General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

Werewolf wrote:

People sitting on high horses do not want to learn from their believed "inferior" enemies.

Now let's see if UAE's do any smarter with their Leclerc.

Werewolf wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

Godric wrote:

admittedly the 2nd Abrams never went Boom like the first 1 but it didn't half cook up killing at least 2 of the crew ... you have to question why did the Saudis leave them exposed without any visible infantry support ??

Yes..that's very weird. I wonder why Saudis didn't learned from what happened to Iraqi's Abrams.

People sitting on high horses do not want to learn from their believed "inferior" enemies.

On another side, you know the line: when your attack is going too well, then you've walked in an ambush. ;-).

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

Godric wrote:

admittedly the 2nd Abrams never went Boom like the first 1 but it didn't half cook up killing at least 2 of the crew ... you have to question why did the Saudis leave them exposed without any visible infantry support ??

Yes..that's very weird. I wonder why Saudis didn't learned from what happened to Iraqi's Abrams.

People sitting on high horses do not want to learn from their believed "inferior" enemies.

On another side, you know the line: when your attack is going too well, then you've walked in an ambush. ;-).

True, had far to often that feeling in Arma 3 and i realized it to late.

Werewolf wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

Godric wrote:

admittedly the 2nd Abrams never went Boom like the first 1 but it didn't half cook up killing at least 2 of the crew ... you have to question why did the Saudis leave them exposed without any visible infantry support ??

Yes..that's very weird. I wonder why Saudis didn't learned from what happened to Iraqi's Abrams.

People sitting on high horses do not want to learn from their believed "inferior" enemies.

it has been standard procedure to have infantry support in tank warfare for nearly 8 decades .... come to think of it it's been standard procedure from 1916 when the Mark 1 Male was introduced during WW2 ... these arabs have a procedure all of their own it's called the cluster f**k manoeuvre

US-1975 TRADOC on Soviet ATGM.

Here is a good article about Explosive Reactive Armor and the Ukrainian ERA Myths and Reality.

Worth reading, it also mentions exactly how Relikt works, which i haven't seen explained before, it mentions statistics between K-5, Nozh and Relict in how much explosives they use, what type of technology it is and what effeciency they have on different types of warheads and their estimated deflection of Sabot rounds in angle of attack to their intial trajectory with Relict inducing a yaw of  15° compared to Kontakt-5 of 8° and Nozh 10°.

Relict works more or less like Kontakt-5 it propells after detonation a armored plate towards the incoming Sabot and breaks it in half, but on Relikt it uses two armored plates facing towards and facing backwards towards the armor. The Relict tiles are placed similiar to ERA tiles of Kontakt-5 not directly in contact with the exact armor but are kept static a few centimeters above armor. This lowers the effect of detonation on armor and the shockwave that travels through armor inside the tank, but aswell gives the back facing armor plate the opportunity to chase after the penetrated Sabot and push it further out of its trajectory providing a yaw from 15° which the front plate already creates an extra 5° yaw and can even break the Sabot further down, meaning reducing its weight which is one of the crucial factors of high penetration values.

The problem with Nozh on Sabots and their core of WHA or DU is that the Sabot passes the first shaped charges of Nozh and while they are exploding, the moving Sabot "smears" the forming shaped charges out their forms and reducing its effeciency to a mere "cosmetic" damage on the surface of Sabots like M829A3.

http://vpk.name/news/118456_ukrainskie_razrabotki_dinamicheskoi_zashityi__mifyi_i_realnost.html

Worth reading for everyone, very interesting.

The article also mentions that Relict is in use in 3 foreign countries and is in active service since 2006.

中国政府、戦勝式典などに韓国・朴槿恵大統領らの出席を発表
Japan eye China government, announced the attendance of South Korea, Park Geun presidents to Victory Ceremony
25 Augu 2015 23:06 [08.27.2015n16:41:33]

More Here: http://www.fnn-news.com/news/headlines/articles/CONN00301128.html

韓国からは、朴槿恵(パク・クネ)大統領が出席予定となった。
中国政府は、9月3日に行う抗日戦争勝利70年の軍事パレードやレセプションなど一連の式典に、ロシアのプーチン大統領や韓国の朴槿恵大統領ら、30人の首脳クラスが出席すると発表した。
軍事パレードに出席するか注目されていたパク大統領については、中国外務省は「あらゆる記念式典に参加する」と述べた。
From South Korea, Park Geun (Park Kune) President became the attendance schedule.

