Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing Tanks

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:52 pm

    Mike E wrote:In regards to HAP, of course not, almost nobody does. What I do know, is that it is one of the most advanced composites to date.


    Certainly it is not most advanced composites to date, since it is a two decade old technology and technology has moved on and not to mention that we have Armata's unknown armor package that is the latest technology of armor there is on any tank right now. Further to "know" that one of any of the tanks using the most advanced composite armor, you would need direct knowledge of the composition of those armors and all necessary information of their protective capability to declare one of those tanks to have the best armor technology to date. You obviously have no knowledge of every tank, you have no knowledge of a single tank, such knowledge is restricted to only relative low number of people in design and manufactoring of those tanks and even those guys in the manufactoring facilities have no idea of the protective capabilities even if they know each component, since they are not the phycists nor those guys that evaluade armor capability in tests.

    Mike E wrote:
    BRL-2 was already considered to be advanced, but HAP brings in ____ improvements (rumored to be a co-development of Burlington) along with the DU kit. I fail to see how this is inferior to a steel/rubber based, passive composite. 

    I somehow fail to see how you know the armor of the T-90A not to mention your attempt and notorious to portray armor like murican fanboys that constantly ignore ERA and dissmiss it as not relevant or paint russian armor as such inferior to need ERA, while the first tanks of Russia/Soviet Union that used ERA already were significant more armored than any western tank like T-55 which already weights 36t compared with heavier but less armored tanks like Chieftain.

    Mike E wrote:
    Diagrams show the turret being 550 mm at the flat-frontal section, and the sides being far greater. Mindstorm's post didn't debunk this or anything for that matter. 

    Damian and Militarysta may have been rude, but generally they know what they are talking about (outside of an undeniable bias, they are Polish after all).

    Damian and Militarysta are known fanboys of the Abrams and even they know it better, they often tend to ignore or right out keep disadvantages of Abrams out of equation and discussion to let it appear better than it is, while constantly using any opponent of the Abrams in discussion comperision to be pointing out disadvantages to create a perception that is favoring the Abrams.

    Here to show you what i mean, the fanboyism is undeniable.



    Here he suggests the Abrams is almost perfect design, by re designing its frontal projection vulnerablility of the hull would mean to make it a) first smaller and b) use upgraded ERA to achieve a better protection from frontal projection for the hull (russian tank philosophy)
    He mentions that the only frontal projection vulnerability of Abrams is the gun mantlet, while the frontal projection in safe maneuvering angles would be the entire turret side armor and especially the ammunition bustle.

    Militarysta fanboyism claims the T-72,T-90,T-80 mobility is far worse than Leo2 or M1 Abrams, which tests in Sweden T-72 tests, Malaysian jungle which T-90 against the Leo2 and Abrams haven't even participated in, the Greek trails with T-80 have proven to be not the case.



    Or his understanding or better to say his purposely grotesque purposely depiction of things he actually knows better  like armor performance do depict and not understand the basics of protective capabilities, like depicted by him in the reply from GazB to him and his assertions and flawed comperisions.



    Here another post by Damian, here you have to follow the conversation and his chosen words when he is talking about russian tank design conecepts and completley different terminology when talking about US tank design concepts.

    http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150823/od7nmt8x.jpg

    The russians are using "tricks" while even the basic rectangular design of the Abrams is a technology, which you can see in lot of his posts like the first one his praising for it and the fact that Abrams is inferior to Leopard 2 in almost everyway but still depiction of his favorite tank as superior is funny.

    He is no authority, he is just as biased as others, the difference here is he actualy knows advantages and disadvantages but he ignored and right out lies in debates and discussions to portray his favorite tank as superior, meaning he is not reliable but actually harming for understanding of the matters. People that are ignorant and just believe based on their limited knowledge that one tank is superior to another is an entirely different thing, but to create perceptions with the goal to let appear one tank superior to another in discussions of different approaches, despite knowing better is just wrong.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2120
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:01 pm

    We should also mention the modular spaced armour of Leo 2 and ERA of T-72/90, too. Spaced armour and ERA pay a significant role in reducing the power of penetrators.

    Leo 2 has already used very angled and big modular spaced armour, while Abrams turret is virtually naked.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:29 am

    Which is why I said that I don't know much about it... HAP was first introduced on the A1HA, and has received upgrades all the way up to the A2 SEP v2, and soon it will be replaced on the v3. At worst it is a few decades old, which is no worse than the NxRA, so I don't get your point here. Also, note I said "one of" and not "the".

