General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

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.

Atmosphere wrote: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.

Supposedly a precursor section peels off to trigger the ERA well ahead of the main body of the subcalibre projectile. 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. Personally this seems iffy considering you have to impart rather huge drag forces to slow the larger mass and of course keep the trim well balanced to avoid tumbling or instability or the core/s. Much better to install within the precursor a mini rocket with twin oblique nozzles that eject gases off-axis, minimizing the disturbance to the following main section

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 People have this very wrong idea that russian base armor is weak or outdated.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

That's why my approach is so much smarter - why reduce the performance of the main section delivering the bulk of the damage when you can achieve the same effect by tampering with the precursor instead?

And while there might be APS that have multiple engagements down pat, its highly unlikely they would be able to discriminate and defeat this kind of attack: The two projectiles are to separate only in the very final approaches until impact putting the main body of the projectile well behind the shadow of the precursor relative to the sensors on the vehicle. The precursor which would have been treated to have a much higher signature than it would appear in multiple spectrums (which is certainly far easier to do than the opposite) thus effectively shielding the main section from being spotted. In effect only the precursor would be engaged and with only a few tens of meters between it and the target its impossible to engage the main section in time.

For added bonus, make that two precursors that race off to trigger the APS and ERA respectively.

And no, even composite armor is proving to be increasingly vulnerable to APFSDS rounds. Keep in mind behind that thickness is mostly empty space - the main working mechanism of base armors today are based on the NERA principles which require empty air pockets between the layers to work effectively deflecting and reflecting itself against the penetrator to cause it to yaw or erode more than it needs to or break up into many pieces outright. The problem though is the increasing sophistication of simulation tools which means you can design for rather complex interactions of the armor and the penetrator cores, provided of course you have good models for the enemy armor available on hand. If you can mitigate much of the anti-penetrator action that NERA relies on it would be pretty much like penetrating the rather pathetic physical thickness of the actual armor material itself which wouldn't really require the absurd lengths of penetrator you'd see on cold war and today's prospective armaments for NATO tanks.

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.

GarryB wrote:
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.

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

GarryB wrote:
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.

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.

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.

GarryB wrote:
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....

I'd go one step further and mount a full-on 2500 rpm 2A38M gun as a coaxial. Against heavily protected vehicles, fire a one second burst of the coax and then quickly follow up with the main gun firing the APFSDS round timed so that the APFSDS penetrator arrives just milliseconds after the barrage of ~40 30 mm shells have done their work.

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

Until lasers come about - then its back to firing dumb unguided projectiles over open sights.

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

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...

Hahaha... honestly, my first thought when seeing that Turkish upgrade of the M60 tank was that someone has stolen a T-90AM turret and put it on an M60...

Refreshing after seeing most new tank projects with turrets that look like Leopard IIs.

GarryB wrote:Hahaha... honestly, my first thought when seeing that Turkish upgrade of the M60 tank was that someone has stolen a T-90AM turret and put it on an M60...

Refreshing after seeing most new tank projects with turrets that look like Leopard IIs.

Sounds like the Israeli armor packages aren't all that good (at least the export ones aren't) if they are replacing the Sabra upgrade with this new turret.

T-90s on the other hand, just ate those TOWs like a champ.

As they say, if you can't beat them, join them.

Timeline for the introduction of new tanks in Europe

Hahaha.... so they all want their own designs which will be built in token amounts... if they get built at all...

This should be very amusing, not to mention the justifications for this spending at a time of austerity and having to service loans because when interest rates were low loans were an easy solution because it was easy money, but inflation has put up interest rates and now those loans are becoming an economic burden that are harder to service and the current solution for lack of money is to borrow more and borrowing does not seem to be slowing...

The west got rich by trapping the third world in a debt spiral where they could take over resources and infrastructure because they can't pay for it, and the put tolls on bridges and roads to pay for them... they could also dictate the way they voted at UN meetings... but that will be blackmail and the worse crime of the century if it is done to a western country....

Besides, if they are really European tank programmes they should start on their concept date and end when the partners can't agree on which specific rainbow flag to show in the advertising material and then they all split up and make their own slightly different and non compatible vehicles with very little in common that are supposed to work together.

Lots of Euros are going to be wasted on duplicated efforts. Say what you want about the Soviet T-trio of autoloaded 125 mm armed MBTs, but the fact is the Soviet Army was gigantic enough that three lines of MBTs each had enough scale to be economically feasible. There is no way Europe can afford 5 different high end MBTs or even one. Not with how they fucked up their economy.

Give them a break.

Yesterday was a big fiesta, as they announced successful tests of the newest Challenger 3 tank gun.


I'm fukin' serious.

Say what you want about the Soviet T-trio of autoloaded 125 mm armed MBTs, but the fact is the Soviet Army was gigantic enough that three lines of MBTs each had enough scale to be economically feasible. There is no way Europe can afford 5 different high end MBTs or even one. Not with how they fucked up their economy.

But it is more than that... the EU should have two tank programmes... a high tech super tank that is as expensive and effective as they can make it but also a cheaper simpler tank with a good gun and a good engine and reasonable protection that everyone can buy in large numbers... the way the Russians were doing with the T-64/80/90 expensive capable vehicles and the T-72 affordable numbers vehicle where the T-72 got upgrades as the technology got cheaper and became affordable and was proven.

