Abrams Side Armor

[Grenny]

Hope esim manages to get that NLAW gunners view into SB ...pretty please :-)

[Invader ZIM]

lol, I saw that too, talk about simple to use.

Put tank in sight, count to 3, pull trigger, run!!

[Tacbat]

...can you edit the loadouts for the infantry teams?

Yes, CO's can choose to spend points to equip the infantry teams with the RPG-29.

[Invader ZIM]

Ahh, I see.

Then I'd recommend using some points to better equip the standard infantry with longer ranged anti-tank weapons if you guys feel they can get into the action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beW7EZd4wb0

Even if they aren't the most ideal depending on the weapon, they can sometimes add to the confusion by damaging optics, knocking out tracks and engines, etc. important thing is to get ones that have 800m range or more for the light infantry, this gives the AI much more leeway to engage since we can't directly control the AT teams.

[Gibsonm]

Well that's an individual CO's call.

We just use the tools they give us.

[Invader ZIM]

Hehe, understood, I'm so used to sandboxing scenarios on my own and using what I want, so spoiled I am.

[Volcano]

Hehe, understood, I'm so used to sandboxing scenarios on my own and using what I want, so spoiled I am.

That is what's fun about Variable, it all comes down to $$$ (like real life!). :bigsmile:

[Red6]

It seems in the report that they wanted more protection on the sides/rear, which would explain the large order for the M-19 ARAT-1 and ARAT-2 add on armor which is seen more often in the 2006 time period.

Seems to be pretty light as well:

outontheop, yea, I forgot the diameter of the HEAT warhead is massive, 300mm vs. the TOW's 152mm. Tough tank!

The ballistic skirts do provide substantial protection and even if penetrated they begin the game of stopping the jet or sabot. There are road wheels that cover most of the area behind the skirts, and then you hit the actual outer hull, which is essentially just normal steel (about 3 inches where the crew compartment is), nothing special. The real armor packages are on the hull front, on the sides of the driver, turret front and turret sides extending back across the crew compartment. The turret is most likely going to take a beating in a tank on tank battle, especially if fighting from berms or entrenchments. The ammo bunker (turret rear) has a different armor package again, just like the front 1/3 under-belly which was laid out for mines. Most mines are pressure plate, tilt rod, or magnetic, and they will detonate in the front. The problem is that someone with a command initiated IED can wait and hit the tank in a different location. That's why the M1 received an underbelly armor upgrade in Iraq. The M1 is designed to be sacrificial, i.e. the the engine/transmission, ammo bunker, fuel cells are designed and set up to provide additional protection albeit the tank is out of the fight. You have an inner hull (separating crew compartment), and an outer hull, and that is also why the M1 can look real ugly but the crew inside is still fine. Anything explosive or flammable is outside the inner hull.

Mobility kills are common, because you just can't armor everything like the turret front, but crew kills are "very" rare, but it has happened where part of the crew was killed under armor. Realize, the M1 has seen more combat than any other western tank in service, and Iraq especially had lots of nasty things on the battlefield (advanced RPG warheads). Some of these warheads are post 1994 builds (more efficient and penetrating) and incorporate a precursor charge for ERA. So in the hot spots in Iraq the M1 received an advanced ERA which can deal with tandem warheads and very high penetration values. In Iraq there were literally ammunition dumps where thousands of artillery shells just laid around... There was lots HE with which you could make humungous IEDs, so powerful that the mere acceleration even in a 70 ton tank can kill. These tanks drove many miles and saw many operational hours, hitting thousands of IEDs, mines, and being shot at hundreds of times with RPGs. Most of this you never heard about because nothing happened. There were instances where tanks were hit as many as 16 times and the crew walked away.

There is no free lunch, and ERA is flammable (it makes you vulnerable like the Russians in Chechnya I - i.e. a simple Molotov cocktail can take you out) and dangerous for folks near the tank if set off. I think folks don't realize that you're hanging a lot of very flammable stuff on you when you mount ERA. It does add weight and width and it is also not very tough if you bump up against things... You can see lots of M1s or M2s with torn up ERA. ERA can also be defeated by simply adding tandem warheads, or having a smaller pre-rocket, and then the main rocket with a tandem warhead, or, or, or. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=EWv4LJMN3ic ERA does not appear to be the solution like so many think, rather it's an interim fix that can be fairly easily defeated. Unless there is a break through in armor (new materials/new geometry: Carbon nano-tube for example) the era of the big heavy tanks is over because in this race, the capabilities of ATGMs and advanced warheads have outpaced what armor can defend against.

Active Defense Systems seem promising, and several were tested with a mixed bag of results. Most of these systems have an Achilles Heel, despite the sales pitch which makes them sound impervious to everything. Most of these systems can be over loaded with quick successive shots, provide only limited protection in each area (quadrant - limited kill vehicles per area engaged), have a hard time with an enemy that is very close, or they have a big hole over head where dive attack comes in without a problem. In some cases the sensors have issues in urban areas, and like ERA, they pose a risk to folks outside the vehicle. Quick Kill seemed most promising of them all, but that too was put on a back burner for money reasons. Vertically launched, it could expend all kill vehicles in the same area if need be, it had full 360 around and 180 over head, you could carry a sufficient amount, it was very quick/responsive, no reloading, and the system could virtually fire all vehicles simultaneously if someone is doing a volley fire on you. Who knows, maybe it'll come after all: http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2251

Edited March 9, 2014 by Red6

[Damian90]

There is no free lunch, and ERA is flammable (it makes you vulnerable like the Russians in Chechnya I - i.e. a simple Molotov cocktail can take you out)

This is false, ERA is not flammable. In fact each new type of ERA developed needs to pass tests where ERA casette or module is treated with napalm.

I have a book written by chief engineer of team that developed different armor types in Poland, there are photos of our ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 ERA during such tests. Napalm of course damages casette, but it does not explodes.

Similiar tests were performed in Russia.

Also another misconception about ERA performance is Chechnya. During Ist Chechnya war, many Russian tanks, of course had ERA cassettes mounted, but cassettes were empty, without reactive element 4S20 for "Kontakt-1" or 4S22 for "Kontakt-5".

ERA can also be defeated by simply adding tandem warheads, or having a smaller pre-rocket, and then the main rocket with a tandem warhead, or, or, or.

No, ERA can't be easy defeated by tandem warheads because it depends on ERA type. There are currently ERA types capable to defeat reliably tandem warheads.

For example Ukrainian "Knife", and it's variants, heavy multilayer "Duplet", lightweight "Knife-L" and "Raketka".

Here is video from "Duplet" tests, you can see it's performance against HEAT warheads, also tandem, and against APFSDS rounds fired from 100m.

ERA does not appear to be the solution like so many think, rather it's an interim fix that can be fairly easily defeated.

This is wrong understanding of ERA. ERA is not and should not be treated as addon for main armor, but as it's integral part. And this is how it is treated in Russia or Ukraine, this is why they call it встроенная динамическая защита or build in dynamic protection. ERA is part of vehicles composite armor.

Unless there is a break through in armor (new materials/new geometry: Carbon nano-tube for example) the era of the big heavy tanks is over because in this race, the capabilities of ATGMs and advanced warheads have outpaced what armor can defend against.

This is completely wrong. In fact we can see that ATGM's are nearly expired their capabilities within their reasonable size and weight limits, and there are also costs, top attack ATGM's like Javelin are very expensive, and ERA like "Duplet" can stop their warheads without any problems.

[Red6]

This is false, ERA is not flammable. In fact each new type of ERA developed needs to pass tests where ERA casette or module is treated with napalm.

I have a book written by chief engineer of team that developed different armor types in Poland, there are photos of our ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 ERA during such tests. Napalm of course damages casette, but it does not explodes.

Similiar tests were performed in Russia.

Also another misconception about ERA performance is Chechnya. During Ist Chechnya war, many Russian tanks, of course had ERA cassettes mounted, but cassettes were empty, without reactive element 4S20 for "Kontakt-1" or 4S22 for "Kontakt-5".

No, ERA can't be easy defeated by tandem warheads because it depends on ERA type. There are currently ERA types capable to defeat reliably tandem warheads.

For example Ukrainian "Knife", and it's variants, heavy multilayer "Duplet", lightweight "Knife-L" and "Raketka".