    I don't know the armor of the T-90A, what I do know is that it is very similar to what the T-72B uses. As I have said multiple times now. Kontakt-5 is largely irrelevant against APFSDS, as a good lot of them have been designed specifically to defeat it. The plates might add a little protection, but nothing huge in the grand scheme of things.

    I said their bias is undeniable....which it is...but that doesn't mean they don't have a lot of information. Some things are really laughable though, like how Damian claimed the V-84 series of engine to break down every few days.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:48 am

    higurashihougi wrote:We should also mention the modular spaced armour of Leo 2 and ERA of T-72/90, too. Spaced armour and ERA pay a significant role in reducing the power of penetrators.

    Leo 2 has already used very angled and big modular spaced armour, while Abrams turret is virtually naked.
    Leopard 2's applique can't really be described at spaced armor. It incorporates a thin, single-layer NERA panel, with a few ceramic tiles within (that divert the rod). Sure this uses spacing, but that isn't what provides the protection. 

    Kontakt-5 is irrelevant to say...the M829A3, but as mentioned, the panels used in it would help a little. Relikt is where things get more interesting. 

    Abrams turret uses a thick, really thick composite. It really wouldn't be justified to have it angled. 

    Sure majority of the Western "advantages" are simple propoganda, but that doesn't mean it all is...or can't be true, for that matter. NxRA is the more basic composite, but it is not like that singlehandedly breaks the tank.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:14 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Leopard 2's applique can't really be described at spaced armor. It incorporates a thin, single-layer NERA panel, with a few ceramic tiles within (that divert the rod). Sure this uses spacing, but that isn't what provides the protection.

    I have never seen any ceramics in applique armor of Leopard 2 tanks, it is basic reinforced rubber that is used as a NERA and it is indeed designed as NERA and spaced armor against shaped charges, the protective effect against APFSDS is however nothing to really take into consideration.

    Mike E wrote:
    Kontakt-5 is irrelevant to say...the M829A3, but as mentioned, the panels used in it would help a little. Relikt is where things get more interesting.

    Kontakt-5 is not irrelevant toeven M829A3, the M829A3 has a chance of around 40-50% to pass through it without setting it off, meaning it is in no effective figure of military standards of 80% reliability, both in this case do not account for effective and reliable functioning both have less than 80% chance of performing their job. It is worse for the tank with ERA than for the M829A3 round, but of course that does not mean the tank can not fire back.

    Also there is Relict in service for several years since 2005 or 2007 and it is in use on T-90A it has better performance and is functioning against M829A3.

    Mike E wrote:
    Abrams turret uses a thick, really thick composite. It really wouldn't be justified to have it angled. 

    Sure majority of the Western "advantages" are simple propoganda, but that doesn't mean it all is...or can't be true, for that matter. NxRA is the more basic composite, but it is not like that singlehandedly breaks the tank.

    Thick in LOS does not mean thick in its effeciency against all types of warheads. As we know the western countries have specialized on protecting their tanks against shaped charges which the Soviet Union with its countless high quality programs of introduction of modern RPG and ATGM's have put great effort to counter NATO tanks and as the result the tactical doctrine to overcome this issue was focused on this sheer amounts of Malyutka's, Metis, Shturm, Phalanga, Ataka, Konkurs, Fagot, Bastion and so on. The thick LOS armor is not much thicker than many other kinds of armor and just because the Abrams is so archaic in its protective design to use only passive armor without any additional or modularity of armor that is very important in todays times just shows the very limited and wrong design in its protection. However thick LOS armor does not tell you anything about its interior, it could be several air gaps that will perform better against CE but much worse against KE, or the complete opposite, we do not know that and to always cheat comperisions in favor of abrams due its archaic armor design and ignore ERA like most Abrams fanboys do just shows their helplessness in trying to argue a lost cause.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:51 pm

    It uses ceramic diverting tiles, find a picture of the turret module. 

    M829A3 will go through K-5 fine, because of the tip design. When the ERA explodesz, the tip is ejected. 

    Relikt hasn't been in service... It will soon.

    How is HAP archaic? Is the NxRA archaic too?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:58 pm

    Mike E wrote:It uses ceramic diverting tiles, find a picture of the turret module. 

    M829A3 will go through K-5 fine, because of the tip design. When the ERA explodesz, the tip is ejected. 

    Relikt hasn't been in service... It will soon.

    How is HAP archaic? Is the NxRA archaic too?

    Relict has been approved for service since 2005 and is used to several reports on T-90A/MS.

    The M829A3 like reported by Nii Stali has only a chance of 50-40% to pass through Kontakt-5 without exploding it, if it explodes the performance of any Long rod will suffer to degrees of shattering the entire long rod.

