General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

Yes and no. In the T-64/80, any penetrating hit to the crew compartment had a very high chance of igniting the esposed propellants. If the T-72/90 only loads the carousel, then it is not exposed.

I see what you mean, the bustle is large and easy target to hit. That's true, but it's better that than risking the lives of the crew.

T-90MS helped this significantly, by up-armoring the carousel, moving formerly exposed ammunition (outside of caro.) into an armored compartment, and putting the rest in an external bustle.

T-14 solves it by isolating the ammunition completely, surrounding it with additional armor, and by adding blow-out panels (most likely).

That now famous video of the Houthi Fagot taking out the M1A2S via blowing its bustle to kingdom come kinda makes it look like the crew got completely fried. So maybe bustles aren't all they're cracked up to be...

There's certainly an argument to be made that all that turret keeps it pretty safe from frontal penetrations... just at the expense of higher possibility of catastrophic flanking shots.

Mike E wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:There is.

Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

Armata, T-72, T-80 and T-90 diesel engine can use several kinds of fuel.

T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.



Armata engine has only 1/2 the height of Abrams gas turbin. But it has 1500hp and can run with multifuel, from diesel to ethanol.

Larger but not heavier. ERA and spaced armour is created to significantly reduce the penetration power of the projectiles without significantly increase the tank's weight and armour.

And by the way I prefer ERA and spaced armour rather than DU.

The side armour of ammunition is quite thicker than top and rear, but not very thick. B41 aka RPG-7 put a hole in it.



And even if it is thick, it will cost a significant additional weight and material. Meanwhile since T-64/72/80/90 put the ammunition in the hull, below the turret, it saves up a lot of weight, and the ammo is less exposed.

Density of Vonfram is only slightly higher than uranium. But vonfram is tough, hard and heat resistant, meanwhile DU is soft and has lower melting point. When the penetrator collides with the target, the high energy of the collision can significantly increase the temperature of the penetrator, it can melt or increase the volume of the penetrator, and when the volume increases => contact size increases => pressure decreases => penetrating power decreases.

So that means, the penetrator with very high melting point provides significant advanrages. Vonfram's melting point is 3422 degree Celsius, significantly greater than uranium (1132 degree). Meanwhile Uranium carbide ceramic is heat resistant, but then the density is lesser.

The greatest advantages of DU is the price. DU is cheap and very available, while vonfram is very expensive.

Like....what? 

Which is why the US has added APU's and advanced fuel management controllers to the AGT-1500. Sure it will still consume more fuel than a diesel at lower speeds, but not by a whole lot. 

Actually, it is kind of funny....because the M1's engine generates the most torque below maximum RPM, so at lower speeds, it will be faster to accelerate if needed. And in regards to efficiency, look above. 

US has had multiple successful diesels before, during, and after the Abrams' development cycle. The decision to use a turbine was mostly political, but it had advantages as well. 

Any of the large diesels can run other fuels; at significantly reduced power and high fuel consumption. It also doesn't help the their ECM's wouldn't be optimized for other fuels. All while turbines can basically run anything that is flammable at little to no consequence. Heck, the old Turbine car of the 1960's ran on perfume.

HP/volume is far too generalized in this case. The AGT-1500 has a higher hp/weight than all but the A-85-3A, torque higher than all but the -3A, and in reality; is smaller than the diesel rumored to replace it. 

Don't forget; I'm not comparing the AGT to Russian diesels, I'm comparing it to the MTU series engine that *would* replace it.

Spaced armor still adds weight and size; because it is still armor. In the case of the M1A2; its' armor is already massively thick, so there simply is no room for spacing, unless you are suggesting they lower the actual armor thickness.

ERA covering the front of an Abrams would add another 3 tonnes, or more. 

It is estimated to be 400 mm, which is obviously thick for turret and bustle side armor. It getting penetrated by an RPG doesn't change the thickness.