Here is video from "Duplet" tests, you can see it's performance against HEAT warheads, also tandem, and against APFSDS rounds fired from 100m.

This is wrong understanding of ERA. ERA is not and should not be treated as addon for main armor, but as it's integral part. And this is how it is treated in Russia or Ukraine, this is why they call it встроенная динамическая защита or build in dynamic protection. ERA is part of vehicles composite armor.

This is completely wrong. In fact we can see that ATGM's are nearly expired their capabilities within their reasonable size and weight limits, and there are also costs, top attack ATGM's like Javelin are very expensive, and ERA like "Duplet" can stop their warheads without any problems.

It is considerably cheaper and easier to build an RPG that not only has a tandem warhead, but also a pre-firing rocket, so you essentially get hit with a rocket that has a small charge, then the precursor charge as part of the main rocket, and finally the main warhead. That will defeat most ERA, even that specifically designed to defeat tandem warheads, sorry: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/20/rpg-30-unveiled-the-m1-abrams-killer/

ERA is a simple game of cat and mouse and we could devise something to deal with this as well, but unlike dumb old fashioned armor, they can "easily" devise things to over come the new ERA again. The cost, time of manufacture advantage is on the side of the ATGM/RPG. How much does advanced ERA cost like ARAT2? That isn't cheap. How much does a simple rocket cost that is mounted on the bottom on an RPG30? You got the argument backwards.

Weapons like the Javelin are proliferating and a $50,000 missile is cheap compared to a crew and tank. I'll make that trade with you all day long if we were in a battle. Even the Chinese are building top attack ATGMs today. The Israeli's have theirs and others are buying them, Spain was developing one (not sure if they still are)... The technology to build fire and forget, dive attack, tandem warhead missiles like Javelin that are even jam hardened, is no longer exclusive technology to the US. What we could do in the mid 90s, is today something that others can also do, and the cost of certain enabling technologies, as well as access to the building blocks (IC circuits etc) is getting cheaper and easier.

The problem is that a Molotov cocktail isn't a thick jelly mass, and the explosives inside ERA is flammable (Some of them use RDX mixtures), just like your ammo, fuel, in some cases even parts of the vehicle if they get hot enough will burn. Because of the known flammability issues, is why it is being addressed in the first place. This has been a known issue since the days of Blazer and even on our M60A3s that had ERA. ERA is a cat and mouse game, it's a little bit like the princess bride scene:

If you know what someone has, you can defeat it pretty easily.

The concept of integrated ERA or modular armor isn't new for the US either. We had ERA for the M60A3 long before 1991 and believe it or not, vehicles like the Bradley were "designed" with ERA in mind already in 1980. Though cancelled the M8 AGS was based on modular armor and it was incorporated as part of its design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System nice pic: http://olive-drab.com/images/id_m8ags_10_600.jpg But we live in a real world, not a fantasy one, and right now we don't have FCS with a layered hard kill ADS, countermeasures, special modular ERA, a newer light weight armor, signature reduction capabilities, awesome mobility and situational awareness (the sales pitch bla bla bla)... If you want to watch some goofy videos that talk about the same thing you mention (we were already talking about this as far back as 1997) there is a whole slew of youtube videos on FCS:

The reality is that we have old steel beasts (thought I'd throw that in) that use ERA to stay viable. Let me put this another way, we are using ERA to buy us time because the machines we have today cannot defeat some of the things that are out there. We are not putting ERA on vehicles because it looks cool, we are doing so because we live in a time where warhead effectiveness has dramatically increased since the 1980s. The quality of the products over-all has increased (reliability and accuracy). Something like an RPG-29 or even a RPG7VR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR) will go through a lot of armor and the real tanks we sit on today, not the ones we dream about, weren't designed to be taking hits into the hull or turret sides from weapons like this. Tanks like the Leo and M1 are showing their age. If things stay "relatively" calm and there is no major conflict, these tanks we have will stay around for a while, but if a major conflict should ensue, they will quickly be replaced because they are technologically obsolete in design/concept. Just like the tank ended trench warfare, or a machine gun the frontal assault, the modern ATGM/RPG is ending the tank as we know it. Mounted warfare will remain, but not in a 70 ton tank that protects you through sheer armor. As corny/cheesy as these clips on youtube are, that is eventually where we will go, if not today, then tomorrow.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Red6

[Damian90]

It is considerably cheaper and easier to build an RPG that not only has a tandem warhead, but also a pre-firing rocket, so you essentially get hit with a rocket that has a small charge, then the precursor charge as part of the main rocket, and finally the main warhead. That will defeat most ERA, even that specifically designed to defeat tandem warheads, sorry: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...abrams-killer/

You better learn Russian. RPG-30 does not have this small rocket with any kind of warhead. This small rocket is a decoy for active protection systems like Trophy that have a short interval of time for reloading it's countermeassure. This design have nothing to do with ERA defeating.

ERA is a simple game of cat and mouse and we could devise something to deal with this as well, but unlike dumb old fashioned armor, they can "easily" devise things to over come the new ERA again. The cost, time of manufacture advantage is on the side of the ATGM/RPG. How much does advanced ERA cost like ARAT2? That isn't cheap. How much does a simple rocket cost that is mounted on the bottom on an RPG30? You got the argument backwards.

ERA is cheap. And there is really nothing advanced in ARAT-2, this is just simple combination of layered M19 casette with curved M32 cassette.

Really advanced ERA is Ukrainian "Knife" and "Duplet" which works on completely different principle than conventional ERA like ARAT.

Weapons like the Javelin are proliferating and a $50,000 missile is cheap compared to a crew and tank. I'll make that trade with you all day long if we were in a battle. Even the Chinese are building top attack ATGMs today. The Israeli's have theirs and others are buying them, Spain was developing one (not sure if they still are)... The technology to build fire and forget, dive attack, tandem warhead missiles like Javelin that are even jam hardened, is no longer exclusive technology to the US. What we could do in the mid 90s, is today something that others can also do, and the cost of certain enabling technologies, as well as access to the building blocks (IC circuits etc) is getting cheaper and easier.

China does not have top attack missiles. In fact the only countries that inducted top attack ATGM's are the ones belonging to NATO, EU or their close allies like Israel.

Russians don't even predict to field any kind of top attack ATGM, it is too expensive for them.

The problem is that a Molotov cocktail isn't a thick jelly mass, and the explosives inside ERA is flammable (Some of them use RDX mixtures), just like your ammo, fuel, in some cases even parts of the vehicle if they get hot enough will burn. Because of the known flammability issues, is why it is being addressed in the first place. This has been a known issue since the days of Blazer and even on our M60A3s that had ERA. ERA is a cat and mouse game, it's a little bit like the princess bride scene:

If you know what someone has, you can defeat it pretty easily.

ERA is not flammable, how many times I need to repeat. I have a book written by someone who actually design such things, chief engineer col. Adam Wiśniewski from WITU institute. Book is titled Pancerze Budowa, Projektowanie i Badanie (Armors Construction, Design and Research).

At page 201 there are photos from tests of ERAWA-1 ERA cassettes during tests, first test was to use a gasoline, damage was only comestic with paint covering casette. Second test was performed using napalm, again paint covering casette was damaged and small part of explosive filler was damaged, but cassette did not detonated.

On page 202 ERAWA-1 casette was treated with use of flammable bomb ZAB-2,5 that uses termite (it burns at temperature of 3000 celsius degrees), casette was damaged but later it was tested against PG-7 granade to test if casette still have some protection properties despite significant damage to it.

This is how tests are performed here in former Warsaw pact countries. ERA does not only needs to perform adequate protection to meet requirements, but survive fire, small arms fire etc. to be accepted in to service.

Byt the way, Israeli "Blazer" and ERA for US M60A1/A3 was primitive designs, even Soviet "Kontakt-1" is more advanced design.

