General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

lyle6 wrote:If ever some retard appears and says the current firepower suite of the Leopard 2s are in parity let alone overmatch versus modernized Russian armor:

Be it resolved by the Committee on Defense:

The Federal Government is requested,

to include in the 2021 budget the residual development and qualification of the 120mm KE2020Neo ammunition for the Leopard 2 CPC and to conclude a contract without delay. A report on implementation is to be submitted to the Defense Committee by March 31, 2021 at the latest.

Substantiation:

1. The L55 120mm tank gun system in use today in conjunction with the KE DM63 is no longer capable of successfully engaging the modernized portion of the Russian KPz fleet (several thousand vehicles) in the duel situation.

2. development of new 120 mm ammunition (KE2020Neo) would significantly reduce the capability gap to VJTF 2027 and provide the technological basis for closing this gap.

3. the current generation Leopard 2 main battle tank currently uses a KE ammunition with a penetrator technology dating back to 1995. modern reactive armor (Explosive Reactive Armour; ERA) such as the 3rd generation ERA (Relikt), which are and will be retrofitted to Russian main battle tanks even of older design (e.g.use in KPz T72B3, KPz T90M/MS), can no longer be successfully engaged with the existing KE ammunition. Therefore, there is an acute capability gap of the entire Leopard fleet in Germany and in the worldwide 120 mm user community including all NATO partners.

https://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/233/1923326.pdf
pp. 5-6

Thanks lyle6 for the interesting document.

Anyway this is a situation going on since a long while for western tank ammunitions designers; in the frontal projection, at tactically relevant distances, theirs most advanced tank's main gun subcaliber kinetic and cumulative ammunitions would have a very hard time in penetrating the latest modified (beginning of 2000 years ) "Контакт-5" in combination with realtively outdated passive armor composition let alone modern domestic armor compostition with "Реликт".

As said also in the same document the projected KE2020Neo ammunition (around 20% improvement over DM63) will only partially reduce the penetration potential gap against "Реликт" - it will represent an intermediate step and the technological basis for the exaustion of the potential of the 120 mm caliber guns -.

The main problem for them is that, after "Реликт", two entire gerations of dynamic protections has been completed in domestic scientifical Institutions of the field ,the second of which (barely calssifiable for working mechanism in the same class of K-5 or Реликт) will be mass produced in the new line of unified armoured vehicles family and begun already research for a third generation after "Реликт".

Within some years, very likely, also theirs researchs on 130 mm main guns will be quickly redirected toward 140 mm caliber.

I have heared some claims that M829A4 could defeat Monolith.

Obviously not. We dont even know if it can defeat relikt , let alone the new generation DZ.

This is the same principle as in Rpg-32 and Volley firing with kornet. 

This however raises several questions. 
When you peel off mass you peel off energy.
And when you slow down the round you also reduce energy. 

Further , Arena-E already solved the issue of multi target engagement , (against 1000 m/s targets) , so id expect afghanit to also have a same capability within Its speed envelope of 1700 m/s.
Also , 
Will this defeat the main armor then? People have this very wrong idea that russian base armor is weak or outdated. 
Not at all , nii stali is a highly active researcher in the field of armor compositions , they just keep a lot under wraps.
The physical thickness of the T-90M'S turret is comparable to nato tanks while having less height. During trials the export T-90S shrugged off KEW-A2 rounds from 250 m , and could defeat Mango rounds with *only the upper section being damaged* , this latter detail is what makes this feat impressive. 

As for the T-14 then i don't even think it should be included
Its Armor is crazy stuff. Given the Weight savings of having no turret Armor

How exactly you impart the relative velocity to separate the two parts remains unknown but some speculate use of drag fins to slow the primary section while the precursor races ahead.

Probably the simplest method would be explosive separation in flight with the front portion with its own stabilisation fins.

The real problem of course will be that the front piece will likely be lighter than the rear piece so will likely slow down faster... and this will be compounded by the rear piece effectively flying through the disturbed air of the piece in front... sort of like the front part creating a wake of disturbed air the following piece will find easier to cut through so it will probably catch up quickly too... so the front portion would probably need a constant acceleration of a rocket motor.

Honestly I can't see both bits hitting the same point on the tank if they are far enough apart for one to set off the APS and the other to sneak through before it resets, so each piece will have a separate ERA panel to try to penetrate and then the hull armour.

The fundamental issue is that we are not even talking about Armata... we are talking about upgraded existing tank types they can't reliably penetrate with their main APFSDS rounds from their best tank gun... the new one the British are now switching too... just before they stop having tanks all together.

An explosion would have to be very precise to not cause either piece to tumble in flight.

Both pieces would need fin stabilisation which will also increase drag for both parts... but the real problem will be when... these rounds will be travelling at the best part of 1.8km/s, so immediately after sabot separation the explosive will have to activate to separate the lead penetrator and accelerate it far enough forward so the two pieces can't be intercepted together with the same munition...

Actually the best option would be an outer shell that is maybe a tube with an internal diameter for the sabot round penetrator and then a body perhaps 3cm thick and then an outer metal shell... when the round is fired the entire full length tube can be launched forward with a solid rocket motor propellent between the two layers of the tube... it can disrupt the air in front of the penetrator and reduce its drag in flight so it should be able to fly faster and further than it would without this feature.

The reason I suggest this is about weight... having a section of the penetrator means reducing the penetrators weight and length which is going to reduce its performance against anything it actually hits.

Essentially having a sheath that is launched with the core and accelerates ahead after launch and sort of clears a path through the air and sets off the APS system for the closely following penetrator to streak past...

Problem is that modern APS systems will have been developed knowing one way of trying to defeat the is the way the RPG-32 does with two rockets in quick succession to the dangerous threat gets by while the system resets after having engaged the decoy.

Both objects might be intercepted anyway...

With a rocket the separation could be made much smoother minimizing the generation of turbulent airflow that the main section would fly into and maintaining its trajectory

With the amount of time available I would think explosive separation might be the only option... what if the target is less than 500m away?

Since its much shorter relative to the diameter the precursor could be spin stabilized as well by means of oblique nozzles to ensure it matches the trajectory of the original projectile.

In that case I would say a much better and much cheaper option would be to fit a 14.5mm HMG coaxial with the main gun and load APFSDS rounds in it with a corner reflector nose tip to make it appear much larger on radar... fire them at enemy tanks till the enemy tanks run out of interception munitions and then just use normal tank ammo....

A round that could beat the Armata would pretty much demolish anything NATO can churn out so it does make sense for the Russians to talk about how to defeat their own tanks. Russian artillerists have their work cut out for them though, not gonna lie.

The future will likely be dominated by diving top attack threats... and remote control vehicles.

Video showing how loading works on T-72/T-90 and T-64/T-80.

In the 1990s GDLS [General Dynamics Land Systems] proposed to integrate the "Arena" active defense system into the M1A2 Abrams with the assistance of the Russian engineering bureau KBM [Конструкторское буро машиностроения]. GDLS planned to sell "Arena" to the Turkish Army and the US Army, subject to US government approval.






https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4701666.html

Concerning the rpg-32 someone here poster a talk by an expert on Russian military gear. I think he was somehow formerly part of the MIC or Russian military. He discussed features of the rpg-32 with some interesting slides and actually mentioned that the precursor rocket had jamming capabilities...