Ammunition isn't exposed in the hull of a T-64/T-72? lol, what about all the ammunition cook-offs? The only way hull-storage can be successful, is if it is completely isolated and protected ala Armata. 

Tungsten alloys are a better form of armor than DU, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. In sheer density, DU comes out on top.

You are way out of your field buddy.

Here some facts to bring you done to earth, because this nonsense of gas turbines are not working for ground forces, logistics dictate what kind of engine your ground forces have to be equiped with. Fact is Diesel does not need an immense logistical chain like M1 has and had during its war campaign in Iraq, slew down the rest of ground forces due its high consumption, high failure rate compared to diesel engines and is absolutley unfeasible not evenf or the US, that is why they often had to use Diesel, which reduced their lifespan of the GTD to 300-500 hours.

Diesel engines are not exclusive diesel engines, they can be powered by a range of fuels excluding kerosine. You are also very wrong on the consumption be it in low or higher speed requirements, it does not matter, the big issue with GTD is that they produce far more than 1500 SHP, they usually produce over 2000 shp, but the transmission for tanks is usually limited to less than that so, they have to be artificially throttled, but the SHP is still present, meaning they consume without adding anything for that consumption into motion.

Compare the range of M1 Abrams with its fuel capacity vs range of Diesel powered tanks with their inferior fuel capacity but with higher range.
T-90A 550km with 1600 l vs M1A2 430km with 1900 l kerosine.

The T-90's V92S2 Engine also needs an main overhaul after 11000 km doubtful to reach close to that number.

Yes and no. In the T-64/80, any penetrating hit to the crew compartment had a very high chance of igniting the esposed propellants. If the T-72/90 only loads the carousel, then it is not exposed.

I see what you mean, the bustle is large and easy target to hit. That's true, but it's better that than risking the lives of the crew.

T-90MS helped this significantly, by up-armoring the carousel, moving formerly exposed ammunition (outside of caro.) into an armored compartment, and putting the rest in an external bustle.

T-14 solves it by isolating the ammunition completely, surrounding it with additional armor, and by adding blow-out panels (most likely).

No the ammunition in T-64/72 isn't exposed, it is behind main armor that means the enemy needs potent weapons to get through and you are again out of your field about ammunition cook-offs. We discussed this already and under the worst conditions T-80 with an inferior ammunition storage which represents a higher surface for AT weapons, sustained only 1out 25 tanks with ammunition cook-offs that is.


http://www.file-upload.net/download-10940088/-------------------------------------.xls.html

That was done by marat or something, known russian on youtube also BitnikGr had made a translation of his video about Chechnya.

The figures are of damaged/destroyed tanks of T-80 25 and only 1 with cook offs that was identified, so much for the "high amount" of cook-offs. Factually T-90A when leaving out the ammunition from the turret is safer than any western tank, including Abrams, since it has exposed ammunition bustle and exposes it to frontal projection as soon as it turns its turret more than 20° of the frontal arc.

Damage of those T-80's were by D-30, T-72A friendly fire, Mines, RPG's, SPG's and ATGM's of Russian inventory, meaning they were on par with technology of russia and not some outdated export models like Abrams has faced in Iraq.

I am looking for some good images showing the general layout of Leclerc, including ammo location.

My question is in relation with Yemeni conflict where Emirati Leclerc tanks are currently stationed - I want to know how much of tank fireworks we could possibly see.

This is more information on what Werewolf posted about earlier; the ineffectiveness of Nozh and Duplet.

http://www.i-mash.ru/materials/technology/57490-dinamicheskaja-zashhita-nozh-mify-i-realnost.html - Original source for what WW posted.

http://www.i-mash.ru/materials/design/62578-dz-duplet-put-v-tupik.html - Additional information.

Israel Defense Industries Unveil Prototypes for New Generation Armored Vehicles
OCTOBER 28, 2015 7:15

Israel defense industries are building the Eitan, which will half as much.

The Namer APC. Israeli defense industries are building the Eitan, which will weigh half as much.