The concept of integrated ERA or modular armor isn't new for the US either. We had ERA for the M60A3 long before 1991 and believe it or not, vehicles like the Bradley were "designed" with ERA in mind already in 1980. Though cancelled the M8 AGS was based on modular armor and it was incorporated as part of its design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System nice pic: http://olive-drab.com/images/id_m8ags_10_600.jpg But we live in a real world, not a fantasy one, and right now we don't have FCS with a layered hard kill ADS, countermeasures, special modular ERA, a newer light weight armor, signature reduction capabilities, awesome mobility and situational awareness (the sales pitch bla bla bla)... If you want to watch some goofy videos that talk about the same thing you mention (we were already talking about this as far back as 1997) there is a whole slew of youtube videos on FCS:

Listen, I know about US armored vehicles and armored vehicles in general more than you.

And no, M8 AGS neither M2 or M60A3 use build in ERA, they use addon ERA or modular ERA of the lightweight design, which is designed only to defeat simple shaped charge warheads. It is nothing comparable with build in heavy ERA like "Kontakt-5", "Relikt", "Kaktus", "Knife" or "Duplet".

Even our Polish ERAWA-2 is more advanced as it shown during tests capability to defeat PzF-3IT600 tandem HEAT warhead that was advertized to be capable to defeat approx 1000mm RHA.

As for FCS program and it's MGV modular platform, it was one huge mistake. It is good that someone sane cancelled this insanity.

I take M1 tank anytime over that lightweight coffin for soldiers.

The reality is that we have old steel beasts (thought I'd throw that in) that use ERA to stay viable. Let me put this another way, we are using ERA to buy us time because the machines we have today cannot defeat some of the things that are out there. We are not putting ERA on vehicles because it looks cool, we are doing so because we live in a time where warhead effectiveness has dramatically increased since the 1980s. The quality of the products over-all has increased (reliability and accuracy). Something like an RPG-29 or even a RPG7VR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR) will go through a lot of armor and the real tanks we sit on today, not the ones we dream about, weren't designed to be taking hits into the hull or turret sides from weapons like this. Tanks like the Leo and M1 are showing their age. If things stay "relatively" calm and there is no major conflict, these tanks we have will stay around for a while, but if a major conflict should ensue, they will quickly be replaced because they are technologically obsolete in design/concept. Just like the tank ended trench warfare, or a machine gun the frontal assault, the modern ATGM/RPG is ending the tank as we know it. Mounted warfare will remain, but not in a 70 ton tank that protects you through sheer armor. As corny/cheesy as these clips on youtube are, that is eventually where we will go, if not today, then tomorrow.

You completely don't know what you are talking about.

There won't be any program similiar to FCS again, FCS was waste of money, time and other resources. And MGV platform design was purely idiotic.

You don't need to sacrifice armor to design lighter vehicle. This is a way uneducated fools choose.

It is known for years that main reason why so many tanks become so heavy, is because they have unnececary large internal volume. Reduce internal volume, so a more compact vehicle will be lighter without sacrificing protection, in fact such vehicle can be even better protected.

http://btvt.narod.ru/3/fmbt/4b.jpg

This is DARPA study on future MBT, this vehicle weighted approx 55 metric tons, front hull armor was ~1300mm thick, vehicle had unmanned turret with 140mm smoothbore gun. What is importaqnt to note, it's unmanned turret had the same armor protection as hull. By reducing turret front protection, I assume it would be possible to reduce overall combat weight to around 50 metric tons. Further decrease in weight could be achieved by replacing 140mm gun with 120mm gun which should be lighter, and use smaller and lighter ammunition.

All of this without sacrifing protection.

Similiar route was taken by Russians with their Object 195 which weighted 55 metric tons and had been armed with enourmous 152mm 2A83 smoothbore gun, and had levels of protection non achievable by conventional design.

Currently Object 195 evolved in to project "Armata" which aims to develop a heavy modular tracked platform as a basis for new MBT and other vehicles. However new MBT will have smaller 125mm 2A82 smoothbore gun, and simplified fire control system.

This is where evolution of tanks is moving, not in to some lightweight coffins that amateurs and stupid politicians like to see in future.

Year ago I readed interview with one of high ranking US Army officers, and he was very clear about what they want and where they go. There won't be any ultralight vehicles, HMMWV will be replaced by bigger, heavier and better protected JLTV, alluminium coffin M113 will be replaced by heavier, better protected and bigger AMPV. Stryker is modernized to be heavier and better protected, recently also Stryker variant with 30mm automatic cannon in unmanned turret was tested by US Army. M2 IFV is getting heavier and better protected, and with recent cancellation of GCV program, it seems that M2 face deep modernization program. With the same unmanned turret tested on Stryker, M2 can be better armed, better protected, take more dismounts, and with armor upgrades might meet protection requirements. M2's are allready modernized within ECP1 and ECP2 upgrade programs. M1 is nowhere near being obsolete neither being replaced by anything, and also it's ECP upgrade program is in development, scheduled for production in 2017.

Deal with it, after Iraq and Afghanistan it become obvious that FCS will never meet any requirements as a replacement for current generation of vehicles.

And active protection systems do not replace main armor. I strongly recommend to read about Soviet and later Russian/Ukrainian study's about active protection systems and their reall efficency. One of more interesting observations was, that even if APS sucesfully intercepts a simple RPG granade, this granade can still detonate and create shaped charge jet efficent enough to destroy or badly damage protected vehicle that have too thin armor.

[Tjay]

Listen, I know about US armored vehicles and armored vehicles in general more than you.

You completely don't know what you are talking about.

You may indeed be very knowledgeable, but your debating technique needs work. :clin:

[Damian90]

You may indeed be very knowledgeable, but your debating technique needs work.

I have a very little tolerance for ignorance to be honest. Especially that I am providing sources, or videos from tests that shows efficency of ERA for example.

Below is another video from tests of lightweight ERA for lighter vehicles.

Also very interesting from historical perspective is interview with Dmitry Rototayev, one of Soviet engineers responsible for ERA development codenamed program "Lisica".

What Red6 says is contrary to scientific research. One of better sources are different documents from "vehicles armor protection symposium", especially these written by prof Manfred Held. One of very interesting developments was program to develop build in explosive reactive armor for Leopard 1. Initiall tests were promising as this kind of protection made Leopard 1 very well protected against 105mm APFSDS ammunition, however it was not adopted in to service, one of reasons provided in document was that Heer did not liked it was build in design, and preffered something more modular.

[Tjay]

I have a very little tolerance for ignorance to be honest. Especially that I am providing sources, or videos from tests that shows efficency of ERA for example.

I understand your frustration, but if you wish to persuade another person, being right is only part of it. The other half is giving the other guy enough rooom to come around to your way of thinking. If you insult him, he will simply 'go defensive' and stop listening to what you say.

Just trying to pass on the wisdom of those far more intelligent (and persuasive!) than me btw.

[Damian90]

If you insult him

Did I insulted someone here? If Red6 feels that way I'm sorry it was not purpose of my post.

However I absolutely can't agree with his arguments, as they stands against years of scientific research for vehicles protection in different countries.

And I can't further agree with all this ATGM and RPG hype.

Armor development really surpased development of HEAT warheads long time ago.

For example one of sources I have about research and development of special armor program in UK codenamed "Burlington" says that during tests of some armor configurations in late 60's and in 1970's, were penetrable only by very large special test warheads. However size and weight of these warheads made them impractical. And here we talk about prototype predecessors of armor used in M1, Challenger 1&2 and Leopard 2.

The problem is, and not many people realize this, is that ATGM's or RPG's manufacturers have very strong advertisement of their products, however due to classified nature of modern tanks protection, not much is known about their real protection capabilities, and thus we here all the time, that HEAT warheads brings to us end of tanks era, and we need to use lighter vehicles that will costs less.

The fact is that defeating HEAT warheads is not that difficult after all with modern armor solutions. In future we might actually see that HEAT warheads further loss their significance as a tank defeating means, and the only really effective solution will be APFSDS round fired from a tank gun. APFSDS due to it's nature are much more difficult to defeat than shaped charge jets.

[Red6]

You better learn Russian. RPG-30 does not have this small rocket with any kind of warhead. This small rocket is a decoy for active protection systems like Trophy that have a short interval of time for reloading it's countermeassure. This design have nothing to do with ERA defeating.

ERA is cheap. And there is really nothing advanced in ARAT-2, this is just simple combination of layered M19 casette with curved M32 cassette.

Really advanced ERA is Ukrainian "Knife" and "Duplet" which works on completely different principle than conventional ERA like ARAT.