The Chinese government, in a series of ceremonies such as the military parade and reception of the anti-Japanese war victory 70 years to perform on September 3, Russian President Vladimir Putin and South Korean Park Geun president, et al., Has announced that attend 30 people Leaders class.

For Park President had been attention or to attend the military parade, China Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, "to participate in any ceremony."
Choe Ryong-hae (Choi Ryonhe) Labor Party secretary attend from North Korea.

Abe, if you are already announced that it forgo the visit to China, the Japanese

Here the lite tank

Chinese camouflage is absolute nuts .... that blue camo design is shocking

Tank That Sees Enemy First Almost Always Wins the Fight: T-14 Vs M-1

The US media has attempted to compare Russia’s new tank, the Armata T-14, with the US M-1 Abrams, which it claims is “proven, reliable and still being upgraded”. As it turns out, 'still being upgraded' means that the M-1 is effectively a work-in-progress, whereas its Russian counterpart is currently ready for the battlefield.

“The T-14 is a complete departure from previous Soviet and Russian tanks”, which “were relatively simple, extremely rugged and produced in mass quantities”, according to the article in The national Interest magazine.

“In fact, the Armata comes in many versions as was envisioned for the US Army’s now-defunct Future Combat System program. There is a tank, infantry-fighting vehicle, a self-propelled artillery piece and a host of other variants. The most prominent of these is the T-14 main battle tank Armata variant.”

The Armata, it says, is now fitted with “a number of very advanced features that have never been implemented in an operational tank anywhere else in the world”.

First of all, it bet on “crew survivability”. In its attempt to find a reason for Russia's determination to put a premium on the safety of its troops, the media outlet concluded that it had something to do with Russia’s “declining demographics”.

To assure the crew survivability, the tank is equipped with an unmanned turret.

“The advantage is that the crew compartment is physically separated from the ammunition. Further, the tank is equipped with passive laminated armor combined with reactive armor and an active protection system. The Afghanit active protection system allegedly includes millimeter-wave radars to detect, track and intercept incoming rounds. Taken in aggregate, the Armata offers much-better crew survivability than any previous Russian or Soviet tank—assuming all of these features work.”

As for the Abrams, it is hailed as “a proven, reliable design that is still being upgraded."

While neglecting to assess the current US arsenal's ability to measure up to Russia's latest war machines, the outlet has high hopes for the future combat capabilities of the US ground forces, claiming "the forthcoming M1A3 Will be somewhat lighter and more mobile. The US Army also Plans to replace the 120mm M256 smoothbore gun with a lighter version.”

“New guided projectiles Might also enable the Abrams to hit targets as far away as 12,000m”, it adds, optimistically.

“But Russian tanks Are also equipped to fire anti-tank guided missiles via their main gun—it’s really a question of who sees the other first,” the outlet reassures.

The tank that sees the enemy first almost always wins the fight, it says, neglecting the irony of the fact that Russia is already able to produce next-generation main battle tanks.

“The Armata is a new design, and it will inevitably have teething problems as it matures. Further, there is the question of whether the T-14 can be produced in numbers—that’s very much a factor, given the state of Russia’s economy. Ultimately, it could prove to be a formidable weapon,” it concludes.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150913/1026934537/russia-us-armata-abrams-comparison.html#ixzz3lcoUAhoy

George1 wrote:Tank That Sees Enemy First Almost Always Wins the Fight: T-14 Vs M-1

The great thing about T-14; is that it is an exception to this "rule". The hull will easily be the best-armored of any MBT to date, and in my honest opinion, well enough so as to take the M829A3/4, and DM-63 with ease. Heck, it might even be able to defeat its' own APFSDS, the Vacuum-1. 