Israeli defense manufacturers unveiled a prototype for a new armored personnel carrier, named Eitan, which will accompany and weigh just half as much as Namer APCs.

According to global weekly Defense News, which reported the unveiling, the Eitan is meant to replace Israeli infantry’s older M113s, one of which was destroyed by Hamas fighters during the 2014 Gaza war in an attack that killed all seven soldiers manning the vehicle.

“Sources here said it will weigh no more than 35 tons and will incorporate a new generation of active protection, an advanced turret and a full complement of munitions and sensors,” Defense News reported.

Commander of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Ground Forces Command, Maj. Gen. Guy Zur, said the new tank “may be less good [than the Namer], but it will be affordable and allow us to equip a large part of our force.”

The Israeli Defense Ministry’s MAFAT Research and Development Bureau is also working on a research-and-development project called Carmel for a treaded, medium-weight combat vehicle, according to the report. At about 32 tons, the Carmel weighs in at about half of the IDF’s Merkava Mk4 tank.

Sources told Defense News that Carmel was no replacement for the Mk4, which is set to remain in production until 2020. “The operational requirement will be something entirely different,” said one source.

Zur noted that both vehicles were expected to enter Israel’s ground forces, but not in the immediate future. He said Eitan could be deployed in as little as five years, but Carmel would not be active until probably 2025, or even 2027.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/10/28/israel-defense-industries-unveil-prototypes-for-2-new-armored-vehicles.

Israel try the 30+ ton lite tank.

Replacing a 15 ton tracked vehicle with a 35 ton wheeled vehicle = logic

if there is one thing the world does not need, it is a Turkish....tank, yes, a tank.

Anybody have comments about the new large-caliber gun on Leopard 2 ?

Not much to say - it'll be larger, more powerful, and possibly ETC as well. Details are, of course, lacking, but we'll see but in the future. Now the big question is what ammunition it will fire.

Mike E wrote:Not much to say - it'll be larger, more powerful, and possibly ETC as well. Details are, of course, lacking, but we'll see but in the future. Now the big question is what ammunition it will fire.

Don't beat around the bush...chicks dig the long rods.

Declassified paper, depicts a project to upgrade the Chieftain with Burlington armor. Total weight of the armor package was 6.15 tons.



The arrangement had to be modular, so for the glacis, like Armata, it employs the use of a beak.






http://tankandafvnews.com/wo-194-1323-feasibility-study-on-burlington-chieftain/

It would highly need it despite being 2nd gen western MBT the Chieftain can't even compete with T-55/62 in protection.

Werewolf wrote:It would highly need it despite being 2nd gen western MBT the Chieftain can't even compete with T-55/62 in protection.

The base thickness of the glacis and lower hull does not instill confidence?

Vladimir,

Two years ago I watched a documentry about Leclerc. They said they have just 4 tanks for training and all the rest (200 actives) is in storage with special conditions beacause they couldn't survive outdoor environment (humidity ...). And their production stoped.

Having an very good but expensive hardware isn't good when it comes to war. You try to keep the little you have alive so tactics would be perfect (like US with their Apaches in Serbian didn't use them because of Manpads IIRC).

On paper Leclerc is better but in a war against Russia 200 tanks is nothing. They can deal with it with BM-27/30 and sattelites and infantry ambushes with Kornets, RPG and IED (Spetsnaz-made not iraqi-made).

Stopping 900 T-90 + 1000 BMP 1/2/3 + some Tigrs with kornets is more difficult.

Against US you can just use Ka-52 and Mi-28 after bombing all the airports with some anti-runway missiles and some Iskanders so your helicopters wouldn't be attacked by their aviation.