China does not have top attack missiles. In fact the only countries that inducted top attack ATGM's are the ones belonging to NATO, EU or their close allies like Israel.

Russians don't even predict to field any kind of top attack ATGM, it is too expensive for them.

ERA is not flammable, how many times I need to repeat. I have a book written by someone who actually design such things, chief engineer col. Adam Wiśniewski from WITU institute. Book is titled Pancerze Budowa, Projektowanie i Badanie (Armors Construction, Design and Research).

At page 201 there are photos from tests of ERAWA-1 ERA cassettes during tests, first test was to use a gasoline, damage was only comestic with paint covering casette. Second test was performed using napalm, again paint covering casette was damaged and small part of explosive filler was damaged, but cassette did not detonated.

On page 202 ERAWA-1 casette was treated with use of flammable bomb ZAB-2,5 that uses termite (it burns at temperature of 3000 celsius degrees), casette was damaged but later it was tested against PG-7 granade to test if casette still have some protection properties despite significant damage to it.

This is how tests are performed here in former Warsaw pact countries. ERA does not only needs to perform adequate protection to meet requirements, but survive fire, small arms fire etc. to be accepted in to service.

Byt the way, Israeli "Blazer" and ERA for US M60A1/A3 was primitive designs, even Soviet "Kontakt-1" is more advanced design.

Listen, I know about US armored vehicles and armored vehicles in general more than you.

And no, M8 AGS neither M2 or M60A3 use build in ERA, they use addon ERA or modular ERA of the lightweight design, which is designed only to defeat simple shaped charge warheads. It is nothing comparable with build in heavy ERA like "Kontakt-5", "Relikt", "Kaktus", "Knife" or "Duplet".

Even our Polish ERAWA-2 is more advanced as it shown during tests capability to defeat PzF-3IT600 tandem HEAT warhead that was advertized to be capable to defeat approx 1000mm RHA.

As for FCS program and it's MGV modular platform, it was one huge mistake. It is good that someone sane cancelled this insanity.

I take M1 tank anytime over that lightweight coffin for soldiers.

You completely don't know what you are talking about.

There won't be any program similiar to FCS again, FCS was waste of money, time and other resources. And MGV platform design was purely idiotic.

You don't need to sacrifice armor to design lighter vehicle. This is a way uneducated fools choose.

It is known for years that main reason why so many tanks become so heavy, is because they have unnececary large internal volume. Reduce internal volume, so a more compact vehicle will be lighter without sacrificing protection, in fact such vehicle can be even better protected.

http://btvt.narod.ru/3/fmbt/4b.jpg

This is DARPA study on future MBT, this vehicle weighted approx 55 metric tons, front hull armor was ~1300mm thick, vehicle had unmanned turret with 140mm smoothbore gun. What is importaqnt to note, it's unmanned turret had the same armor protection as hull. By reducing turret front protection, I assume it would be possible to reduce overall combat weight to around 50 metric tons. Further decrease in weight could be achieved by replacing 140mm gun with 120mm gun which should be lighter, and use smaller and lighter ammunition.

All of this without sacrifing protection.

Similiar route was taken by Russians with their Object 195 which weighted 55 metric tons and had been armed with enourmous 152mm 2A83 smoothbore gun, and had levels of protection non achievable by conventional design.

Currently Object 195 evolved in to project "Armata" which aims to develop a heavy modular tracked platform as a basis for new MBT and other vehicles. However new MBT will have smaller 125mm 2A82 smoothbore gun, and simplified fire control system.

This is where evolution of tanks is moving, not in to some lightweight coffins that amateurs and stupid politicians like to see in future.

Year ago I readed interview with one of high ranking US Army officers, and he was very clear about what they want and where they go. There won't be any ultralight vehicles, HMMWV will be replaced by bigger, heavier and better protected JLTV, alluminium coffin M113 will be replaced by heavier, better protected and bigger AMPV. Stryker is modernized to be heavier and better protected, recently also Stryker variant with 30mm automatic cannon in unmanned turret was tested by US Army. M2 IFV is getting heavier and better protected, and with recent cancellation of GCV program, it seems that M2 face deep modernization program. With the same unmanned turret tested on Stryker, M2 can be better armed, better protected, take more dismounts, and with armor upgrades might meet protection requirements. M2's are allready modernized within ECP1 and ECP2 upgrade programs. M1 is nowhere near being obsolete neither being replaced by anything, and also it's ECP upgrade program is in development, scheduled for production in 2017.

Deal with it, after Iraq and Afghanistan it become obvious that FCS will never meet any requirements as a replacement for current generation of vehicles.

And active protection systems do not replace main armor. I strongly recommend to read about Soviet and later Russian/Ukrainian study's about active protection systems and their reall efficency. One of more interesting observations was, that even if APS sucesfully intercepts a simple RPG granade, this granade can still detonate and create shaped charge jet efficent enough to destroy or badly damage protected vehicle that have too thin armor.

Yeah yeah- and people were talking about how battleships would be around forever as well.

FCS died because of money and an administration that doesn't want to spend a dime more than absolutely necessary on defense. FCS died as soon as Obama was elected. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-04-30-vehicles_N.htm?csp=usat.me or http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/gates-rips-hear/

FCS is the way we will eventually head. It is a system where advanced modular armor (various packages depending on threat) in combination with active hard and soft kill systems, with signature reduction/management, enhanced mobility, situational awareness you have this new concept of "armor." It would have provided 360/180 defense which especially in Iraq would have proven valuable. Actually, FCS would have done very well in Afghanistan and Iraq because it was being developed for broader mission profiles, easier air transportability, smaller logistical footprint (big heavy machines = thirsty machines), all things that would have helped. An old MBT isn't designed to drive thousands of miles or to keep up with a convoy between Kuwait and Baghdad. Once in theater, a system like FCS would have been much more responsive, being easily air transported to a hot spot if there is trouble in another city somewhere.

(In General)

ERA is a cat and mouse game, it can be defeated fairly easily once you know how that specific package works. Once you know how ARAT2 works, you can easily build something to defeat it, and the defeating is easier and cheaper than the building of the armor. And no, ARAT2 isn't standard ERA like ARAT1.

There is a substantial hazard to troops around the vehicle with ERA.

It provides no consistent protection, depending on angles etc.

It tends to only be effective against certain selected methods of penetration. I already know what your going to say about your super duper ERA that is effective against KE as well. Don't waste my time.

ERA uses flammable materials and poses a risk from that.

While "lighter" for comparable protection with conventional armor, ERA can still add significant weight to a vehicle or to the dimensions especially if you begin talking about defeating multiple warheads and high RHA values.

ERA isn't a magic pill that fixes everything with no downsides or consideration, and for the MBTs of today, it's a mere life support system keeping them alive a little bit longer.

-----

Aluminum armor which you mention was actually a US first (M113 from 1958). Aluminum is still used a lot, and will continue to be, because while it can provide decent protection (albeit greater thickness than steel is required), it will still reduces overall vehicle weight (~20%) and it spalls less. I can build you an APC that can provide the same protection but weigh less with aluminum compared to steel, and unlike some of the other specialty/novelty alloys, it's affordable, mass producible, and we are not dependent on imports. It also has very favorable oxidation characteristics. The alloys used are structurally very rigid, so the hull can be your frame and you don't need lots of structures on the inside for support. That's why the old M113 or the command post vehicles can have such a nice big open space on the inside. Aluminum isn't a bad material, it has its application/use. Of course, it too can be brought to smolder with enough heat. It's funny when a 113 starts to melt. They look like they are made of chocolate as they slowly melt away.

-----

We fight expeditionary wars. We have to get there, and we have to sustain the force once there. These machines have to deal with a broader scope in terrain and mission profiles compared to the Cold War where we knew where we would fight, who we would fight, and generally how we would fight. We could even preposition stuff, rely on the local infrastructure to some extent, in such a scenario.

The relevance of massive armor is becoming more insignificant by the day. An RPG7 from Vietnam had 440mm RHA, today you're dealing with 750mm with precursor and greater behind armor effect. That's a light shoulder fired weapon. Heavy AT systems with bigger and heavier warheads go into the 1200mm. Are you going to armor the hull and turret sides to take that? What about the roof? What about urban or mountainous terrain where someone shoots at you from above into your roof? If we're in a city, a shot into the rear is very likely, it's not like the bad guys will shoot you where you want to be hit. How about we put massive armor on the rear of the tank too? For myself, I would rather sit in an aluminum tank that has ERA and a layered ADS capable of stopping whats coming by way from the sides, roof, or rear when in Baghdad or driving on a mountain road.

