying and it wasn't that they were just curious.

    Again, I told you, one can infer what the varying thicknesses are. Also, you can probe the armor with a special tool that measures it's the armor's varying magnetism which will allow you to deduce what's where and how much is there. The basics of T-90's composite armor is quite simple really. Internet scientists have deduced that the T-90's composite has: 1. RHA 2. Boron Carbide 3. Fiber Glass 4. Air Gap 5. Applique armor 7. Rubber array 8. Anti-neuron array (this has been replaced with a Spall liner)


    If the tank has been driving anywhere the tracks will be warm.

    An engine is hotter still.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:12 pm

    Garry , right now they have a fleet of more then 20 thousand tank of various modification.

    Yes, I know... so with 20,000 tanks with a few hundred T-90s they will keep and maybe 5,000 T-72s they will modernise that means 15,000 tanks surplus to requirements they need to find a role for.
    ...Upgrade the 5,000 odd T-72s and make about 1,500 T-90Ms when the design has been finalised and upgrade the few hundred T-90s already in service to that standard.

    Regarding the T-80:
    In very simple terms the Soviets were basically at one point building three tanks that were different but in the same class.
    The T-64 was their first "special tank".
    Expensive but very capable with composite armour and a powerful main gun and for the time sophisticated systems.
    People look at the T-64 and T-72 and T-80 and T-90 and have trouble telling them apart externally and they assume that internally they are pretty similar too.
    They are not.
    Very simply up until the T-72BM the T-72 was a mass production tank that could be exported or given to allies, though with various upgrades could be quite formidable.
    The T-64 was the front line tank... in the battle of Kursk for the German side the T-64 was the Tiger, the T-80 was the Panther and the T-72s were the Panzer IVs that followed up behind.
    The T-64 had new composite armour, but the T-80 was the newer design with even better composite armour and newer electronics etc... the T-64 and T-80 got their ATGM tube fired missile capability first because in many ways they were the "heavy tank" replacement for the T-10M. Their superior armour let them control the battlefield... they could sit back 2km from the front line and with their 4km-5km range missiles pick off enemy vehicles and at that range no 105mm calibre gun could penetrate their frontal armour... the main threat was enemy helos yet their rear position put them pretty safely under the units air defence umbrella.

    The T-72 was cheap and easy to make in enormous numbers yet its performance was pretty good if used properly... it was fast and had good armour... but not great armour, and carried a big powerful gun.

    The thing is however that when the Soviet Union split up Russia was left with a huge variety of tanks and the factories that made the T-80 were suddenly in the Ukraine... and many of the important components of all tanks like gas turbine engines and even HMGs (NSVT) and diesel engines were now made in a now foreign country. The Ukraine was actually in the same boat because of a lot of components for the T-80 were made in Russia too.
    The end result was that Russia decided to hold a contest to decide what tank to go forward with, so the Russian tank (UVZ Uralvagonzavod) company came up with the T-72BM which took out all the cheap simple parts and components and also as much of the foreign parts and components and put in all expensive parts and components to greatly increase performance. It got new expensive but more capable composite armour, new FCS, etc etc.

    The T-90 won. The T-80 is considered a Ukrainian tank so I don't know how much is bias, but I do know the under turret autoloader for the T-80 and T-72 are different and that the T-80 autoloader has ammo standing up in its magazine which makes the ammo in the magazine more prone to igniting if the vehicle is penetrated.
    In the T-72/-90 the ammo is better protected in its autoloader.

    To be honest I like the T-90, but the T-80 is not a bad tank as such. The gas turbine models are gas guzzlers, but the diesel models would be rather good. The diesel engine of the diesel model is made in the Ukraine.

    It makes a lot of sense for them to pick the T-90 and as the T-90 is a T-72BM it is much easier to upgrade an older model T-72 to close to T-90 standard than to change the T-80 to something close enough to a T-90 to improve standardisation and logistics and training.

    Note from Wiki:
    In the post Soviet Union period the states decision to fund tank production at Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil (manufacturer of the T-90
    tank) at the expense of the Omsk factory caused financial ruin for the
    company.
    The organisation had designed a new prototype tank, named Black Eagle
    but it did not enter production.
    Although the plant received work
    modernising T-62 and T-72 tanks this did not provide sufficient income
    and in 2002 the company went bankrupt.[3]

    In 2004 the design arm of the business was absorbed into Uralvagonzavod.


    Note the actual competition was between Omsktransmash and UVZ, but UVZ was in a much better state with its rail business making a good profit.

    In practical terms the orders so far of T-90 tanks have been so small if the decision had gone to Omsk the company probably would have gone bust anyway.

    As its says the design component of Omsk was absorbed into UVZ so the Black Eagle might live on in the form of the turret bustle component of the T-90 upgrade.


