Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

"I was constantly concerned during the Balkan air campaign that ,somehow, Mr. Milosevic would find a way to float an SA-10 or SA-12 up the Danube River, put it together, and bring it to bear as a part of this conflict. If that had happened, it would have profoundly changed the balance of the threat and our ability to maintain air superiority."

A decent air component of JSTARs like aircraft and unmanned recon vehicles is the quickest and most efficient way of determining enemy strengths and force positions in depth.

A few Mi-9 helicopters to jam enemy air defence systems and communications, and Su-25s to support attacks and soften targets as they form up greatly improve the chances of success.

The future Russian military will combine air force and army and navy and the new space and air defence forces into a much more powerful force than any on their own could achieve.

Do you see the ...little differences ...between the two situations ?

Clear ? Here we talk of the impact would have obtained, in the opinion of the commander in chief of the opearations in this conflict, the presence of a single battallions of a relatively modern SAM systempresent ,in URSS, in several thousands of units since '80 years .

All this argument have obviously even left completely unmentioned the impact of 50-60 conventional theatre ballistic missiles or cruise missile on Aviano Air Base ,in those days litterally full of the aircraft fleet involved in the entire air campaign of Kosovo War ,even before the most basic logistical basis for the first air mission would have been established ....

Conversely the employement of Air Force at which we have accostumed ourselves in the last wars would be simply a suicide against a peer opponent ...but for similar enemies exist MAD equilibrium factor.....

Just the same as if the Georgians had Javelin and Stinger and a C4IR they could actually operate and inflicted very serious losses on the Russian military in 8 8 8 do you think that would make Russia decide to give up... or would they have marched on Tblisi?

Regarding the rest I agree... the real difference was that one side was largely a bunch of conscripts fighting for Sakashvili, and the other side... because of the lack of prior warning ironically, was largely made up of volunteers mainly from North Ossetia and Chechnia who all had a grudge against Georgia and wanted to get revenge for what Georgia was doing to South Ossetia.

Damian wrote:@Mindstorm criticized my and Militarysta drawings of estimated turret protection of MBT's.

Paul Lakowski wrote:
The 830mm comes from two independant measurements made by two Leopard 2 tankers of their own tanks. When I get home I will post an interesting picture of Leopard 2 tank under construction showing the cavities, with markers reporting where the inner armor wall is plus scale drawing done to further illustrate the armor thickness.

Posted 27 January 2006 - 1609 PM

In anticipation of a potential heated debate I would like to remind you to respect others have a right to different views and that this forum is for discussions rather than arguments.

Naturally the up-mentioned figures have nothing to do with the comical metropolitan legends (on tanks moreover with horrible armoured mass/volume index ) about MBT's passive protections level of 950 mm RHA against KE

теперь все становится на свои места с уровнем защищенности. Если с реликтом уровень 850мм по БПС то без него гдето 570ии а с К5 680мм
(...)
без него 600-650, с К-5 720-780, как вы 570 то получили ? с учетом того что в инет утекает не пойми что, и 850 и НИИ сталевская табличка могут быть фейком, уж Путину то можно было сказать хоть "3 метра" разница то
(...)
Я тупо взял и тупо поделил 850 на 1.5 (заявленная эффективность работы реликта по БПС ) получил 567 потом так же тупо умножил на 1.2 (заявленная эффективность к5) получил 680мм

In my opinnion late cold war NATO Tanks (Leopard2A4, CR1, M1A1HA) was simply immune against Sowiet ATGMs and RPGs with HEAT warhead. Of course im talking about turets for +/-30. for longitudinal axis of turret.

1) DM-12 HEAT can penetrate up to 700-750mm RHA, but the same DM-12 can penetrated only ~450mm erly Leopard2A4 armour.

ps. Insert in T-72B cavity weight only 781,5kg. Rest - cast

Damian wrote:
At their time, Soviets were making good composite armor, maybe the reason of many casualties was not composite armor itself but rather cast armor of turret?

Good? In comparte to what?

Insert in T-2B is far worse then Burlinghton. It reactive, ok, but it's not Burlinghton.

I agree that others have right for their point of view. However contrary to the Mindstorm and other people like Andrei vel Harkonnen, we have a hard proof that their estimations based only on messuring drawings that are flawed is wrong, and any action to force others to belive that they are right is pure manipulation.

Also I made my own research about armor itself on M1 series, first thing is that Americans changed composite armor at least 6 times, latest official reports says about frontal (hull and turret) and side (turret) armor enhancements.

1) DM-12 HEAT can penetrate up to 700-750mm RHA, but the same DM-12 can penetrated only ~450mm erly Leopard2A4 armour.

2) during ODS one M1A1HA was hit by AGM-114 in front turret armour. Hellfire penetrated only ~70cm deep. No perforation.
Penetration AGM-114 is more then 1000mm RHA of course.

So You can image how modern armour is resistant against HEAT warhead, that's one of the resons why GLGATM (like Refleks, Kobra, Invar) are not in use in West. 650-900mm RHA penetration it to little to perforate modern western MBT.