I stand by the fact that common engagement ranges will be sub-1500 meters, in which case, even an early T-90 could see an Abrams with no issues (and vice versa).

Mike E wrote:

George1 wrote:Tank That Sees Enemy First Almost Always Wins the Fight: T-14 Vs M-1

The great thing about T-14; is that it is an exception to this "rule". The hull will easily be the best-armored of any MBT to date, and in my honest opinion, well enough so as to take the M829A3/4, and DM-63 with ease. Heck, it might even be able to defeat its' own APFSDS, the Vacuum-1. 

I stand by the fact that common engagement ranges will be sub-1500 meters, in which case, even an early T-90 could see an Abrams with no issues (and vice versa).

Damaging a tank beyond the point it can carry out its operation is a kill and it does not matter to you if you have turned occupants to ashes, destroyed the engine, armament, tracks or entire electronics. Operation kill is counted as a destruction for Tank Forces, you achieved what was expected of you, only kids on internet try to argue the value beyond that point. In reality there is no value beyond that point.

DSEI 2015: British Army considers new MBT in response to Russia's Armata
Tim Ripley, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
20 September 2015

More Here: http://www.janes.com/article/54672/dsei-2015-british-army-considers-new-mbt-in-response-to-russia-s-armata

Senior British Army officers and procurement officials are examining the future of the BAE Systems Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT), including possibly buying a new vehicle.

The effort is a continuation of a project launched more than a decade ago to upgrade the British Army's tank fleet, but earlier this year army chiefs ordered a wider effort to look at radical solutions to the increasing obsolescence of the service's 227 Challenger 2s.

Speaking at DSEI in London on 16 September, the head of the British Army, General Sir Nick Carter, confirmed that the future of the Challenger 2 was being considered at the army's highest levels.

Asked if the army was looking to buy a new tank to counter the recently unveiled Russian T-14 Armata, Gen Carter said, "We have got issues with the tanks we've got and if we don't do something about it we will have issues - what we will do is in discussion."

A senior army procurement officer told IHS Jane's that a new MBT was one option being considered, alongside a limited life extension programme (LEP) to replace obsolete parts or a wider upgrade. "We have not decided on the scope of the programme," he said.

Industry sources told IHS Jane's that executives of several armoured vehicle providers had talked to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) about the future of the Challenger 2, including options for a new MBT.

British Army officers have become increasingly worried about the Challenger 2's effectiveness, particularly the lethality of its L30A1 120mm rifled main gun and its suite of ammunition. One officer told IHS Jane's that "the appearance of the T-14 Armata has had a significant impact and assessments of the new Russian tank's armour and self-defence systems [have] suggested that the Challenger 2's 120mm main armament no longer cuts it".

German Tanks Stand No Chance Against Advanced Russian Tanks – German Media
18:15 18.09.2015 Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150918/1027192479/german-tanks-useless.html#ixzz3mQxhSWk6

The German Armed Forces in its current state would not be capable of repelling a hypothetical attack by Russian tanks, the German media outlet Focus reported.

According to the article, although the Bundeswehr has some of the best tanks in the world in service, their combat system is ageing and not that effective.

Actual tank projectiles of the German military are incapable of producing enough kinetic energy to hit the armor of Russia’s modern T-90 and updated T-80 machines, Focus explained.

Currently, Russia is implementing a modernization program for its tanks. The armor and weapons of T-90 tanks have been heavily upgraded since they entered service back in the 1990s. In 2017, the state-of-the-art Armata tank is scheduled to join the Russian military.
Due to a reform of its military Germany has reduced the number of Leopard-2 tanks in service to 225.

However, with the Ukrainian crisis sparking concerns in the West, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen ordered to buy back 100 Leopard-2 tanks for €22 million, which were to be recycled. As a result, the total number of Leopards in the Bundeswehr reached 328.

According to German military analyst Hans Ruhle, the build-up of Germany’s armored forces is pointless as the combat system of the Leopard-2 is ineffective.

In order to increase combat effectiveness, tank shells with depleted uranium are required, the expert pointed out. However, politically this is unacceptable.