The proliferation of top attack (TOW2B) and dive attack (Javelin) weapons (there is a difference) is real:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_missile (India) And yes, China has a top attack AT system too. Spain was developing one in conjunction with us, but I guess they went Spike as well. The Israeli's of course. A bunch of Euro nations... "Bill" comes to mind as another one. And the problem is that these things don't just stay with that respective country, they get licensed built or exported. How do you think RPG7VRs build in 1994 got into Iraq?

Trying to armor a vehicle all around and making it into a fortress just isn't feasible because of how much armor you would have to apply and most of the legacy MBTs we have cannot stand up to the threat anymore unless you plaster them with ERA.

A baseline armor that can take small arms fire through 14.5mm all the way around, 30mm front, 152mm air burst roof, and a 6.5 Kg blast underbelly is the base to work on. This is the shell of the vehicle which might already be adequate for some missions but allows for very easy transport. You can then add additional armor, modular and various types depending on the most likely/dangerous threat. The underbelly has add on armor as well. Even the acceleration of a lighter vehicle vs. a heavier vehicle can be dealt with (http://www.tencate.com/emea/advanced-armour/abds/default.aspx ; you get pushed down basically). What makes the ERA more effective in such a case is that as you stated, the vehicle was designed for it, so the area coverage is great, and the vehicle can deal with the weight gain, there are no obstructions etc. Likewise, the ADS was incorporated in the design, and with enhanced mobility, situational awareness, and reduced signature, you're less likely to get engaged in the first place (In a classical fight, not where you're sitting obviously at a TCP in the middle of the road for hours).

[Damian90]

Yeah yeah- and people were talking about how battleships would be around forever as well.

Comparing battleships with tanks is insane to be honest.

And guess what, many recent accidents suggest that lack of true armor on navy vessels was pure stupidity.

FCS died because of money and an administration that doesn't want to spend a dime more than absolutely necessary on defense. FCS died as soon as Obama was elected. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...tm?csp=usat.me or http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...tes-rips-hear/

FCS did not also meet any requirements, and requirements changed quickly when USA was mid in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FCS is the way we will eventually head.

No, we won't, there are better solution like, Main Battle Tanks, not tin can coffins. But fo course you can say this to families of dead soldiers, that they died because some fantasy boys imagined that thin skinned vehicle can protect them in battle.

It is a system where advanced modular armor (various packages depending on threat)

MGV platform did not had any type of advanced armor, neither any sort of modular armor.

in combination with active hard and soft kill systems, with signature reduction/management, enhanced mobility, situational awareness you have this new concept of "armor."

I can add active protection systems, and cheap but effective signature reduction solutions like multispectral camouflage nets and paints to a tank, same goes with situational awareness. I do not need a lightweight C-130 transportable coffin for this.

It would have provided 360/180 defense which especially in Iraq would have proven valuable.

MGV platform was not capable to even provide a reliable protection for it's 60 degree arc. It was a multimilion tin can, noting else. Not to mention that front mounted engine/powerpack is completely inefficent in terms of protection for a tank. Of course unless someone is still dellusioned with Merkava myth.

Actually, FCS would have done very well in Afghanistan and Iraq because it was being developed for broader mission profiles, easier air transportability, smaller logistical footprint (big heavy machines = thirsty machines), all things that would have helped.

No, FCS would end as a poor failure, especially after RPG, ATGM or IED attacks with it's non existing armor protection. Air transportability is a myth, even USAF don't have enough transport planes to quickly deploy BCT. As for smaller logistical footprint, give tanks enough fuel efficent engine, and logistical footprint will be reduced, it is that simple.

An old MBT isn't designed to drive thousands of miles or to keep up with a convoy between Kuwait and Baghdad. Once in theater, a system like FCS would have been much more responsive, being easily air transported to a hot spot if there is trouble in another city somewhere.

MBT's however performed their tasks above any expectations, and FCS fantasy was (thanks god) cancelled.

(In General)

ERA is a cat and mouse game, it can be defeated fairly easily once you know how that specific package works. Once you know how ARAT2 works, you can easily build something to defeat it, and the defeating is easier and cheaper than the building of the armor. And no, ARAT2 isn't standard ERA like ARAT1.

Oh stop with the same stupid text, can we talk like adults? I hate fanboys.

ARAT-2 is just M19 cassette with M32 cassette installed on it. Nothins special here compared with ARAT-1 as you try to say.

There is a substantial hazard to troops around the vehicle with ERA.

There is same or even higher risk for troops when vehicle is equipped with active protection system. Ha, even without APS or ERA, RPG or ATGM exploding is substantial risk to soldiers near vehicle that had been hit. There is no perfect solution.

It provides no consistent protection, depending on angles etc.

Wrong. Look at video from "Duplet" ERA tests, no matters what was the angle of hit, ERA provided excellent protection.

It tends to only be effective against certain selected methods of penetration. I already know what your going to say about your super duper ERA that is effective against KE as well. Don't waste my time.

Which is? Oh wait, I suppose you don't even know how the most modern ERA works, what is the principle of it's projectile defeating mechanism.

ERA uses flammable materials and poses a risk from that.

Now you are just a simple lier to be honest.

While "lighter" for comparable protection with conventional armor, ERA can still add significant weight to a vehicle or to the dimensions especially if you begin talking about defeating multiple warheads and high RHA values.

Every type of protection currently used adds significant weight to vehicle. Even active protection systems weight more than 1 metric ton. As for dimensions, most modern ERA kits have dimensions similiar or smaller than composite armor modules of the same purpose.

ERA isn't a magic pill that fixes everything with no downsides or consideration, and for the MBTs of today, it's a mere life support system keeping them alive a little bit longer.

And who said ERA is a magic pill? Oh wait I get it, you create a slogan, and then you fight with this slogan pretending to fight with your adversary in discussion?

As for MBT's, when currently used designs become obsolete, they will be replaced with new MBT's, simple as that. Nobody needs a death traps.

But of course you can ride in to battle in obsolete M113, it is so light, and so cool, and airtransportable, oh wow!:heu:

Aluminum armor which you mention was actually a US first (M113 from 1958). Aluminum is still used a lot, and will continue to be, because while it can provide decent protection (albeit greater thickness than steel is required), it will still reduces overall vehicle weight (~20%) and it spalls less. I can build you an APC that can provide the same protection but weigh less with aluminum compared to steel, and unlike some of the other specialty/novelty alloys, it's affordable, mass producible, and we are not dependent on imports. It also has very favorable oxidation characteristics. The alloys used are structurally very rigid, so the hull can be your frame and you don't need lots of structures on the inside for support. That's why the old M113 or the command post vehicles can have such a nice big open space on the inside. Aluminum isn't a bad material, it has its application/use. Of course, it too can be brought to smolder with enough heat. It's funny when a 113 starts to melt. They look like they are made of chocolate as they slowly melt away.

Ah, I see a Sparky accolite here.:heu:

M113 is obsolete piece of junk, deal with it.

We fight expeditionary wars. We have to get there, and we have to sustain the force once there. These machines have to deal with a broader scope in terrain and mission profiles compared to the Cold War where we knew where we would fight, who we would fight, and generally how we would fight. We could even preposition stuff, rely on the local infrastructure to some extent, in such a scenario.

Again, airtransportability is a myth. The only sollution is to build a dedicated AFV's for airborne troops, and let armor brigades have true MBT's and IFV's that can actually go head on with threats on battlefield and protect their crews.

The relevance of massive armor is becoming more insignificant by the day. An RPG7 from Vietnam had 440mm RHA, today you're dealing with 750mm with precursor and greater behind armor effect. That's a light shoulder fired weapon. Heavy AT systems with bigger and heavier warheads go into the 1200mm. Are you going to armor the hull and turret sides to take that? What about the roof? What about urban or mountainous terrain where someone shoots at you from above into your roof? If we're in a city, a shot into the rear is very likely, it's not like the bad guys will shoot you where you want to be hit. How about we put massive armor on the rear of the tank too? For myself, I would rather sit in an aluminum tank that has ERA and a layered ADS capable of stopping whats coming by way from the sides, roof, or rear when in Baghdad or driving on a mountain road.