In my personal opinion T-90A basick armour (without hevy ERA) is about:
for 840mm LOS about ~650mm RHA
for 650mm LOS about ~500mm RHA.

I can later post one of these drawings in clear version, and one with correct placing of weld lines, still however it is difficult to correctly estimate where armor in reality ends, this is because we lack more detailed photos of "naked" turret.

Good? In comparte to what? Insert in T-2B is far worse then Burlinghton. It reactive, ok, but it's not Burlinghton.

In turret mass ~15t. T-72B have simmilar vs. KE protection like Leopard2A3 (~16t. turret mas) but, vs HEAT it's only ~55% Leo2A3 protection (~530-600 vs 900mm+). At almost the same weight of turret.
That's power of Burlinghton style armour. Not against KE but against SC!

Sounds to me like they found out their setup was inadequate 5 times and had to change it... isn't that the opposite of what you are claiming?

Does that say something about the armour or the HEAT round?

The enormous irony is that the Soviets learned from the western mistakes and treated the gun launched missile as just another round of ammo and used standard tank guns for the basis.
The result is not some super missile armed tank killer, but another option for the commander.
Another offshoot is an anti helicopter round that can be fired from any tank.

But such figures in many ways lack meaning due to what you said above.
The penetration figures for different types of penetrator are effected dramatically by the material the armour and the penetrator are made of, so one penetrator might cut through large amounts of armour on one vehicle because of the armour structure, yet be more effectively stopped by a different vehicles armour of less thickness because the structure is more effective against that penetration.

You have admitted yourself that the armour has been changed 6 times... is it not possible the different weld lines reflect different armour configurations?

So you are of the opinion that something is either the best or it is rubbish?
Soviet composite is not as good as Burlington therefore it must be rubbish?

And add 2-3 tons of ERA and suddenly the protection levels are similar.

BTW Damian... still waiting for an introduction post from you, militarysta has done his duty, please follow his lead. Smile

Damian wrote:

In anticipation of a potential heated debate I would like to remind you to respect others have a right to different views and that this forum is for discussions rather than arguments.

I agree that others have right for their point of view. However contrary to the Mindstorm and other people like Andrei vel Harkonnen, we have a hard proof that their estimations based only on messuring drawings that are flawed is wrong, and any action to force others to belive that they are right is pure manipulation.

We not only have messures of Leopard 2A4, but also one man (Pole but living in USA and serving in US Army as a tank crew member) said that he messured front turret armor of his M1A1, thickness was around 900mm at 0 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, of course this is still hard to verify, but we taken great effort to make estimations based on his informations and photos of real turret on production line from the outside and inside, conclusion was very surprising us, armor ends more far than weld lines on turret roof suggests. It should actually proofs opinions that backplate of composite armor cavity is ~80-100mm thick. Also we know that from the original M1, designers increased armor thickness in M1IP and M1A1 by 9 inches, this means around 220-230mm.

So by Militarysta calculations (as far as I know, he askd some professionals to help him) it will be around ~900mm at 0 degrees, and ~800mm at 30 degrees from turret longitudinal axis.

Also I made my own research about armor itself on M1 series, first thing is that Americans changed composite armor at least 6 times, latest official reports says about frontal (hull and turret) and side (turret) armor enhancements.

We also have some information that can get us closer to the real protection levels of M1A1HA turret, however still this are uncertain, not as detailed as we wish, but at the first look, protection is impressive, despite lack of dynamic protection.

But it only shows that all RHAe estimations are in great % underestimations, RHAe itself is not very reliabale thing too.

But don't get us wrong, I and Militarysta have great respect to Soviet, and now Russian and Ukrainian AFV's designers, we understand their philosophy of vehicle design.

Our opinion is that both, NATO (especially US and German) and Russian/Ukrainian designs are comparabale in frontal protection, tactical mobility and near comparabale in overall firepower (NATO still have superior APFSDS ammunition, but Russia is not far behind).

I think that this post can be treated as official statement of me and Militarysta.

However countrary to Andrei's silly manipulated estimations and lies, we have real messures done on a real tank.

Unfortunetly, because of rules on this forum, I can't post these photos right now, when this strange prohibition rule will end I or Militarysta will post these photos with messures made on real Leopard 2A4.

we have real messures done on a real tank.

You must be a moron to think that the drawing in defence journal form 1994 don't have any mistake. BTW: ratio of the width of the hull (3,7m) to the "A" LOS give us on the picture ~750-760mm LOS. This missing ~80mm is natural drawing error - is probably clear for evry normal person

Damian I can assume your busy but please follow the rules, Militarysta made an intro thread and unless your one and the same, you have to. I must also note multiple accounts are not allowed here

Mindstorm wrote:

However countrary to Andrei's silly manipulated estimations and lies, we have real messures done on a real tank.

Unfortunetly, because of rules on this forum, I can't post these photos right now, when this strange prohibition rule will end I or Militarysta will post these photos with messures made on real Leopard 2A4.

