General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

Mike E wrote:
They are only the toughest materials known to date... As in, the armor will be stronger then the rod projectile coming towards it. 

Thanks for the info though.

i can bend copper wires just fine, but use them in a shaped charge and they can penetrate even meter thick armor that i wont have any chance at even scratching with my bare hands. hardness is irrelevant, at the immense pressures both materials might as well be liquids and the trend is for increasing velocity in apfsds so they would act more like shaped charge jet tips. and even if some alien tech. is reverse engineered and enables us to mass manufacture carbon nanotubes for use in armor- well the other side would just use those to enhance their apfsds.

EDIT: ok, they are significantly hard enough to shrug off shaped charges, but given the expense and tech level required to mass manufacture such exotica for use in armor we'd sooner see railguns on tanks shooting long rods at double the shaped charge tip speed(to render hardness irrelevant again) and or just my last counterpoint.

EDIT2: did a few more reading, and since impact velocities are not reaching 7km/s or speed of sound in typical metals like steel(uber hard materials would maybe have much faster speed of sound) anytime soon, hardness is still very relevant.

One of the purposes of capped armour... which was armour with the outer surface hardened was to try to shatter any hard impactors which greatly reduces penetration... as you might expect...

Hardness is important for keeping the penetrator together and also for that chance of shattering an incoming projectile. Sometimes having a very hard material can make it prone to shattering which is as bad for a projectile as it is for an armour.

the facts of the matter are that the Russians know what they are doing and even if they have developed a super steel that will not be the only protection... there will be jammers for use against remote control IEDs, there will be systems to stop magnetic mines, there will be microphones to detect the direction and calibre of enemy fire, there will be armour, there will be NERA, there will be jammers and decoy systems, there will be active defence systems, there will be layers that hide radar cross section and disguise the shape and heat signature, etc etc.

GarryB wrote:One of the purposes of capped armour... which was armour with the outer surface hardened was to try to shatter any hard impactors which greatly reduces penetration... as you might expect...

Hardness is important for keeping the penetrator together and also for that chance of shattering an incoming projectile. Sometimes having a very hard material can make it prone to shattering which is as bad for a projectile as it is for an armour.

also there is nothing stopping the offensive side from using long rods encased in uber-hard material. penetrating through thick armor would severely erode the rod, imagine if all that mass instead makes it to the inside of the crew compartment plus all the armor material it scraped on the way in(which would balance the lost spalling debris from the disintegrating penetrator since an intact pentrator could bore a hole bigger than a disintegrating one).

also there is nothing stopping the offensive side from using long rods encased in uber-hard material.

Nothing new about that... even a standard ball rifle round is a lead mass surrounded by a mild steel or copper jacket... the steel or copper jacket keeps the whole round in one piece while the lead core makes it heavier and denser than it would have been if made of solid copper or solid steel.

the problem with capped rounds is that at the levels of energy we are talking about a very hard material can simply shatter which greatly reduces its penetration potential.

penetrating through thick armor would severely erode the rod,

Most of the penetration erosion is from the penetrating tip with the debris from the tip and the armour being penetrated moving through with the penetrator.

Note Depleted Uranium Armour therefore means any penetrator that penetrates will fill the troop compartment and the local area with deadly dust just like a DU round impact.

imagine if all that mass instead makes it to the inside of the crew compartment plus all the armor material it scraped on the way in(which would balance the lost spalling debris from the disintegrating penetrator since an intact pentrator could bore a hole bigger than a disintegrating one).

Penetrators lose length, not width, and the material from the penetrator and the armour that is penetrated is plenty of material on its own, but generally unless the crew inhale it only crew in the direct path of the penetrator are in trouble.

Side penetrations make any current MBT vulnerable.When Nato went into Yugoslavia the Challenger crews were warned that there were WW2 88mm AA guns present and they would go through side armour with or without skirts.

Pugnax wrote:Side penetrations make any current MBT vulnerable.When Nato went into Yugoslavia the Challenger crews were warned that there were WW2 88mm AA guns present and they would go through side armour with or without skirts.

Skirts make no difference for such weapons, side armor is as thin as paper especially for any HEAT weapon even for PG-7 warheads with only 290-320mm RHAe, only ERA can decrease or stop such weapons, which most tanks don't have right now in service.

From what I've heard a lot of MBT's have well spaced side armor that amounts to ~400-500 RHAe.

Mike E wrote:From what I've heard a lot of MBT's have well spaced side armor that amounts to ~400-500 RHAe.

Of turrets, the hull is as thin as less than 150mm RHAe counting the strength of RHA steel of side hull, the space between sideskirts and hull that also is used as "space armor" and the sideskirts strength and effeciency itself. Even with russian K5 and hull strength which has the biggest protection of all current MBT goes not beyond 350mm RHAe.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:From what I've heard a lot of MBT's have well spaced side armor that amounts to ~400-500 RHAe.