Most German operational tanks are of the A-6 and A-5 series. Some 100 Leopard-2 tanks are of the A-4 series. The Leopard-2 has been in production since 1979, and has been modernized several times.

According to Focus, in 2017 Germany is expected to modernize tank ammunition which will exclusively involve the A-7, the latest version of the tank. Currently, Germany has only 20 tanks of the series in operation.

UK + German govenor scare Apmata!

Book. wrote:DSEI 2015: British Army considers new MBT in response to Russia's Armata
Tim Ripley, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
20 September 2015

More Here: http://www.janes.com/article/54672/dsei-2015-british-army-considers-new-mbt-in-response-to-russia-s-armata

Well the Brits can wait for Germany to create Leopard 3. Since WW2 it is a tradition that Germany spearheaded in Western tank technology, and the remaining of the West (UK, US, France,...) purchased German techs to created their own version.

General Dynamic M1 Abram 2050 update
09.23.2015 18:43:07

ABRAMS MODERNIZATION
Modernization of Abrams allows transition and interoperability with GCV and the future HBCT. Abrams Modernization is essential to maximize the effectiveness of a GCV equipped HBCT. Abrams provides the ability to dominate land operations for the HBCT now and through 2050. As the most advanced Tank in the world, the Abrams MBT is the backbone of the U.S. Military. Abrams modernization is vital to maintain dominance on the battlefield, ensure synchronization with the Army’s strategy-based priorities and guarantees a quick response to changes in operational environments and adversaries.

DEMONSTRATORS
Through Independent Research and Development (IRAD) activities, the demonstrators provide the Abrams with a rapid prototyping platform, development integration, testing and demonstration of technologies and capabilities. These demonstrators quickly validate new technologies and demonstrate concept hardware; capture user feedback; and provide potential solutions to the Warfighter in less time.

Here: http://www.gdls.com/products/modernization/abrams.php

M1 Abram go MTU engine 1500

Is there actual jackasses in the U.S. that think the Abrams will still be viable by 2050...

magnumcromagnon wrote:Is there actual jackasses in the U.S. that think the Abrams will still be viable by 2050...

It is already outdated by 2000's standards, actualy by russian standards of 90's. By 2050 the will be no country named USA anymore, no hope for that country nor their products.

What exactly us is modernizing in its abrams mbt ? I read rpg-30 can easily level abram and rest of nato tanks including type-099 let alone any russian anti-tank weapon .


BTW when I was playing Battlefiled 4 i enjoyed using amerikan Anti weapon more than Russian iglas . No offense

max steel wrote:What exactly us is modernizing in its abrams mbt ? I read rpg-30 can easily level abram and rest of nato tanks including type-099 let alone any russian anti-tank weapon .


BTW when I was playing Battlefiled 4 i enjoyed using amerikan Anti weapon more than Russian iglas . No offense

Because western games are usually biased, let alone that Igla in Battlefield is SACLOS and not a Fire and Forget weapon, meaning you have to guide the Igla yourself, while stinger was overpowered with a mere 3 seconds reloading time.

M1A3 prob same chasis?

BF4 the igla no1. 2x damage
but must skill shot

I love when US tank fans bash Russian and other European tanks while their Abrams still has to catch up in many aspects.
Well at least it has good engine option now.

ウクライナの親露派、戦車演習で軍事力誇示　Ukraine's Pro-Russia rebels stage rare tank exercises
Published on Sep 24, 2015

Ukraine's pro-Russian separation faction listed 24 days, publish the military exercises that use such as tanks , showed off a military power. Ukrainian government for these weapons, received secretly from Russia argues that the thing was. (C) AFP 9月25日年2015 Ukraine's Pro-Moscow insurgents Showed off Their Military Prowess on Thursday by launching exercises Involving Heavy Tanks That Kiev Claims They HAD Covertly Received from Russia

Novo tank biathlon!

Book. wrote:M1A3 prob same chasis?

Well, we don't know if it will be called M1A3 or not.

M1A2 SEP v3 is coming in a few years, and I'd largely identical to the v2 with the addition of a new armor package.

