General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

GarryB wrote:
BTW The Abrams and Challenger and Leclerc don't have hard kill APS systems... the T-90s systems were developed but not deemed necessary.

As far as I know, T-90AM has hardkill APS. But India's T-90MS seems not have it.

Forgive me if I am wrong.

Mike E wrote:and even defeated by RPG's one *multiple* occasions.

Actually in an ambush there are a number of tank's weak points we can exploit, but then many people have named the RPG as God of Firepower (火神) for several good reasons...

GarryB wrote:

It is, but Chobham is severely overrated, and even defeated by RPG's one *multiple* occasions. - The M1 technically has a "worsened" variant of it compared with the Chally 2. I thought the T-90 didn't have a hard-kill APS.... - It was discussed in a different thread.

There is Chobham armour as used on the Challenger I and Abrams, and there is second generation Chobham, which is often called Dorchester armour used in Challenger II and later model Abrams... and no it is not perfect and needs to be made in fairly thick heavy layers to be effective.

BTW The Abrams and Challenger and Leclerc don't have hard kill APS systems... the T-90s systems were developed but not deemed necessary.

At the end of the day the protection levels are quite comparable for Russian and western tanks... roughly 1.2m for HEAT and 900-1,000mm for kinetic from the front.

Sorry, that is what I meant,"Dorchester". 

The are comparable, but quite obviously there is large weight difference there.

higurashihougi wrote:

GarryB wrote:
BTW The Abrams and Challenger and Leclerc don't have hard kill APS systems... the T-90s systems were developed but not deemed necessary.

As far as I know, T-90AM has hardkill APS. But India's T-90MS seems not have it.

Forgive me if I am wrong.

Mike E wrote:and even defeated by RPG's one *multiple* occasions.

Actually in an ambush there are a number of tank's weak points we can exploit, but then many people have named the RPG as God of Firepower (火神) for several good reasons...

It doesn't not even though it could probably be configured with it...

RPG's are "that powerful", typically it would take two or three shots to disable a MBT.

RPG's are "that powerful", typically it would take two or three shots to disable a MBT.

RPG, liek the RPG-7 is not a weapon and not "powerful" its a briliant lunching mechanism, a timeless design like the AK, take a 1957 AKM, put a rail for optics on it, put a muzzle break on it for less recoil and more stability and you have a 21 century weapon, same with RPG, all depends on the warhead you use, more modern ones i will come, and we might see it in 2050 lunching guided missiles

what happed when a spike like projectile hit a wheel from sides? i mean in the tyres side. i thinked the wheel could spin and deviate the projectile

I got a question myself... How well does sand respond to penetration when used in spaced armor (as used in the Merkava)? I've heard it is quite effective but haven't seen the numbers.

Mike E wrote:I got a question myself... How well does sand respond to penetration when used in spaced armor (as used in the Merkava)? I've heard it is quite effective but haven't seen the numbers.

its only effective against HEAT based munition(but only slightly better than air pockets)- a long rod pe. netrator would just push all the sand away since it does not offer any resistance as compared to hard armor. and if merkava does indeed use it then it just adds to an impressive list of faults in the supposedly "invincible" tank.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Mike E wrote:I got a question myself... How well does sand respond to penetration when used in spaced armor (as used in the Merkava)? I've heard it is quite effective but haven't seen the numbers.

its only effective against HEAT based munition(but only slightly better than air pockets)- a long rod pe. netrator would just push all the sand away since it does not offer any resistance as compared to hard armor. and if merkava does indeed use it then it just adds to an impressive list of faults in the supposedly "invincible" tank.

The idea is that it makes spaced armor more effective, not invincible. Sand will at the very least slow the rod more than air would on its own.

Mike E wrote:
The idea is that it makes spaced armor more effective, not invincible. Sand will at the very least slow the rod more than air would on its own.

but sand is pretty heavy, you lose the point of spaced armor which is no weight at all- much better to introduce a NERA layer of rubber/elastic material and composites. at least those would impart some yaw and erode the rod tip a bit, while sand of not meter thick layers would just polish it.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Mike E wrote:
The idea is that it makes spaced armor more effective, not invincible. Sand will at the very least slow the rod more than air would on its own.

but sand is pretty heavy, you lose the point of spaced armor which is no weight at all- much better to introduce a NERA layer of rubber/elastic material and composites. at least those would impart some yaw and erode the rod tip a bit, while sand of not meter thick layers would just polish it.

Which is it's main downside... But then again, if it works well...

GarryB wrote:Depends how fast the projectile is moving and how fast the wheel is spinning.