Of turrets, the hull is as thin as less than 150mm RHAe counting the strength of RHA steel of side hull, the space between sideskirts and hull that also is used as "space armor" and the sideskirts strength and effeciency itself. Even with russian K5 and hull strength which has the biggest protection of all current MBT goes not beyond 350mm RHAe.

Well then... I heard that the Leo 2 had 500 RHAe side armor but they must of been simple fanboys.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:From what I've heard a lot of MBT's have well spaced side armor that amounts to ~400-500 RHAe.

Of turrets, the hull is as thin as less than 150mm RHAe counting the strength of RHA steel of side hull, the space between sideskirts and hull that also is used as "space armor" and the sideskirts strength and effeciency itself. Even with russian K5 and hull strength which has the biggest protection of all current MBT goes not beyond 350mm RHAe.

Well then... I heard that the Leo 2 had 500 RHAe side armor but they must of been simple fanboys.

Not from the side lol.

Maybe with skirts + at an angle: that is the round comes from at a large angle relative to the side.

Well then... I heard that the Leo 2 had 500 RHAe side armor but they must of been simple fanboys.

Not from the side lol.

Maybe with skirts + at an angle: that is the round comes from at a large angle relative to the side.

Well like on all tanks the forward part of the side hull indeed has higher protection than the rest of the sidehull but it is around only a 1/5th probably even less towads 1/3th of the fuselage that has some better protection, near tank drivers location, but no where near 500 mm RHAe, that is far to high, especially for tanks like Leo2 that have no ERA standardized.

From btvt.narod

It was an A7 discussion because supposedly it had upgraded side armor or something like that.

Mike E wrote:It was an A7 discussion because supposedly it had upgraded side armor or something like that.

If you put on a thick skirt, and the shell comes in at an angle, sure, 500mm effective protection is possible.

No magic here, just a serious weight+ size penalty.

NATO fanboys on the internet almost give me cancer so I must resort to making threads about what they say to get information
If someone has the time can someone please compare the FCS of T-72B3 and T-90A with their western counterpart the M1 Abrams. The idiots keep referring to the T-90As FCS as to crappy Russian FCS and they also say the thermal sights are effective to 2KM which in all reality makes me want to jump through their computer screen and beat them up.

T-90A had better thermals than contemporary Abrams, actually.
And T-90 FCS has proved itself on testing grounds around the world, many times. USSR/Russia certainly lagged on thermals at the time, but I am not sure what basis anyone has to say T-90 ever had crappy FCS.
Plus, T-90 could actually fire the pintle mounted machine gun from inside the tank, unlike Abram's crude installation (until recently).

T-72 did not even really have any FCS btw, very simple aiming complex.

T-72B3 FCC is mixed. Sosna-U gunners sight is quite good, though the installation is a bit wonky on the tank, next to the old sight.
Commander still has ancient sight himself though.

M1 has gone through many iterations. Just saying "M1 FCS" proves the ignorance of the person arguing. Same with Russian tanks. T-72B to T-90MS with Kalina and Sosna is a universe of difference.

Also, inb4 someone claims T-72B3 has as good of an FCS as anything in the world, like its "armor" .

Btw, just from some recent tests:

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=29362&p=1043432

TR1 wrote:T-90A had better thermals than contemporary Abrams, actually.
And T-90 FCS has proved itself on testing grounds around the world, many times. USSR/Russia certainly lagged on thermals at the time, but I am not sure what basis anyone has to say T-90 ever had crappy FCS.
Plus, T-90 could actually fire the pintle mounted machine gun from inside the tank, unlike Abram's crude installation (until recently).

T-72 did not even really have any FCS btw, very simple aiming complex.

T-72B3 FCC is mixed. Sosna-U gunners sight is quite good, though the installation is a bit wonky on the tank, next to the old sight.
Commander still has ancient sight himself though.

M1 has gone through many iterations. Just saying "M1 FCS" proves the ignorance of the person arguing. Same with Russian tanks. T-72B to T-90MS with Kalina and Sosna is a universe of difference.

Also, inb4 someone claims T-72B3 has as good of an FCS as anything in the world, like its "armor" .

Thanks TR1 this is some good info here I searched the web many Russian sites and could not find a good page on the T-90s FCS.

BTW the M1 FCS thing is from forums, sometimes im so tempted to jump into a forum and insult the heck out of those fanboys. But again thank you for this info

There is a reason the Russians bought the rights to produce Catherine thermals from Thales of France.

I have friends who have used such systems and they state that in the right conditions you can see tanks out to 7-8km.

At 2kms they claim you can see individual blades of grass.

(Those friends are in the British Army BTW)

T-72B3 FCC is mixed. Sosna-U gunners sight is quite good, though the installation is a bit wonky on the tank, next to the old sight.
Commander still has ancient sight himself though.

It is just being practical... on the T-90 there are two thermals... one for the gunner and one for the commander.

Unless there is something seriously wrong however the jobs in a MBT are for the commander to direct the gunner and driver and to look out for targets and threats, while the driver drives and the gunner engages targets. Both the commander and gunner having independent thermals doubles the price but allows for the very occasional situation where the commander can aim and fire the main gun himself.