If you want to win against US in Europe:
1) Destroy runways of all airports in Poland, Germany, and other nato east counrties with a big attack that involves Iskanders, cruise missiles, and aviation.
2) Destroy all their aviation like Isreal did agains Egypt and their surfce to air systems.
3) Use a lot of diesel subs to deny acces to their aircraft carrier.
4) Use defense tactics with your ground forces to fix their one.
5) Use aviation to hit their ground forces, specially Su-25 and big bombers like Tu-95.
6) Use attack tactics with your ground forces and capture all their armies like it was done in WW2.
7) Calm down and sign peace treaty before Nuclear attacks if they didn't happen yet.
And that's done.

Making a T-90 for fighting just Abrams is stupid. War is tactics. And before accepting a hardware you see if it can be usefull for your tactics not if it can beat it's nato homologue. Russian and US make their stuff according to their needs not because the opponant has something that seems better. 300 T-72 Bm + infantry equiped with kornets is better than 500 abrams if you have a good plan.

Look at all the armies that imports stuff. They can win a potential war against an army that import stuff but not against an army that has it's stuff done by it's country. Because their isn't a global strategy behind.

Russian T-72 were meant to be produced during the war like it was the case with T-34 (100 destroyed and 100 that come to replace them). Russians can use them because the strategy is to produce while fighting and submerge the oppenant. Irak had not the capacity to produce them and you can see the result (1991).

Russia dont have 900 T-90s. Have less then 500 of them.

T-72 was junk when he was made and its still is. This T-72 tanks dont have real chance against Leo2s, AMX-56s or M1A1/2.

I know that because i was commander on Yugo M-84 tank, who have much batter FCS then any T-72 even a new one B3. I was trained on T-72M tanks fist then i move on M-84. Our M-84 is mercedes for this Russian junk.
Only one good modernization of T72 tank was Rogatka but it was to expensive for Russians i guess so they go with this B3 modernization.

Instead they modernized T-80Us they put them almost all in reserve (one division have operational T-80s i think and its 4th guard division).T-80U have much batter armor protection then any T-72 will have. It has much batter FCS, it is far batter tank then T-72 will be with all this new modernizations...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

galicije83 wrote:Russia dont have 900 T-90s. Have less then 500 of them.

T-72 was junk when he was made and its still is. This T-72 tanks dont have real chance against Leo2s, AMX-56s or M1A1/2.

I know that because i was commander on Yugo M-84 tank, who have much batter FCS then any T-72 even a new one B3. I was trained on T-72M tanks fist then i move on M-84. Our M-84 is mercedes for this Russian junk.
Only one good modernization of T72 tank was Rogatka but it was to expensive for Russians i guess so they go with this B3 modernization.

Instead they modernized T-80Us they put them almost all in reserve (one division have operational T-80s i think and its 4th guard division).T-80U have much batter armor protection then any T-72 will have. It has much batter FCS, it is far batter tank then T-72 will be with all this new modernizations...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

some shit here. t-72b passive armor as thick as t-80u if not better, M-84 do not have thermals and new APFSDSs. one thing that better is the engine. the recent contract to upgrade another 150 T-72B to new B3 version would have new engine. The story do not ends with B3 ver. 2013-2014.

What imbecility has struck this guy?

T-72 shit?

First of all you haven't seen a real T-72 my yugo friend the only thing you have ever touched are export models which are inferior. The other thing is the T-72 is the king of all second generation tanks and is the only Tank that can meet requirements of a 3rd Generation tank or a modern battlefield. No other second gen tank could that far, hell the chieftain was inferior to the T-62 not to mention T-62M or any tank that followed.

Calling a T-72 shit does not give you any credibility especialy with such a nickname.

He says T-80U has better protection than every version of T-72 - which is of course total BS. Late 1980s T-72B and T-80U have comparable levels of protection.

Original T-72 Ural was superior to every tank in the world at the time it entered production. It had excellent armor, was highly mobile and was 3rd tank in the world to be equipped with 120+ mm cannon (after T-64 and Chieftain). It could beat the crap out of M-60, Chieftain and Leopard 1 and fight on equal grounds with early versions of Abrams as it had a 105 mm gun