With their new vehicle families Armata will be the top tank with the Kurganets being the affordable tracked vehicle with reasonable protection while the Boomerang and Typhoon tanks will be super cheap numbers vehicles with wheels that will be fast and cheap to operate, and of course the DT-30 variant for deep snow and deep mud and swamps and iceflows...

But HATO countries are stupid and selfish.

They all buy fighter aircraft and spend too much on them when buying useful aircraft like transport planes would be more useful for HATO and during peace time could generate revenue by shifting all sorts of things getting experience around the world... unlike their fighters.

Merkava 4M with the real iron dome.

Unfortunately for the Israelis, but Hamas drones are dropping tandem shaped-charge PG-7VR warheads. That slat armor won't do shit against the main charge beyond an increase in stand-off distance - which might even improve penetration somewhat.

And maximum protection my ass. This is an MBT that tips the scales at an unprecedented 80t, equipped with an expensive "battle-tested" Trophy hardkill APS and clad in ballistic protection fully optimized for HEAT threats.

Threats like the 9M331 Kornet missile and the RPG-7 PG-7VR rocket that it utterly fails against. Whoops.

And maximum protection my ass. This is an MBT that tips the scales at an unprecedented 80t, equipped with an expensive "battle-tested" Trophy hardkill APS and clad in ballistic protection fully optimized for HEAT threats.

Threats like the 9M331 Kornet missile and the RPG-7 PG-7VR rocket that it utterly fails against. Whoops.

And that is the core point... it is OK to be 80 ton and a very slow mover if it was able to absorb multiple hits from heavy anti tank weapons and keep operating... but it can't.

GarryB wrote:
And that is the core point... it is OK to be 80 ton and a very slow mover if it was able to absorb multiple hits from heavy anti tank weapons and keep operating... but it can't.

The Merkava 4M is what happens when you try to brute force your way out of bad design choices that were baked in since the first release.

There just comes a point where you implement a lot of fixes but it wouldn't change much. Its better that when you recognize you're at this junction to just cut your losses and start from scratch.

Not sure if the Israelis would even have the opportunity to do something about it though.

As I said, Merkava is a victim of the amount of copium applied to it as a part of general Jewish propaganda.
It was never a formidable tank, because it was not a tank per se.

To begin with, Merkava is ENORMOUSLY huge.
If you put one next to L2 or M1, both would look like puppies. And one must realize, that if out T-72 next to M1, it would look just the same.
Merkava is almost twice as high as T-72, with both front and side silhouettes almost twice as big.
When introduced in 1979, it was already well behind T-72, in all aspects. It was less mobile, less armored, less armed. The sole advantage it has over the Soviet tanks older by more than a decade in some cases, was a laser rangefinder.

It was made of casted mild steel, which is so substandard concerning the Soviet realies that there is no point to discuss that further.

Used a suspension that was obsolete in the 50s already.



Try to imagine what a modern artillery would have done to that

Long story short, it was not a new, brilliant and powerful tank, but localized M60 with 105mm gun, and some features designed for the theatre and its role as a weapon system. Which wasn't tanking only

All Merkavas up to Mk 4 are shockingly under armored. Why? Because of being so fukin' huge, first of all. To cover it with a reasonable armor, it would take it 80t.

So what we have there? Well, solutions optimized for dealing with HEAT ammunition, first of all. When the front hull protection consists of both engine and the fuel tank, making it fragile to a mobility kill at every single occasion.
What is even more hilarious, Merkava construction includes both planetary gears located in the front part of the hull, both sides, and UNPROTECTED in any way other than some light screens. Every hit in the front sides kills a transmission.

Those tanks wouldn't stand a chance on the modern battlefield. And actually those didn't, which turned out crystal clear as soon as we could get the pictures made by the other side, back in 2006.

ALAMO wrote:All Merkavas up to Mk 4 are shockingly under armored. Why? Because of being so fukin' huge, first of all. To cover it with a reasonable armor, it would take it 80t.

Size isn't the problem per se - the T-14 is slightly larger than the Merkava 4M after all.



The issue is the excessive uncompartmentalized internal volume that has to be protected.


[The image is wrong - the protected volume in the Merkava 4M has to include the rear of the hull where the tank stores most of its main gun ammo.]
And when you have to protect everything you are protecting nothing.

It is amazing the number of people who think the engine at the front actually adds to the protection...

The best counter to that I find is to mention the BMP-1 and BMP-2 have front mounted engines too are they well protected from the front?

If layers and layers of non armour level metal could be effective as armour then that is what they would use as armour because it would be cheap... but it isn't.

BTW the T-14 is a big tank but only the crew compartment needs heavy armour...

If engines provide good protection when why don't tanks turn their rear ends towards enemy fire every chance they get... normal tanks have their engines there so that should protect them from enemy fire right?

A shot to the rear of a tank through the engine almost always immobilises the tank and starts a fire that left unchecked will destroy the tank when it reaches fuel and ammo.