Interesting, i return from work and find the happy duo at...work .

Damian losing even only 2 or 3 minutes you would have discovered that the "photo" in question has been not only posted here very long time ago but also examined (for what can be useful losing even only a minute of live at examine them...),

we have real messures done on a real tank.

M1 Abrams has not , T-90 has not , T-72 has not ,Challenger 2 has not, Ariete has not, T-80 has not, K2 BP has not ,Type -90 has not, Al-Khalid has not, Leclerc has not ,Type-99 has not, Merkawa has not, etc....etc....etc.... for luck of your nation and its military insider service security protocols also Leopard-2,obviously, has NOT any type of armour's LOS live measurement maked on a real Leopard-2A4 and circulating without any problem in internet in the hands of a pair of guys with definitely too much time at theirs disposition.
This type of information is one of the most stricly surveiled information among any Army Ground Forces worldwide, not differently than aircraft radar operating frequency in Air Forces,or crushing deep threshold of a particular submarine in Navy etc..etc... their total absence , in public accessible sources for any of those systems operative worldwide is a clear proof of that.

On a personal note ,i can say that the thing has even recalled to my mind a funny episode of several years ago : when a collague of mine staged all the model pics and the elements measurement (including the ratio with several others!!) in the program of a secondary component, and the "target" of the joke ,an engineer at the time working in ours same departement, expended almost four days to realize what was wrong with that component

Now ,admitting that you even know the funny chap author of this "operation" ,i think that you could give to him some suggestions for the next time:

While is surely appreciable its attempt to avoid to present in the pics two or more structural elements (or ,even worse, a panoramic photo of the turrett) which would have obviously offered the chance to execute element's ratio metric computation adn ruined all in fewe seconds, it should have avoided, for this same reason, completely the third pic -forcing it also to a clumsy,even if funny, attempt to increase the supposed armor's LOS measuring from centre of periscope area but ,even more important, you could also educate him on the concept of aplomb ,so at least in the first pic the "virtual" line of gun mask in the background shouldn't appear so comically out of position.

I understand perfectly that the guy in question (likely an upright insider operative that has gone along its humor sense and the repeated requests from some petulant civilian, without obviously surrender any sensitive information very dangerous for the security of its Nation and.... for it ) has ,ostensibly, not losed too much time for the thing ,but at this stage it is truly unacceptable for a trained eye ; it is not different from pics of giant mans in South America or UFO ships in Virginia

You must be a moron to think that the drawing in defence journal form 1994 don't have any mistake. BTW: ratio of the width of the hull (3,7m) to the "A" LOS give us on the picture ~750-760mm LOS. This missing ~80mm is natural drawing error - is probably clear for evry normal person

"You must be a moron" ... Ha Ha ,Sorry the mean attempt to change the type of the discussion on another level with me fail from the beging ,procede.


"ratio of the width of the hull" .....ratio with width of the hull ? The claimed measure of A fail horribly against ANY know metric of Leopard-2A4 structure !! : overall lenght ,median of the turret, ratio with side turrett armor figure, ratio with claimed B figure (and consequently the ratio between B and the side of tureet wideness above it ) it is a complete disaster .

Do you know this type of things happen in those instances ; ratio between measures of constructive elements are highly resilient to attept to overstrech them....you twist one and the others litterally explode.




The problem is that what is, in this drawing, is indicated as A2 is ,obviously and unescapably ,almost equal to the armour block section area indicated as A1 .
Naturally the attempt to claim figures so different ,over the self evident incongreuncy between the measure of the two segments, force the designer to other "adjustements" ( only to name one : attempt to reduce the wideness of the turret ,reducing the wideness of the armour of right side turrett section -that meanly not identified by a letter- in resepct to the left side) ,obviously nothing work.

The almost perfect capability to overlap of the two LOS segments (A1 adn A2 ) like its ratio with the inescapable physical limits of the LEO-2A4's structure itself, and total inconsistenmcy of the 84 cm figure result absolutely clear in pratically any pics of real LEO-2A4.
Even in one of the same pic used just some months ago just by you mylitarista (note : seem that your figures have change very quickly lately ,in particular after this funny photo hoax ..... even worse than the tons of worthless words produced after the equally funny staged pics of PAKFA'sduct with exposed compressor face ).

Anyone can note in this image from top as a LOS segment in the area named here G and that in the area named E would be almost equal ,moreover is equally clear as a figure of 84 cm for E's LOS would create a turrett more than 3 meters wide !!!





That irreconcilable incongruency between the claimed figure of 84 cm and the ratio with the other constrcutive elements of the turret and its physical constraints is as very clear here :







Real photos ,showing integrally the elements of real Leo-2 are very quick at disperse the mist generated by claims totally irreconcilable with parametrical reality.

Mindstorm, I must state not to get to a personal war between yourself, Damian, and Milltarysta. Consider this my only goodwill warning, since I and my co workers will not allow a flame war, and anyone starting those will get ip executed.

nd I already made a topic by spliting your posts.