    The Abrams is archaic, the approach and design philosphy to protect a tank by only measure of its passive armor, without adopting much more advanced modularity of armor like Merkawa, Leopard2, T-90A/AM and the overall archaic design to protect the tank with mostly its front turret while leaving far more vulnerable in the safe maneuvering angles of 30° +- compared to any other tank is indeed a horrible design for todays times. I am not talking about the armor technology but the design of how the armor is used and what it lacks and it definetley lacks protection and does not meet level of protection of Leopard not to mention T-90A/MS and its TUSK is only useful against Iraq under sanctions, it would be blown apart by Chechens to pieces with what they had or have now.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:19 pm

    But no service units have actually used it...[size=42]And if you claim they do, then please link a picture at the very least. [/size]


    Like I said, M829A3 uses a special tip for defeating K-5. It will diminish the effects of said ERA.

    How do you define modularity?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:39 pm

    Mike E wrote:But no service units have actually used it...[size=42]And if you claim they do, then please link a picture at the very least. [/size]


    Like I said, M829A3 uses a special tip for defeating K-5. It will diminish the effects of said ERA.

    How do you define modularity?

    The BMD4M use ERA packages designed on the basis of Relict. The previous attempts using heavy ERA have deformed or cracked light armored vehicles like IFV/APC's the new ERA for LAV's is a derivate of Relict.

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.de/2012/01/5-2011-90.html
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f1c_1413120043






    Third picture it is mentioned that the BMP/BMD use 4S24 armor which is Relict.

    It does not matter what M829A3 uses, Nii Stali said the chances of M829A3 to pierce through Kontakt-5 without setting it off, meaning defeating its entire purpose is around 50-40%, that does not mean it will pierce through it every time, it means it will be defeated 50-60% of all fired Sabots. The blast will shatter M829A3 like any other long rod, the only difference is the M829 has always set off Kontakt-5 with 99% reliability, A2 with little bit less but A3 with much less, however that does not garrantee it will just pierce through the tank regardless of detonation and functioning of K5, it will break the long rod apart or reduce its penetration capabilities significantly.

    Modularity is a rather self explaining terminology for tank warfare along with redundancy which Abrams does not have while other tanks have it either by APS or modular approach meaning a layer of protections passive,active or any other measure.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:58 pm

    But once again....is it actually in service? The answer is no...

    It does matter, because the tip still get sheared off, and the rod will remain almost completely intact. K-5 not detonating is just the cheery on top. 

    Removing the tip, and possible a little of the rod, would barely effect penetration. Maybe 10%.

    Modular armor is great, but it isn't needed on the Abrams.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:07 pm

    Mike E wrote:But once again....is it actually in service? The answer is no...

    It does matter, because the tip still get sheared off, and the rod will remain almost completely intact. K-5 not detonating is just the cheery on top. 

    Removing the tip, and possible a little of the rod, would barely effect penetration. Maybe 10%.

    Modular armor is great, but it isn't needed on the Abrams.

    That is what you believe but we know that Kontakt-5 a heavy ERA will shatter long rods and it does not matter if it is a M829 or M829A3, the longer the rod the more abusive the force of ERA will impact on the Sabot. Try to break a stick of one meter in length and try to break same stick of 10 cm or 1 cm in length with same thickness, it gets harder. Long rods are made of very briddle materials and are easy to break. It will not just remove the tip and therefore the a very huge proportion of Sabots meaning of penetration, it will induce a yaw and can break the Long rod in half or reduce its integrity. If ERA detonates it has achieved what it was designed for, actually Kontakt-5 wasn't even designed to have an effect on Sabots but it has so it already achieved more than it was designed for. Reducing penetration capability is certainly better than being shot at without reducing the penetrative capabilities of the incoming threat.

    Modular armor is need on Abrams, it is among the most vulnerable tanks from any side except a very narrow angle from the front and upgrade of A3 will improve exactly that, to up armor the sides and not the front just the front like all previous upgrades.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:12 pm

    Once again, the energy is *diverted* using the rod tip. The rod itself will barely be harmed in the process. 

    There is no such thing as an "M1A3", and the new side armor will be part of TUSK 2. It's more appliquè than modular in any case.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:08 pm

    The tip is critical for penetration... do you think the put points on the ends of them for fun?

    At the speeds and energies involved even a flattened tip will penetrate some armour but if you want to penetrate a lot of armour then you need a stumpy point... a very sharp point will shear at angles, but the pressures and energies involved means even a blunt tip will penetrate some armour... but it will form a sort of pointed tip in the process of being crushed into the armour.

    the point is (pun intended) is that a stumpy point concentrates the energy of the projectile onto a small area of the surface of the armour greatly increasing its ability to punch through.