Listen, I really don't care about your opinion. If you want to die in alluminium box, then ok, die. But please, give other people a chance to survive ok.

Oh BTW, what do you say about performing a test? I will close you inside alluminium box like M113, and test some RPG's against it, hmmm?:heu:

The proliferation of top attack (TOW2B) and dive attack (Javelin) weapons (there is a difference) is real:

Nope, there is no prolieration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_missile (India)

Nag is one huge failure. Indian Army does not inducted this system in to service, it full of failures and missile itself have a very short range.

And yes, China has a top attack AT system too.

No they don't have such system.

Spain was developing one in conjunction with us, but I guess they went Spike as well. The Israeli's of course. A bunch of Euro nations... "Bill" comes to mind as another one. And the problem is that these things don't just stay with that respective country, they get licensed built or exported.

These system are developed by NATO or EU countries or their close allies. Nothing to worry about, besides they have very weak warheads, easy to defeat by proper armor protection.

How do you think RPG7VRs build in 1994 got into Iraq?

There were no RPG-7VR in Iraq prior 2003 invasion, RPG-7VR and RPG-29V were seen after 2005 in very small numbers, smuggled most likely from Iran as they were seen to be used exclusively by Shiites.

Trying to armor a vehicle all around and making it into a fortress just isn't feasible because of how much armor you would have to apply and most of the legacy MBTs we have cannot stand up to the threat anymore unless you plaster them with ERA.

ERA is then perfect sollution, and it really works, look at "Duplet" ERA tests.

A baseline armor that can take small arms fire through 14.5mm all the way around, 30mm front, 152mm air burst roof, and a 6.5 Kg blast underbelly is the base to work on. This is the shell of the vehicle which might already be adequate for some missions but allows for very easy transport. You can then add additional armor, modular and various types depending on the most likely/dangerous threat.

Idiotic idea to be honest. And modular armor is not the magic pill sollution, in fact modular armor can even be a problem. Did you ever seen how modular armor is mounted to vehicle? In case of Merkava Mk4 it become obvious that it's modular armor is very fragile and prone to damage, much more than more conventional semi modular armor used on NATO MBT's.

What makes the ERA more effective in such a case is that as you stated, the vehicle was designed for it, so the area coverage is great, and the vehicle can deal with the weight gain, there are no obstructions etc. Likewise, the ADS was incorporated in the design, and with enhanced mobility, situational awareness, and reduced signature, you're less likely to get engaged in the first place (In a classical fight, not where you're sitting obviously at a TCP in the middle of the road for hours).

Everything you mention can be installed on MBT as well, and MBT still be better than alluminium coffin you promote so much.

But why should I care, you don't have (thanks god) any impact on decision making, and US Military and many other Armies around the globe decided, screw any type of FCS style program, and develop heavier, better protected vehicles. Everyone also screws this magical air transportability. If USAF itself can't quickly transport a single BCT, then nobody else can.

[Homer]

Damian90,

You are starting to cross the line. Leave the personal attacks out of the discussion.

[Red6]

Comparing battleships with tanks is insane to be honest.

And guess what, many recent accidents suggest that lack of true armor on navy vessels was pure stupidity.

FCS did not also meet any requirements, and requirements changed quickly when USA was mid in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, we won't, there are better solution like, Main Battle Tanks, not tin can coffins. But fo course you can say this to families of dead soldiers, that they died because some fantasy boys imagined that thin skinned vehicle can protect them in battle.

MGV platform did not had any type of advanced armor, neither any sort of modular armor.

I can add active protection systems, and cheap but effective signature reduction solutions like multispectral camouflage nets and paints to a tank, same goes with situational awareness. I do not need a lightweight C-130 transportable coffin for this.

MGV platform was not capable to even provide a reliable protection for it's 60 degree arc. It was a multimilion tin can, noting else. Not to mention that front mounted engine/powerpack is completely inefficent in terms of protection for a tank. Of course unless someone is still dellusioned with Merkava myth.

No, FCS would end as a poor failure, especially after RPG, ATGM or IED attacks with it's non existing armor protection. Air transportability is a myth, even USAF don't have enough transport planes to quickly deploy BCT. As for smaller logistical footprint, give tanks enough fuel efficent engine, and logistical footprint will be reduced, it is that simple.

MBT's however performed their tasks above any expectations, and FCS fantasy was (thanks god) cancelled.

Oh stop with the same stupid text, can we talk like adults? I hate fanboys.

ARAT-2 is just M19 cassette with M32 cassette installed on it. Nothins special here compared with ARAT-1 as you try to say.

There is same or even higher risk for troops when vehicle is equipped with active protection system. Ha, even without APS or ERA, RPG or ATGM exploding is substantial risk to soldiers near vehicle that had been hit. There is no perfect solution.

Wrong. Look at video from "Duplet" ERA tests, no matters what was the angle of hit, ERA provided excellent protection.

Which is? Oh wait, I suppose you don't even know how the most modern ERA works, what is the principle of it's projectile defeating mechanism.

Now you are just a simple lier to be honest.

Every type of protection currently used adds significant weight to vehicle. Even active protection systems weight more than 1 metric ton. As for dimensions, most modern ERA kits have dimensions similiar or smaller than composite armor modules of the same purpose.

And who said ERA is a magic pill? Oh wait I get it, you create a slogan, and then you fight with this slogan pretending to fight with your adversary in discussion?

As for MBT's, when currently used designs become obsolete, they will be replaced with new MBT's, simple as that. Nobody needs a death traps.

But of course you can ride in to battle in obsolete M113, it is so light, and so cool, and airtransportable, oh wow!:heu:

Ah, I see a Sparky accolite here.:heu:

M113 is obsolete piece of junk, deal with it.

Again, airtransportability is a myth. The only sollution is to build a dedicated AFV's for airborne troops, and let armor brigades have true MBT's and IFV's that can actually go head on with threats on battlefield and protect their crews.

Listen, I really don't care about your opinion. If you want to die in alluminium box, then ok, die. But please, give other people a chance to survive ok.

Oh BTW, what do you say about performing a test? I will close you inside alluminium box like M113, and test some RPG's against it, hmmm?:heu:

Nope, there is no prolieration.

Nag is one huge failure. Indian Army does not inducted this system in to service, it full of failures and missile itself have a very short range.

No they don't have such system.

These system are developed by NATO or EU countries or their close allies. Nothing to worry about, besides they have very weak warheads, easy to defeat by proper armor protection.

There were no RPG-7VR in Iraq prior 2003 invasion, RPG-7VR and RPG-29V were seen after 2005 in very small numbers, smuggled most likely from Iran as they were seen to be used exclusively by Shiites.

ERA is then perfect sollution, and it really works, look at "Duplet" ERA tests.

Idiotic idea to be honest. And modular armor is not the magic pill sollution, in fact modular armor can even be a problem. Did you ever seen how modular armor is mounted to vehicle? In case of Merkava Mk4 it become obvious that it's modular armor is very fragile and prone to damage, much more than more conventional semi modular armor used on NATO MBT's.

Everything you mention can be installed on MBT as well, and MBT still be better than alluminium coffin you promote so much.

But why should I care, you don't have (thanks god) any impact on decision making, and US Military and many other Armies around the globe decided, screw any type of FCS style program, and develop heavier, better protected vehicles. Everyone also screws this magical air transportability. If USAF itself can't quickly transport a single BCT, then nobody else can.

The M1 and M2 use aluminum as well. What do you think the inner hull is made of? Because Aluminum spalls less, but still adds some ballistic protection, it is used extensively in US armor designs.