    The problem again is that the 3BK-31 isn't 3 separate warheads that
    you can just take the penetration values of each and add them up. The
    round itself is designed so that each warhead will detonate at the exact
    same time, but are misaligned so that they won't hit each other. That
    way, the first warhead will detonate any ERA but will just really
    destroy the initial RHA layer and prep the DU layer of an Abrams. The
    second warhead will penetrate the DU layer and then prep the Ceramic
    layer of an Abrams. The final warhead will penetrate that Ceramic layer,
    then the backing RHA layer, and finally fully penetrate the tank.

    I agree but you have one point wrong... they don't all go off together... otherwise the second large warhead would destroy the penetrator in front of it.

    The correct actual sequence is for the initial charge to remove any ERA present or to start the penetration. Next the rear most charge detonates and blows a small hole in the large charge in front of it which is not enough to set it off or effect its performance too much which continues forward into the initial hole generated by the first small charge. The second main charge then detonates slightly later when the first main charge has had a go at penetration and tries again through the same hole to see if it can continue all the way through.


    In many ways a HEAT beam of metal is very much like an APFSDS round... except at these speeds and temperatures the metal beam of the HEAT penetrator and the armour itself act as much like fluids as solids.
    Just look at penetrated steel plate and sometimes you might think if it was painted the right colour it was plasticine.

    The thing is, roadblocks are generally there like minefields. They're
    there to make the tank go around, not go over. The tank that goes around
    will meet the Ambush. The tank that goes over will flank.

    Or find an anti tank ditch on the other side it can't get out of... or a minefield especially for the brave tank commander who thinks it will be safe. There are plenty of natural geography that bottlenecks tanks... if the tank driver drives over an obstacle and evades an ambush today... you can bet your @$$ that the next time that obstacle will either be taller, heavier, deeper... or part of the ambush.

    Also, you can probe the armor with a special tool that measures it's the
    armor's varying magnetism which will allow you to deduce what's where
    and how much is there.

    Which would work with Iron but plastic, rubber, fibreglass?

    The basics of T-90's composite armor is quite simple really. Internet
    scientists have deduced that the T-90's composite has: 1. RHA 2. Boron
    Carbide 3. Fiber Glass 4. Air Gap 5. Applique armor 7. Rubber array 8.
    Anti-neuron array (this has been replaced with a Spall liner)

    So what are you doing here? Go and sell it to the Indian Army. They have in their possession more T-90s than the Russian Army currently has yet they still want to buy the technology to make the T-90s armour.

    An engine is hotter still.

    Doesn't matter. As long as it is warmer than the background it can be targeted by a weapon like Javelin.

    Of course the real solution is to simply aim a HMG like a 12.7mm or 14.5mm weapon at the target tanks tracks... or even light cannon fire should do the trick. Any disposable RPG weapon or any of the RPO modifications should also be quite effective in damaging the running gear... and of course the obvious landmine... there are lots of bar shaped models designed specifically to cut the track of a tank.

    There are even mines designed to be positioned beside the path a tank will drive down like the Russian TM-83 which is a huge 25cm diameter 20kg mine that can make an 80mm diameter hole in an armoured target from 50m range. It can penetrate 400mm of armour, which would damage most vehicles.

    In fact I am surprised the Afghans haven't done what they did on the Tremors movies and put a mine on a remote control car and drive it up to an enemy vehicle and then set it off. The thing is that these remote control cars are relatively cheap and even a quite small shaped charge facing upwards driven under a tank could do some damage. You could dig a hole big enough for a shoebox on the side of the road and have one sitting there with a sand coloured cloth on it and when an Abrams approaches drive it out... with two ends of the cloth staked down so it doesn't prevent the remote control car moving and then drive onto the road under traffic and when the abrams passes over it... boom. Have a secondary crush fuse so if the tank driver runs it over it explodes too. It means you need far less explosive, and you don't alienate the local people by killing them. Then of course the defence personel will have to keep a look out for people buying remote control vehicles.

    I should point out that I suggested a cruise missile fired directly from a shipping container about 15 years ago and got no credit at all for that idea... why would Iran bother making ICBMs when a cheap subsonic missile could easily be designed and built to launch directly from a shipping crate on a ship at sea. Those container ships carry thousands of containers and hundreds of thousands are in the sea at any one time because they fell off in a storm. An Iranian freighter could drop a few extra off in the Pacific without anyone being the wiser and they could sit there waiting for a signal... or sink waiting for the right sonar ping signal that releases a missile from each shipping container. Covering your whole border is hard especially from directions you aren't expecting attack from. In the middle of a super bowl weekend or something... of course their only problem is a nuke small enough to fit in a cruise missile...


    freemanist
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 3
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2011-03-06
    Location : poland

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  freemanist on Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:05 pm

    Austin wrote:Thank You so much Garry for that wonderful explanation , makes thing simple and clear.