I would describe such a feature as gold plating, though if we are talking about a standard tank that will be the back bone of the Russian Army for the next two decades it would be worth it... ie Armata MBT and kurganets and boomerang and typhoon tanks and gun platforms. If it is for the stopgap upgrade of old tanks then it is not worth it.

New thermals for the gunner means capable of engaging targets in poor conditions like smoke and fog to reasonable ranges, which is all it really needs to be able to do.

TR1 wrote:Btw, just from some recent tests:

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=29362&p=1043432

- First day it was really foggy and rainy. 1G46 could only operate to 300-350 meters. By using the thermal sight, shots were fired at targets 2.000-2.500 meters away.
- The next 2 days climate conditions were optimal and gunnery tests were performed. T-90S fired on the move and statically. 38 125mm rounds were fired. 16 BM17, 12 BK16 and 10 OF36. Distance was 1.600-3.000 meters. The sucess rate was 94.7%.

- PKMT and Kord machine guns were also tested by firing 600 rounds. The success rate was 75%. AT-11 Sniper missiles were fired at targets 3.000-5.000 meters away with 100% success rate.


very nice results, and there is even better FCS developed for T-90MS and most certainly for armata/kurg/boomerang.

Mike E wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Composites will still eat HEAT shells all day...modern age MBT's are built to defeat HEAT more so than long-rods. 

I never said they are not useful, just that they should NOT be a substitute for the long-rods.

...Meanwhile Kornet-E's have been known to kill Merkeva's, M1 Abrams, T-72's.

Yes...but not frontally. Western MBT's never mind the Armata could take HEAT to their frontal glacis, long-rods would be much more...interesting. 

Never once did I say they are not effective...not once...but in the modern battlefield a long-rod will have a higher chance of penetrating unless from above.

Iraqi M1A1M have been penetrated with Kornet-E from front and exist the rear the ammunition detonated crew in turret could not survive.

I think having a thread where we all can discuss both Russian and non-Russian MBT topics (peacefully) would be great...and hence this very thread was born. 

Also, talk about APFSDS is always interesting, especially with the upcoming "Vacuum" series of rounds.

To start things off... A general look at the armor *profiles* of current MBT's. 

Spanish Leopard 2E, which is practically an A5 with significantly upgraded hull armor. 

Challenger 2 with ERA. 

M1A2 SEP... Often considered the most well armored tank in the world (it really isn't).

T-90A with K-5 ERA. 

T-80U 

I'll just say it...these are not 100% accurate but they do show the *profiles* of armor on each of the tanks. One question I have is related to the LFP of the Challenger 2 vs. HEAT, as it has been defeated by a RPG-29 (supposedly) in combat before.

Chally 2 and Leo 2a5 armor ratings are severely overestimated. it should be at level of M1A2 SEP at most. now the opposite is with regards to the hull with M1A2- how the fck would 2 massive fuel tanks provide 300mm RHAe more against KE? it would work for HEAT since its basically spaced armor but KE? and then the mantlets for the western tanks, they have composite armor there naow?

and yes, a Chally 2 was burned through by an RPG-29, it hit the lower glacis which is not that protected as the upper glacis itself(it was designed for hull-down tactics, so this part would never be in enemy's sights in the first place), set off the ERA and injured the driver.

I agree that there are definitely errors here... Especially with the M1 LFP which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 

That is a Leopard *2E* which is up-armored with apllique add-ons and extra spaces armor.  

They always say "our tanks will be hull down" yet they get hit in the LFP all the time...tells you "they" do most know what they get into.

Mike E wrote:I agree that there are definitely errors here... Especially with the M1 LFP which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 

That is a Leopard *2E* which is up-armored with apllique add-ons and extra spaces armor.  

They always say "our tanks will be hull down" yet they get hit in the LFP all the time...tells you "they" do most know what they get into.

that applique NERA wont provide that much armor aside from maintaining parity with M1A2's. its only this thick:

its main trick to reducing the penetrating potential/increasing effective armor is to distort the penetrator from a straight line path, much like thrusting an inclined surface with a stick tends to twist your hand into making the stick more normal to the surface. with more mass behind it penetrators like those of m829a3 and the vacuums would be less affected by this trick. proper nose design would also greatly mitigate that effect- the m829a3 has 100mm steel nose designed against ERA- this would work too against the wedge armor since it could shear off from the rest of the penetrator when it encounters the wedge armor, but not before it has created a breach in the armor.

and since its NERA; ie it uses only the projectile's energy against it, its less effective than ERA which has explosives as part of package as a rule of thumb(provided they are of similar level of development, whatever that means). and if i remember correctly, UVZ gave only 850mm vs KE for T-90MS with Relikt- so more likely ~1300mm for Leo 2E is BS. same likely goes for Chally 2, hell its steel component of the armor is only cast, which is noticeably weaker than RHA.

and well, this just means they are not psychics- who wouldve thought Soviet Union would collapse and instead of one final glorious tank battle set amidst nuke fire backdrop in the plains of Europe they would be fighting in the ME against insurgents?