"M1A3", or as I call it, the "Next Abrams", is a new vehicle that retains the chassis, and only the chassis, from the A2. It is scheduled to be ready in 2027.

RPG-30 would struggle against the frontal armor of any current MBT. Like all handhelds, it is best used against the side hull and turrets.

If RPG-30 cant destroy a tank from front in a single shot then why usa added it in asymmetric warfare list ?

The abrams usa exports contain chobar armor and they all got busted with ease as we observed in Yemen. The only difference btwn usa abrams is that they have uranium armor and russian anti-tank weapons including new rpg30 can take it down also ?

Now what's up with the new armor package ? Another layer of Uranium ?

I have no clue; but it is very doubtful that any handheld posses the power to go through the LFP of an A2 Abrams, Glacis of a T-90A etc. 

The export Abrams all use BRL-2 armor (no such thing as "Chobham", as I have stated before), last used by the original M1A1 for US model Abrams. 

A1 HA, HC, A2, and A2 SEP all use a new armor package; called Heavy Armor Package. It includes Depleted Uranium, but is a different composite vs. Burlington to begin with. It should perform far better. 

"With ease" is a dubious statement, because neither shot landed on an area with large amounts of armor. One went through the side-turret, and one penetrated the turret-roof, that doesn't show much.

IMHO, RPG-30 couldn't penetrate the LFP/turret of an export Abrams with BRL-2. Maybe the turret ring or mantlet, though.

Nobody knows a thing about the upcoming armor package; called Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). Based on what I know about INB's ceramic research, it will probably use a modified version of SiC, that is cheaper to produce and a little better performing. Some people are thinking it will ditch DU all together, but that would be unlikely.

max steel wrote:If RPG-30 cant destroy a tank from front in a single shot then why usa added it in asymmetric warfare list ?

The abrams usa exports contain chobar armor and they all got busted with ease as we observed in Yemen. The only difference btwn usa abrams is that they have uranium armor and russian anti-tank weapons including new rpg30 can take it down also ?

Now what's up with the new armor package ? Another layer of Uranium ?

This time it is Depleted Adamantium sandwitched in Mythril of the Elves.

I have no clue; but it is very doubtful that any handheld posses the power to go through the LFP of an A2 Abrams, Glacis of a T-90A etc.

They will go through all LFP of chassis, they are the weakest part of all tanks from the frontal projection. The RPG-28 will certainly go through, not to mention it will screw up most turret armor since, lot of people base their knowledge still on very old, almost ancient by todays standards, of how HEAT weapons can penetrate composite armor. Your knowledge is based on MONO bloc HEAT rounds, having reduced performance against composite armor. BRL was devestate by Tandem HEAT round with the same rated RHA penetration value, but the precursor weakened the composition and protective capabilities of the BRL armor and eased the way of the main charge to penetrate more than a similiar mono-bloc HEAT round did before.

The export Abrams all use BRL-2 armor (no such thing as "Chobham", as I have stated before), last used by the original M1A1 for US model Abrams.

A1 HA, HC, A2, and A2 SEP all use a new armor package; called Heavy Armor Package. It includes Depleted Uranium, but is a different composite vs. Burlington to begin with. It should perform far better.

"With ease" is a dubious statement, because neither shot landed on an area with large amounts of armor. One went through the side-turret, and one penetrated the turret-roof, that doesn't show much.

IMHO, RPG-30 couldn't penetrate the LFP/turret of an export Abrams with BRL-2. Maybe the turret ring or mantlet, though.

Nobody knows a thing about the upcoming armor package; called Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). Based on what I know about INB's ceramic research, it will probably use a modified version of SiC, that is cheaper to produce and a little better performing. Some people are thinking it will ditch DU all together, but that would be unlikely.

That constant praising of DU is, highly overrated and inferior to ceramics, which are not only lighter, safer to handle without any health issues, not incendiary from spalling, no protective anti radiation equipment needed to change armor plates, much easier to replace and also have slightly higher protective capabilities. Ceramics aren't that expensive anymore, they are constantly used in body armor and available in different grades, qualities and shapes for aircrafts, body armor and vehicles.