    One of the reason why Arjun has rifled guns is because IA too want to have HESH rounds.

    I am quite dissapointed that 2011-2020 does not specify buying T-90M tanks , this is clearly not done Sad

    BTW Garry do you know if T-90M has blow up panels on the turret at its rear ?

    IronsightSniper , do you have any link to the video where the RPG-29 shoots the Abrams that you had written about ?
    austin maybe u'll like this. makava vs kornet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzVEduKGUws

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:17 pm

    The thing is, roadblocks are generally there like minefields. They're
    there to make the tank go around, not go over. The tank that goes around
    will meet the Ambush. The tank that goes over will flank.

    Or find an anti tank ditch on the other side it can't get out of... or a minefield especially for the brave tank commander who thinks it will be safe. There are plenty of natural geography that bottlenecks tanks... if the tank driver drives over an obstacle and evades an ambush today... you can bet your @$$ that the next time that obstacle will either be taller, heavier, deeper... or part of the ambush.

    But if there's that much crap behind the first crap then why not assume that to the tank that goes around there'd be just more crap? Overall, the Leopard 2 has better obstacle clearance and there's really nothing too bad about that.

    Also, you can probe the armor with a special tool that measures it's the
    armor's varying magnetism which will allow you to deduce what's where
    and how much is there.

    Which would work with Iron but plastic, rubber, fibreglass?

    If the magnetism rating drops you can assume that there's no steel there. Once you reach the other side where there is steel you can deduce how much of that non-RHA is there. I should note, Ceramics and DU are usually at the back of the array to shatter any rounds that get that far. To find air-gaps, one only needs to clank his hand on the armor array and if it echos, there's an air gap. Rubber and Fiberglass and the like are deduced by armor logic, usually they'll put rubber behind Steel and then steel behind the rubber to make a rubber sandwich which would improve it's RHAe by about 50% when compared to just regular steel. There's a lot of ways to do this.

    The basics of T-90's composite armor is quite simple really. Internet
    scientists have deduced that the T-90's composite has: 1. RHA 2. Boron
    Carbide 3. Fiber Glass 4. Air Gap 5. Applique armor 7. Rubber array 8.
    Anti-neuron array (this has been replaced with a Spall liner)

    So what are you doing here? Go and sell it to the Indian Army. They have in their possession more T-90s than the Russian Army currently has yet they still want to buy the technology to make the T-90s armour.

    I don't like India. Sorry Austin. :v

    An engine is hotter still.

    Doesn't matter. As long as it is warmer than the background it can be targeted by a weapon like Javelin.

    Of course the real solution is to simply aim a HMG like a 12.7mm or 14.5mm weapon at the target tanks tracks... or even light cannon fire should do the trick. Any disposable RPG weapon or any of the RPO modifications should also be quite effective in damaging the running gear... and of course the obvious landmine... there are lots of bar shaped models designed specifically to cut the track of a tank.

    There are even mines designed to be positioned beside the path a tank will drive down like the Russian TM-83 which is a huge 25cm diameter 20kg mine that can make an 80mm diameter hole in an armoured target from 50m range. It can penetrate 400mm of armour, which would damage most vehicles.

    In fact I am surprised the Afghans haven't done what they did on the Tremors movies and put a mine on a remote control car and drive it up to an enemy vehicle and then set it off. The thing is that these remote control cars are relatively cheap and even a quite small shaped charge facing upwards driven under a tank could do some damage. You could dig a hole big enough for a shoebox on the side of the road and have one sitting there with a sand coloured cloth on it and when an Abrams approaches drive it out... with two ends of the cloth staked down so it doesn't prevent the remote control car moving and then drive onto the road under traffic and when the abrams passes over it... boom. Have a secondary crush fuse so if the tank driver runs it over it explodes too. It means you need far less explosive, and you don't alienate the local people by killing them. Then of course the defence personel will have to keep a look out for people buying remote control vehicles.

    I should point out that I suggested a cruise missile fired directly from a shipping container about 15 years ago and got no credit at all for that idea... why would Iran bother making ICBMs when a cheap subsonic missile could easily be designed and built to launch directly from a shipping crate on a ship at sea. Those container ships carry thousands of containers and hundreds of thousands are in the sea at any one time because they fell off in a storm. An Iranian freighter could drop a few extra off in the Pacific without anyone being the wiser and they could sit there waiting for a signal... or sink waiting for the right sonar ping signal that releases a missile from each shipping container. Covering your whole border is hard especially from directions you aren't expecting attack from. In the middle of a super bowl weekend or something... of course their only problem is a nuke small enough to fit in a cruise missile...


    You really don't need a wall of text to reanswer the question, "Why not make a Track-seeking warhead?".

    Sponsored content

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:25 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:25 pm