    Cut the tip off or have a needle sharp tip that shears off at impact and a lot of energy is wasted reforming the tip and penetration values will greatly decrease.

    If the penetrator was only going to just make it through the armour then cutting off the tip is all you need to stop the round from penetrating.

    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:33 pm

    I'm not talking about the rod's tip, that is the thing. It is a steel, ~100 mm "plug" that is meant to be ejected when impacted by ERA plates. It will have little to no effect on the rod itself, and will allow a clean path through the ERA.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:39 pm

    Mike E wrote:I'm not talking about the rod's tip, that is the thing. It is a steel, ~100 mm "plug" that is meant to be ejected when impacted by ERA plates. It will have little to no effect on the rod itself, and will allow a clean path through the ERA.

    Wrong guess, the ERA has bigger radius then your little tip plug, it will have quite an effect on your APFSDS, it will not go through ERA like a Tandem HEAT, it will be shattered apart or decreased in its capabilities significantly. Tandem HEAT precursors are away in a full length of the entire Sabot, while the tip to half the Rod will all be effected by the pushing of the steel plate that is pushed by ERA explosion at higher speed than the Sabot, to think it will have no effect or that a little tip of a Sabot will just be used like precursor of HEAT Tandem round is a wrong assumption.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:45 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:I'm not talking about the rod's tip, that is the thing. It is a steel, ~100 mm "plug" that is meant to be ejected when impacted by ERA plates. It will have little to no effect on the rod itself, and will allow a clean path through the ERA.

    Wrong guess, the ERA has bigger radius then your little tip plug, it will have quite an effect on your APFSDS, it will not go through ERA like a Tandem HEAT, it will be shattered apart or decreased in its capabilities significantly. Tandem HEAT precursors are away in a full length of the entire Sabot, while the tip to half the Rod will all be effected by the pushing of the steel plate that is pushed by ERA explosion at higher speed than the Sabot, to think it will have no effect or that a little tip of a Sabot will just be used like precursor of HEAT Tandem round is a wrong assumption.
    Even if it isn't perfect (depends on the angle and area of impact), only a little section of the rod would actually be effected. Which has been my point all along....
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:23 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:I'm not talking about the rod's tip, that is the thing. It is a steel, ~100 mm "plug" that is meant to be ejected when impacted by ERA plates. It will have little to no effect on the rod itself, and will allow a clean path through the ERA.

    Wrong guess, the ERA has bigger radius then your little tip plug, it will have quite an effect on your APFSDS, it will not go through ERA like a Tandem HEAT, it will be shattered apart or decreased in its capabilities significantly. Tandem HEAT precursors are away in a full length of the entire Sabot, while the tip to half the Rod will all be effected by the pushing of the steel plate that is pushed by ERA explosion at higher speed than the Sabot, to think it will have no effect or that a little tip of a Sabot will just be used like precursor of HEAT Tandem round is a wrong assumption.
    Even if it isn't perfect (depends on the angle and area of impact), only a little section of the rod would actually be effected. Which has been my point all along....

    Not really, the rod will always come in an angle to armor, because the armor itself is always angled, meaning if it detonates even on ERA tile the pushing steel plate will break the Sabot in half or induce a yaw that will be enough to reduce its penetrative capabilities significantly.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2120
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:16 am

    Werewolf wrote:Modular armor is need on Abrams, it is among the most vulnerable tanks from any side except a very narrow angle from the front and upgrade of A3 will improve exactly that, to up armor the sides and not the front just the front like all previous upgrades.

    My guess it is indeed not needed, because Abrams is too damn heavy for any more additional modular/ERA.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks the TUSK upgrade is mainly for show off in advertisement and propaganda film. Actual combat Abrams is still naked. No ERA, no spaced armour in the turret.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2120
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:43 am

    Mike E wrote:But once again....is it actually in service? The answer is no...

    It does matter, because the tip still get sheared off, and the rod will remain almost completely intact. K-5 not detonating is just the cheery on top. 

    Removing the tip, and possible a little of the rod, would barely effect penetration. Maybe 10%.

    Modular armor is great, but it isn't needed on the Abrams.

    You need to know that the main effect of ERA/spaced armour on APFSDS is about DEFLECTION. Yes, DEFLECTION.

    APFSDS is a very long rod, but has very very small cross-section. So you already see that, only a small deflection already drastically decreases the penetration power of the rod.