Frankly, there are some modern versions of the M113 that do fairly well, i.e. Israeli versions. http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/m-113/M-113_.html There is a need for a battlefield taxicab (commo/command post, ambulance, etc), and FCS would have replaced that as well. Imagine the same engine, same track, same road wheels, sprockets, control systems, transmissions on all vehicles, while having less fuel consumption and better self diagnostics. Imagine even the FCS ambulance can take a volley fire of three RPGs to one side and likely fend it all off. Imagine a vehicle that can easily be recovered if mired, able to cross most bridges, that if a fight breaks out in Tikrit, Karbala, or Najef can quickly be loaded onto aircraft and flown there, not requiring to be HETT transported. Imagine being able to really move tanks around in battle space and not have to deal with the trouble we had in Iraq opening a Northern Front and flying tanks in from Germany (2003). Imagine a vehicle that is capable of keeping up with a convoy from Kuwait to Baghdad, and that can drive patrols through a city without requiring track to be replaced constantly.

You can believe what you want about ARAT2. Enough said.

The Merkava is an excellent tank for what the Israeli's need. A defensive tank, and dealing with IEDs already a long way back, this tank was designed to deal with certain threats better than an M1, or Leo. The tank isn't invincible, but it is more capable in dealing with IED threats, the mortar is nice, fighting from berms/entrenchments hull down, that turret is an incredible design. The M1 was based on a mobile defense in Western Europe and was originally designed to be an armor destroyer. Every aspect of that tank was optimized with that purpose in mind: you can out range day and night, shoot faster, swing the turret quicker, from the front take a direct hit, but able to punch holes into them if you can see them at near any range, dual target engagement (50 cal AP and main gun)... The M1 was not designed for much else and in 1985/6 (end of Cold War) when the M1A1 came out, the potential of this tank vs. the threat was near grotesque. So off the charts was the level of protection that rumored values were discounted as propaganda, or fiction. But... how many T-72s did the M1 chase in June 2003 - June 2011 in Iraq? Even during the combat phase in Iraq, how many real tank on tank engagements were there? How many T-72s has the M1 engaged in Afghanistan since 2001? How many tank battles were there in Somalia, the Balkans, Liberia, Columbia, East Timor?

The MGS was designed around the concept of mountable modular armor, yes it was. Like Indian top attack weapons, or RPGs that defeat ERA designed for tandem warheads, you can even find this doing a simple Google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System

"The basic hull of the M8 is made of welded aluminum alloy, with a unique modular armoring system that allows the vehicle to be equipped according to requirements. The Level I (basic) armor package is designed for the rapid deployment role and can be airdropped from a C-130 Hercules and protects the vehicle against small-arms fire and shell splinters. The Level II armor package can still be carried by C-130, but must be airlanded and is designed for use by light forces in a more serious threat environment, while level III armor is designed for contingency operations and is supposed to provide protection against light handheld anti-tank weapons. Level III armor cannot be carried by C-130. All versions are air-transportable by C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III (five and three respectively)." Wikipedia

If you can't find anything on Chinese top attack ATGMs, disregard I ever said it. I'm not an expert, make no decisions and haven't read a tank book, so I am likely wrong. I'm just a dummy in mid Texas somewhere.

The reason why it was believed that Kornet was in Iraq, was because early on there were already hits by advanced warheads, knowing Iraq had tried to procure Kornet, and having certain sensors go off that was an early deduction. Wrong deduction, no Kornet. These were advanced RPGs that were in Iraq before they ever plowed the berms and uncoiled to head North. So while more advanced stuff was surely brought in later, some of these nasties were there from day one. If you do some more google searches, you should be able to find where 1AD had an M1 get penetrated early on already, hull right side, injuring gunners leg (2BDE 1AD).

The best armored vehicle is the one you have available to do the job. A super tank that arrives after the fight, you don't have enough of, is difficult to logistically support, or is a one trick horse, isn't ideal.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Red6

[Damian90]

The M1 and M2 use aluminum as well. What do you think the inner hull is made of? Because Aluminum spalls less, but still adds some ballistic protection, it is used extensively in US armor designs.

M1 does not use alluminium as armor, only some components to save weight. In case of M2, currently we know that decision to use alluminium and make vehicle such light initially (25 metric tons) was a mistake. M2 should be slightly longer, and made from steel. Amphibious capability was not nececary.

Frankly, there are some modern versions of the M113 that do fairly well, i.e. Israeli versions. http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...13/M-113_.html

Israelis are replacing M113 with heavy Merkava based Namer. per Israeli requirements, M113 is obsolete, does not meet protection requirements.

There is a need for a battlefield taxicab (commo/command post, ambulance, etc), and FCS would have replaced that as well. Imagine the same engine, same track, same road wheels, sprockets, control systems, transmissions on all vehicles, while having less fuel consumption and better self diagnostics.

This is why US Army will replace M113 with AMPV which will be a tracked variant of Stryker, or new variant of M2.

As for commonality, fuel efficency, self diagnostics, everythign that I can do with other platforms.

Imagine even the FCS ambulance can take a volley fire of three RPGs to one side and likely fend it all off. Imagine a vehicle that can easily be recovered if mired, able to cross most bridges, that if a fight breaks out in Tikrit, Karbala, or Najef can quickly be loaded onto aircraft and flown there, not requiring to be HETT transported. Imagine being able to really move tanks around in battle space and not have to deal with the trouble we had in Iraq opening a Northern Front and flying tanks in from Germany (2003). Imagine a vehicle that is capable of keeping up with a convoy from Kuwait to Baghdad, and that can drive patrols through a city without requiring track to be replaced constantly.

I imagine and I see... a death trap to it's crews?

You can believe what you want about ARAT2. Enough said.

I don't believe, I know.

The Merkava is an excellent tank for what the Israeli's need.

No it is not. Front mounted engine was choosen by Israel Tal as a mean to create simple spaced armor. This is because Merkava was allways a very primitive tank when it comes to protection technology. When Merkava Mk1 was fielded it had more primitive and worse protection than T-72's sold by WarPac and Soviet Union to Arab countries. Israelis started to work on modern protection for Merkava in late 1980's to early 1990's. But due to overall tank design, it was possible to place composite armor only on turret. Front hull have weaker protection than any other today used tank.

A defensive tank, and dealing with IEDs already a long way back, this tank was designed to deal with certain threats better than an M1, or Leo. The tank isn't invincible, but it is more capable in dealing with IED threats, the mortar is nice, fighting from berms/entrenchments hull down, that turret is an incredible design. The M1 was based on a mobile defense in Western Europe and was originally designed to be an armor destroyer. Every aspect of that tank was optimized with that purpose in mind: you can out range day and night, shoot faster, swing the turret quicker, from the front take a direct hit, but able to punch holes into them if you can see them at near any range, dual target engagement (50 cal AP and main gun)... The M1 was not designed for much else and in 1985/6 (end of Cold War) when the M1A1 came out, the potential of this tank vs. the threat was near grotesque. So off the charts was the level of protection that rumored values were discounted as propaganda, or fiction. But... how many T-72s did the M1 chase in June 2003 - June 2011 in Iraq? Even during the combat phase in Iraq, how many real tank on tank engagements were there? How many T-72s has the M1 engaged in Afghanistan since 2001? How many tank battles were there in Somalia, the Balkans, Liberia, Columbia, East Timor?

M1 and Leopard 2 is a better tanks than Merkava.

Analize designs, I don't see anything great about Merkava, even Soviets many times analized it's design, conclusions were allways the same, front mounted engine creates huge weak protection zone, and creates inefficent design.

The MGS was designed around the concept of mountable modular armor, yes it was. Like Indian top attack weapons, or RPGs that defeat ERA designed for tandem warheads, you can even find this doing a simple Google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System

"The basic hull of the M8 is made of welded aluminum alloy, with a unique modular armoring system that allows the vehicle to be equipped according to requirements. The Level I (basic) armor package is designed for the rapid deployment role and can be airdropped from a C-130 Hercules and protects the vehicle against small-arms fire and shell splinters. The Level II armor package can still be carried by C-130, but must be airlanded and is designed for use by light forces in a more serious threat environment, while level III armor is designed for contingency operations and is supposed to provide protection against light handheld anti-tank weapons. Level III armor cannot be carried by C-130. All versions are air-transportable by C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III (five and three respectively)." Wikipedia

Ah Wikipedia. I don't if I should laugh or... well.:heu:

If you can't find anything on Chinese top attack ATGMs, disregard I ever said it. I'm not an expert, make no decisions and haven't read a tank book, so I am likely wrong. I'm just a dummy in mid Texas somewhere.