Several types of armour use moving internal bits to reduce the penetration of penetrators... none are 100% effective.

the ideea was the wheel or sferic bunch of metal not to spin. to spin when is hit by the spike mean spin actioned by the spikes kinetik energy.

GarryB wrote:Sand is a bit like water... it is cheap and readily available and the penetrator has to do work to push it aside if it wants to get through.

the main problem with sand is that it can be compressed, unlike water, and it is heavy.

Sand bags are popular because you just transport bags to where you want protection and fill them up on site.

You want two sandbags thick to stop a rifle bullet reliably, so a tank round is going to need a lot of sandbags to have a serious effect on anything more than small arms fire.

Empty air space is often more effective against full calibre penetrators as they often yaw a few degrees after hitting the outer layer so the penetration performance when it hits the next layer is reduced...

Also empty air space layers completely defeat HESH rounds and offer HEAT rounds some problems as the HEAT beam is acting very much like a liquid so when it penetrates the inner layer and then hits empty space can spread a little as it moves through the hole and into the empty air cavity and with any penetrator when you spread the material out its penetration performance is also reduced.

Note used ERA and NERA blocks can also act as spaced armour even after they have been activated.

Of course air pockets reduce weight but do increase volume...

what about a lot of little steel balls?

victor1985 wrote:
what about a lot of little steel balls?

i think the T-64) have corundum spheres embedded in composite matrix of maybe? fused sand. anyway, its old solution by now- bulging plates/NERA is the rage since t-72B came to be.

What about chambers whit air that disipate the flame of a blast?

victor1985 wrote:What about chambers whit air that disipate the flame of a blast?

That is the definition of spaced armor basically... There is external spaced armor that was common in WW2 and internal spaced armor that is seen more often today.

found something cool http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/33-models-and-pictures-of-soviet-mbt-designs-from-80s-object-477a-object-490-buntar-and-object-299/

the object 477A is imo the coolest of the bunch- esp. with its turret. just flatten the turret except the external gun and set it on object 195 hull(the 477A hull looks mismatched with the front and the back, plus the wheels are just atrocious) and there you have it, armata MBT (at least acc. to my tastes). Give it a 30mm coax mounted on one side and its even more gorgeous.

Nice find.

Yes... A great find indeed, thanks for posting! I'll +1 you when I can.

Now that you've all answered that question.... I have a more in-depth one... 

What is going to be the general armor scheme of the Armata? Next gen. composites etc? I know the M1A3 is going to incorporate next gen. nanocarbons which will have to be beaten....

Mike E wrote:What is going to be the general armor scheme of the Armata? Next gen. composites etc?

The answer will probably be "classified". But it is said that, the Armata will use a new kind of steel, which is more tough and more durable than the previous tanks. That means you can use less amount of material to provide the same level of defence.

I think that Armata's armour will be much stronger and thicker than the previous T-xx... considering that there is no gigantic turret, and another fact that it is heavier than T-90.

Mike E wrote:I know the M1A3 is going to incorporate next gen. nanocarbons which will have to be beaten....

I hope that these armour will make this M1A3 much lighter... because the A1 and A2 versions are damn heavy.

something else can be made: more armour but better engine to carry all.....

Mike E wrote:
What is going to be the general armor scheme of the Armata? Next gen. composites etc? I know the M1A3 is going to incorporate next gen. nanocarbons which will have to be beaten....

For the Armata MBT a very thick slab of composite armor for the front hull that also acts as roof armor, plus lots of next gen ERA and NERA, the unavoidably thin hull sides would be reinforced by modular composite armor with ERA on it too(perhaps this is the trend with all the urban warfare tank upgrades), and the turret is going to be protected against autocannon fire only. well this is just one of me and others many conjectures.

Also next gen nanocarbons and other stuff are nice and all, but we have to remember they are still mostly new tech from mainly civilian research- breakthroughs rarely come nowadays from military research, and so would require still more time and effort and money to mature. and they conform to limits of civilian industry when you start to look at producing them in huge batches for thousands of vehicles, and that would mean even more time, effort and money to improve the industry just to produce these relatively niche items.

so, imo Armata MBT wont rely on these uber materials but on traditional complex protection thinking. let the primitive hand-loading western "next-gen" tanks have the nano-armor to boast on their brochures- its not like the uber hardness of nanocarbons are worth anything at the pressures we are talking about when armor meets tungsten at 2km/s.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Mike E wrote:
What is going to be the general armor scheme of the Armata? Next gen. composites etc? I know the M1A3 is going to incorporate next gen. nanocarbons which will have to be beaten....

its not like the uber hardness of nanocarbons are worth anything at the pressures we are talking about when armor meets tungsten at 2km/s.

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.