    The spaced armour provides a space for the penetration rod to fully develop its degree of deflection and that means the penetration power will be maximally decreased when the rod access the main armour. ERA's explosive charge also has the effect of pushing the rod away and causing deflection of the rod.

    So that is the reason why I usually pick on the nakedness of Abrams. No spaced armour, no ERA. Meanwhile Leo 2 at least has very big and angled spaced armour. And the newest Leo 2 spaced armour is modular, you can quickly and easily replace the armour when needed.

    Mike E wrote:No Soviet tanks used ceramics in their turret, outside of the late model Object-478's. There is no evidence suggesting the T-90A does either.

    I suspect that they may really have ceramic in it. The composite armour of T-xx is made of many small cells, each cell has a very hard ceramic nucleus to cleave the penetrator. And correct me if I am wrong, but my guess is that the inner structure of T-xx armour has some spaces, too, for the development of deflection of penetration rod.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Comparing Tanks 2

    Post  Mike E on Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:18 am

    Which is yet another reason the M829A3 uses a plug/tip on the end of the rod. It is designed to fly off of the rod, so a good amount of the energy used to deflect the rod would be wasted. Such a heavy rod would also require more energy, or explosives, to produce any beneficial result. 

    Abrams doesn't need spaced armor because the armor is not designed for it. HAP is some sort of blend between silicon carbide ceramics, steel, aluminum, hollow structured metal (which seems to be more speculation, but supposedly was a major design element of Burlington), and steel-covered DU laminate. This itself is designed to do multiple things; metals provide thickness, ceramics provide hardness and cause abrasive effects against jets/rods, hollowed structured metal to absorb energy, and DU to provide density where extra thickness can't be provided. Spaced armor would only add weight and without much role. It itself is not of much use, unless the armor arrays can "trap" the rod using spacing. (Aka, end of the rod is getting through the first layer of armor, most of the rod is in a spaced chamber, and the tip is penetrating a new layer of armor. This, if the second layer is angled, could could massive amounts of yaw and flex in the rod, thereby lowering penetration by multiple times, or snapping it all together. I firmly believe T-14 uses this method.)

    Leopard 2 doesn't use spacing in the manner that you think it does. The turret applique uses NERA to absorb energy, and ceramic plates to induce yaw into the rod. In this scenario, the spacing serves no purpose other than being a side-effect of this design. 

    There's no scenario where the T-90A uses ceramics in the glacis. To begin, no Soviet or Russian MBT uses ceramics in their glacis assuming it is the typical well angled design. Some projects seemingly did use ceramics, but the Glacis remained almost un-angled. We know for a fact that the hull uses NxRA (there is no alternative, never mind information) we just don't know the thickness. T-90A welded turret uses bulging modules (which could be describes as "cells") like the T-72B, just in a different, and thicker layout. There is some speculation that it could use small ceramic modules (like a few T-64 models), but once again, there is no information to back this up. 

    The idea behind the T-72B glacis is simple yet genius at the same time; use multiple, unconnected layers of high hardness steel to harshly deform the rod's front (like mushrooming), and rubber, along with thin spacing, to flex the armor. This artificially increases LOS thickness (flex below the rod pushes it up, so it will slowly "drift" upwards, thereby increasing LOS) while also inducing stress and yaw into the rod. The problem will this, is that rubber & air are not the best methods of defeating penetrators. Sure it absorbs energy, but it simply doesn't provide needed density or hardness outside of that. Hence why it is a reactive armor, because it relies on the fact that it can change.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4628
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:55 am

    Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?





    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 192
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  x_54_u43 on Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:54 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?

    An excellent image, clearly puts the "Armata does not have turret armor" claim to rest.

    Never understood those people anyway.

    LaVictoireEstLaVie

    Posts : 5
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2012-12-16

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  LaVictoireEstLaVie on Fri Sep 25, 2015 1:42 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?






    The sizes are not accurate. Challenger 2 is over-sized compared to the M1A2 Abrams. The hull of the T-90A has also been shrunk down. It should be the same size as the T-72B next to it. The rest is more or less acceptable but not that accurate overall.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4628
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Sep 25, 2015 2:30 pm

    LaVictoireEstLaVie wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?






    The sizes are not accurate. Challenger 2 is over-sized compared to the M1A2 Abrams. The hull of the T-90A has also been shrunk down. It should be the same size as the T-72B next to it. The rest is more or less acceptable but not that accurate overall.

    The rules state you have to introduce yourself in the member introduction forum.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:37 pm

    He is right, Chally 2 is oversized, M1 seems little bit to small, maybe just the perception of the already oversized Chally2, T-90A is smaller than the T-72 is also not correct, maybe it is supposed to be T-80B.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:42 am