I can't find something that does not exist. This is one of the bascis of logical thinking. And yes, you are definetely not expert.

The reason why it was believed that Kornet was in Iraq, was because early on there were already hits by advanced warheads, knowing Iraq had tried to procure Kornet, and having certain sensors go off that was an early deduction. Wrong deduction, no Kornet. These were advanced RPGs that were in Iraq before they ever plowed the berms and uncoiled to head North. So while more advanced stuff was surely brought in later, some of these nasties were there from day one. If you do some more google searches, you should be able to find where 1AD had an M1 get penetrated early on already, hull right side, injuring gunners leg (2BDE 1AD).

There were no advanced RPG's, there were no "Kornet" ATGM's in Iraq in 2003. PG-7VR granades and RPG-29V with PG-29V granades appeared much later.

And yes I know the story of that M1, some naive people believed it was a railgun. A typical opinion of people that do not have any knowledge on vehicles armor protection or armor piercing ammunitions.

It was a simple RPG that hit where armor is thinner.

The best armored vehicle is the one you have available to do the job. A super tank that arrives after the fight, you don't have enough of, is difficult to logistically support, or is a one trick horse, isn't ideal.

First thing, there are no best armored vehicles. There are no super tanks or super lightweight vehicles that can do everything. There is nothing ideal.

MGV platform designed within FCS would not be as it was advertized.

It's armor protection was weak. Active protection systems are not perfect either and are not capable to intercept all threats. There is no such thing as absolute situational awareness to avoid contact with enemy.

Not to mention that MGV platform had over serious flaws in it's design, which would make it less safe for crews (why it surprises me, afterall it was BAE design!) and also would increase platforms costs and complexcity due to idiotic fashion for modularity. Germans have the same problem with MRAV Boxer, it was also designed as modular, with replaceable mission modules. But when poduction started it become obvious that vehicle builded in one configuration, stays in that configuration for it's whole service life. So why mission modules and modularity that made vehicle more expensive and complex, decreasing maintainability.

These are problems completely unknown to politicians and fans of FCS like programs.

[Froggy]

And yes, you are definetely not expert.

because you are?

May be you should be part of the Poland Armor Design Office, no, sorry, the World Armor Design Office, as you seem to know better than every engineer how to design tank for all country.

May be it time to calm down and keep your überknowledge for India Defense forum experts debates.

[Damian90]

because you are?

Did I said so?

May be you should be part of the Poland Armor Design Office, no, sorry, the World Armor Design Office, as you seem to know better than every engineer how to design tank for all country.

Many of my conclusions are based on logic and common sense. If something does not works then it does not works.

As I said, air transportability and lightweight platforms is a myth. If USAF is not capable to quickly transport a single armor-mechanized BCT or any type of BCT, then nobody is, and there is really no sense in to making everything lightweight and fittable in to C-130 or A400M.

So this further backs up my opinion that Future Combat Systems program was a mistake, a very expensive mistake.

Same goes for MGV platform survivability. Faith that active protection systems are capable to provide enough protection is very blind faith, and scientific research does not support this faith either.

Soviets were the first ones to actually design active protection systems, and their conclusions were very interesting. For example observed phenomena that even if RPG or ATGM was intercepted, there was still big enough chance that shaped charge jet would form or partially form and pose a threat to weakly protected platforms or even older tanks.

Other problem was how to protect against APFSDS ammunition. Up to this day there is no active protection system capable to reliably protect against APFSDS, and there are other types of ammunition dangerous to lightweight platforms.

Let's take for example M1069 AMP round. During tests this programmable HE round was capable to defeat in armor piercing mode side turret armor of T-55 tank, this is approx 100-150mm of cast armor steel. IMHO a very good result for such type of ammunition.

This further immplies that lightweight platforms are not suitable to replace MBT's or heavier IFV's, because can be at least disabled by much wider spectrum of threats.

Another point is situational awareness, I think the biggest weakness of FCS like programs. Every such program very optimistically assumes that it will be possible to achieve complete, total situational awareness... it is seriously naive thinking.

And we can see a 180 degrees turn in thinking at least by US Army after Iraq and when Afghanistan is close to end. Force protection is very important. Every type of vehicle used actually increases in weight due to need for better protection, be it tracked or wheeled.

And there are more conclussions. Old AFV's like M113 become obsolete, it is problematic to increase their survivability, so slowly these are withdrawn from service and replaced by better vehicles. What is interesting and we might observe this is that mostly these new multipurpose APC's can be based on turretless heavier IFV chassis.

Ok let's get back to Europe, for example Russia, and I think Russians show here the biggest common sense.

To replace are currently used battlefield platforms, they decided to build 3 modular platforms for different applications.

BTR series will be replaced by bigger, heavier, better protected "Boomerang" platform in various versions.

BMP and BMD series will be replaced by medium tracked platform "Kurgantes-25", which in most basic configuration would weigh 25 tons. With additional armor packages and different unmanned weapon modules, weight can also increase or decrease.

And then there is also heavy tracked platform "Armata" in two different configurations. Configuration 1 is mainly developed for new MBT, it have a rear mounted powerpack, unmanned turret and crew placed in front hull, in isolated compartment behind massive front armor. Configuration 2 is developed for heavy IFV and APC, and other applications that need front mounted powerpack. It is very logical solution, and in some ways is very similiar to Armored Systems Modernization program developed for US Army in late 1980's to early 1990's untill Soviet Union collapsed.

"Armata" weight will depends on configuration, armament modules and protection, but it is estimated that weight my vary from 40 metric tons to 65 metric tons. Which means that also due to it's very compact design most armor will be concentrated on hull only, as turret is unmanned and treated as expandable and easy replacable module. A very high protection levels will be achieved, most likely a more conventional designs are not capable to achieve such protection without reaching weight that would be absurd.

This is also a turn of 180 degrees from previous doctrine to use lightly armored but amphibious and easy air transportable platforms like BTR's, BMP's and BMD's. Tough obviously "Boomerang" and "Kurganets" will have a lighter amphibious variants, and there is known proposed variant of short "Kurganets" that is speculated to be a proposal for BMD replacement.

I could also talk a lot about UMPG modular tracked platform program here in Poland, that aims to develop something similiar to Russian "Kurganets". And there is also a big struggle for what weight it should have. What is interesting tough, a lighter variant that was also amphibious, did not received acceptance, and a heavier variant with basic weight of 30-35 tons is in development.

May be it time to calm down and keep your überknowledge for India Defense forum experts debates.

Maybe we can discuss using arguments, and logic? And use also facts not wishfull thinking? In my opinion it is far better than saying that a cancelled, non existing vehicle is better because "I think so"?

[Grenny]

Oh no, not that again. SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET! :-D

You will not come to a conclusion if you question the opponents credibility and you can not back up your own point unless you break classification rules.

So, keep it civil...it only spoils the atmosphere here.

[Damian90]

You will not come to a conclusion if you question the opponents credibility and you can not back up your own point unless you break classification rules.

Well I back up my point with credible sources, unless of course you want to say that engineers designing stuff like ERA are not credible, and more credible than them is Wikipedia?

Not to mention that what we talk here about is not classified. If you search for informations about Soviet, or Russiand and Ukrainian developments, search for Otvaga2004 site and BTVT site, there is a lot of usefull and very interesting informations.

There is also a lot of documents that can be found in internet if you search carefully. My friend found a lot of armor symposium documents where efficency of modern yet simple and reliable protection means were presented, and as well mentioned build in dynamic protection for Leopard 1 tanks that I mentione dearlier.

So, keep it civil...it only spoils the atmosphere here.

But I keep it civil.

It is however hard to accept untruths like flammability of ERA, when I have just in front of me scientific book written by proffesional engineer that designed such protection, where there is clearly written and backed up by photographic documentation that ERA is not flammable at all.

During tests it did not exploded, neither burned in any violent way. What was observed only in extreme case, that a small part of explosive filler leaded from it's casette.

There are also credible sources showing that there is ERA capable to reliably protect from tandem HEAT wahreads at any angle of attack. Which furthers backups my claims and not Red6 that ERA is "cat and mouse game", which is not.

[lavictoireestlavie]

http://btvt.narod.ru/ and http://otvaga2004.ru/ can indeed be pretty informative. :cool3: