Damian90

So what that they know? These photos are not avaiable in the internet, so they can know, I doubt that ever people will be able to see them in nearest future. Besides this, what I said does not contradicts official statements of manufacturers that such ammunition can penetrate such targets. I decided it is valuable to share such information. What is wrong in asking a lot of questions? A lot of people ask question, and people to which such questions are asked are willing or not to answer. Can someone believe me? Nobody needs to, it doesn't matter. As for blow off panels, it is still not certain if there are blow off panels in the belly or not, avaiable photographs and video materials does not provide clear answer, but this is not a subject of this discussion.

Talking about things is not breaking OPSEC, and I do not have this photos, as I said, I would break OPSEC if I would show them or say something more detailed about the whole penetration process, I didn't. Which can't be said about some soldiers making photos of damaged tanks with classified armor visible, and spreading them through internet. So you can believe me or not, I shared this informations as it might be interesting, besides, this information without photos, does not endanger Germany, NATO as a whole, and Russians are perfectly aware that NATO tested their tanks. But it seems that, even when sharing interesting informations, without breaking OPSEC, might result in attacks... hmmm

Yes, I seen photos (if you have contacts, you might have opprotunity to see some interesting photos from time to time). The test was performed by using DM53 and older penetrator that was or DM33 or DM43, I think it is more probabale to be the latter although it was not directly described. The target was T-80U front turret armor cutout with Kontakt-5 + witness plate placed behind. However as I said, I promised to not keep or copy these photos to not brake OPSEC, I can only talk about this, afterall I do not spread such photos, so you can believe me or not, it is irrelevant for me, as I know what I had seen, so... you know.

Yes, but even older rounds were barely stoped.

MRM-KE/CE maximum range would be 12,000m. However it seems that development had been postponed due to budget cuts and now priority have M829A4 and new multipurpose programmable HE round called AMP that is intended to replace M830, M830A1, M908 and M1028.

Sorry, I can't post photos, first because it is still OPSEC, second because I promiss to not keep and spread such things, otherwise I would not be abale to see such interesting things from time to time. I can only mention such things. As for more details, that T-80U turret armor, was to be more precise a cut out from the turret with K-5 modules installed on it, it was not the whole turret. As far as I know, USA, UK, Germany and France after the collapse of Soviet Union, had a great shopping time in all former soviet republics, I know that a lot more stuff had been purchased more or less legally (probably it is less ) that it is officialy admitted.

I actually seen some photos from a German tests against T-80U front turret armor protected by Kontakt-5. Test was performed against DM33 or DM43 and against DM53. What was interesting, the older penetrator was barely stopped by whole armor package, there was approx 80mm of armor left. The DM53 not only was completely not affected by Kontakt-5, and completely perforated whole armor package, but also had enough kinetic energy to perforate witness plate placed behind. What is interesting is that all sources about American tests does not mention that Americans tested M829A1 against K-5 protected tanks, only older M829 is mentioned, which gives reason to rethink some things.

I know from a person that have contacts among Royal Armoured Corps. I think we also discussed this on TankNet forums few months ago. However with 74 metric tons weight, a 1,200HP engine, the vehicle is highly underpowered, even in basic configuration, Challenger 2 is underpowered. This is because any engine, loose some of it's power for cooling, on transmission etc. If I remember correctly on TankNet one of the well informed British users, said that suspension also starts to have problems, especially in rough terrain. As for Merkava, sorry but no, seems that Israelis like to keep real weight of their tanks in secret... which is smart though.

@lavictoireestlavie As far as I know, the Challenger 2 with the latest TES(H) - Theater Entry Standard (Herrick) up-armor kit weights ~74 metric tons.

Hmmm, it is strange then. You know what I will check it again in that article. Yup, there is a photo from Leopard Training Center in Poznań, showing soldiers using SB PRO as caption under photo says. The article is in Nowa Technika Wojskowa magazine, number 1/2010, and article title is Ośrodek Szkolenia Leopard - Rozwój Mimo Kryzysu written by Eugeniusz Żygulski. There is a lot of training equipment from Bundeswhere. AAT's and ASPT's, and that SB PRO software.

Sorry for late response. Polish Army recived SB Pro probably from German Army with all these training aids for Leopard 2A4 tanks. Software is used in Leopard Training Center placed in Poznan. I seen it in one of articles about Leopard Training Center in one of Polish Military magazines. However I do not know what version of software is used, neither I do not know on what agreement it was sent to our army. Some things are just beyond what civilian can know, and I do not have contacts in 10th Armored Cavalry Brigade.

Poland is a former Warsaw Pact country, and we use Steel Beasts PRO in Leopard Training Center for our Leopard 2 crews.

Really? Then the whole world must be very amusing, especially good sources about veicles protection are definetly very amusing. Feel free to use arguments backed up by good sources and knowledge to counter my arguments. Trying to be realistic does not mean it is realistic, there is a difference. Poland. http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/era.html Vasily Fofanov site might help a bit, but it is old so, some informations might not be up to date. There are many different types of ERA. Also remember that composite armor such as Burlington are NERA type armor, so it works very similiar to ERA but without use of explosives and have multi hit capabilities. If I remember correct designers in our country with preatty limited funds were able to design NERA package for BRDM-2, that have at least 1,5 more efficency than steel armor. I do not remember exact data, need to find it.

There are more differences. In fact there are 3 types of turrets used. Type 1 used on M1, Type 2 used on M1IP that have thicker front armor, but for example blow off panels are same as on M1, and Type 3 used in M1A1 and M1A2 with thicker front armor and different blow off panels. So I do noth think it is just so easy to add new tank as something fully playable.

Yes because it is still rather simple (yet more accurate than other) computer program. If You would want to have proper armor simulation then You would need programs used by design bureaus working on armor and projectiles. But such specialized programs are definetly not good... entertiment. Watch this video made by NII Stali about ERA, there is a fragment where they show computer simulation of heavy ERA against APFSDS penetrator. NII Stali is design institute working on armor protection of vehicles, so they definetly use proper computer program to make simulations. It is not bad or wrong. It is just good to know difference between reality and computer program that was not designed as armor and projectile simulator, but was designed to simulate reality as close as possible but due to lack fo complete data, can't achieve this goal completely. Thus Ssnake mentions it many times that there are simplifications, that some things are not completely simulated etc. I'am calm. Only You arguments are... amusing. I don't think that such games are even close in vehicles performance, even to compared to SB Pro PE. But history of T-64 in corelation to history of T-72 and T-80 is very interesting and it is worth to learn about it, both from Kharkiv sources, Nizhny Tagil sources and Leningrad/Omsk sources.

Sorry for the second post, it just did not accepted more than 1,000 letters. It is funny because Leopard 2A5/A6 have the same armor thickness of turret as Leopard 2A4, they just added external wedge shaped NERA modules. Same goes for Merkava Mk4 and Mk3, Mk4 do not have much bigger turret, and Merkava series armor itself is not very thick, but extremely angled. It is because these tanks have inefficent design when it come sto weight and size, so installation of composite armor as thick as on NATO tanks will make Merkava tanks incredibly heavy. As I said, You seems to know very little about explosive reactive armor. See above photos from "Knife" tests. Design done by "poor" Ukrainians can ashame some western countries. As for these estimations tables... I know one thing, trying to make estimations of specific armor design protection level, is immposible without complete data. So long time ago me and my buddies that are making research on armor protection, left such attempts as pointless waste of time. BTW: Collins site "Tank Protection Levels" seems nice, but everything there is far from reality, some designs are overestimated, some are underestimated. It is good for people that start their research on vehicles armor protection... but when You learn more and You realize how little You actually know, these estimations are looking just silly.

And what makes You think that outer and back plates made from steel are also not part of composite armor? Soviets decreased thickness of the frontal armor package in T-64A with 2nd generation Combination K compared to T-64 with 1st generation Combination K, this is a fact. Also You should notice that what actually You read in open sources about Burlington vel Chobham or composite armors in general is merely disinformation, as I said earlier, most descriptions of such type of armor are far from what we could see on photos. I allready said. Americans altered design of Burlington (and remember that this is a more proper codename than media created Chobham) several times, why they could not completely replace it with something newer and more efficent in the second half of 80's and in the 1990's? Not to mention that M1A2 use older generation armor than M1A2SEP. You are making conclusions based on a computer program that not nececary, despite it's creators best efforts, is best to simulate how composite armor working mechanism looks in real life? We know today that Burlington and it's "bastard childs" are more closer in design to NERA, thus they are reactive type of armor, and I think even Ssnake mentioned that SB do not simulate ERA, so how can You be sure it can properly simulate NERA type armor? Do You even know what happens with APFSDS penetrator when it hits such type of armor? It is not that such armor just stops projectile, but start to bend it, yaw it, break it in to pieces. Do You take in to account that how DU is placed in armor is unknown? Do You take in to consideration that nobody knows even in what type of steel it is encased? We do not know how DU is cooperating with other materials, how many layers of DU is in armor, how rest of armor looks like and how it works. There is so many unknowns, SB might not even properly simulate this. Making conclusions about vehicle protection based on computer program is rather... frivolous. Do You even know how angled is lower front hull plate in M1 series? Definetly less than in T-xx series, but is more bulkier, can hold more composite armor that probably have characeristics described by me above. Not to mention that M1 series have probably the best designed front hull in terms of vehicle protection. Some upgrades and redesign could be usefull yet still, it is in my opinion the best one in classic tank design... as good or better probably have only Object 187. You are British? As for Challenger 2, it is very overestimated tank as I seen on SB Wiki. In fact compared to other tanks it should be rather less protected, or at least comparable in that due to it's partially outdated protection. From photos I had seen, the backplate of Dorchester armor on turret front is made by using cast plates. As I said Russians sources are providing such informations. Cast steel armor of the same thickness and hardness as it's rolled analog will be from 5 to 15 % less protective. Challenger 2 front turret backplates are cast, and there is no reason why Dorchester should be better than composite armor developed by other nations. And unless it is some special design from Hogwart, then there is no real reason to assume it is better. Maybe against threats that were suspected to appear in late 1980's and early 1990's. Try to think twice. Again can I ask what is Your actuall knowledge on vehicles protection? There are different types of Explosive Reactive Armor. Light ERA optimized against HEAT and Heavy or Universal ERA that can protect against KE threats. Very interesting example here is for example Ukrainian "Knife" and it's layered version "Duplet". Such ERA is not based on explosive filler between two steel plates, but is based on shaped charges. While ERA like 4S22 Kontakt-5 was designed to break, bend, yaw penetrator, "Knife" and "Duplet" literally cut penetrator or shaped charge jet from HEAT projectile in to pieces. Seems to be rather efficent protection. I assume too much? And who base his knowledge on computer program, when even it's creators say that it is not perfect, and what is simulated there is pure assumption based on their best knowledge. Not to mention that You seems to have very limited knowledge even about ERA. ERA used on M1 series is effect of cooperation between GDLS, Raphael and... NII Stali a Russian institute that design vehicles protection, among many design they are working on ERA also. Actually M19 ARAT-1 and M32 ARAT-2 cassettes are very modern type of light ERA. M19 use several internal layers of reactive elements + with M32 attached as additional ERA layer it can provide really high degree of protection with minimal weight increase. Why You place here Merkava? Merkava series are preatty weak protected vehicles from the front due to very thin, mostly steel only front hull armor. Merkava Mk1 and Mk2 didn't even had advanced composite armor (which was a reason why General Tal choose design with engine at front, to create sort of simple spaced armor). As for Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, as I said, CR2 in SB seems to be overestimated, while it's protection in reality is not very high. Also these tanks have serious and actually huge weak zone in lower front hull. Accident with RPG-29 shown it perfectly, and that British ROMOR-A ERA was not efficent against such threat, while lower front hull is just simple steel armor plate, probably not thicker than ~100mm. As for Leopard 2, I think somewhere earlier I posted something about it's protection. Of course because in Your world improving armor by using different composition of materials can't improve protection. It is interesting to see such claims from a person that do not have good knowledge about vehicles protection and base it's opinion on external apperance of discussed design.

Then You only prooves that Your knowledge about modern composite armors is not very good, isn't it? Great example here is Object 432/T-64 and Object 434/T-64A. The improvement in Combination K composite armor, especially in turret, allowed designers to increase protection of T-64A while in the same time they reduced thickness of turret front armor to decrease weight increase. Think about that. Did You actually done any tests between different composite armors used on different tanks to make such statements? Or this is typical "because I think so, it must be so!"? I completely not understand this... Adding some cm's of steel actually might help, if You are using proper steel. Good example here is even difference between cast and rolled steel plates. Russians sources says that cast armor element of the same thickness and hardness is by 5 to even 15 % less protective than it's rolled analog. No think about different types of armor steel, You can add simple RHA, but why not SHS? Maybe HHS, maybe THS. Ukrainians seems to be very proud that they use ESR (Electro Slag Remelted) steel in their BM "Oplot" and they claim that it is better steel that adds more protection than steel used by Russians for their T-90A's turrets. Do not underestimate details that at first look are insignificant, because in reality they might be very important. And wy You think that hull front in M1 series do not have enough space? Me and my friend some time ago had messurements on real Leopard 2, then we compared Leopard 2 size with M1 and thanks to internal photos of M1 were able to estimate it's armor thickness. ~600-650mm for front hull "beak" where composite armor is placed, definetly don't look as not enough space, especially that Leopard 2 have comparable armor thickness in the same place. As for hull sides, in all modern MBT's thickness there is not something special. M1 hull sides are over crew compartment ~60-70mm thick (more probably 60mm), over engine compartment and where suspension is installed it is ~40mm thick. Leopard 2 hull sides are: Behind overtrack sponson with fuel tanks up to 60mm, over crew compartment 40mm, engine compartment and supension installation points 20mm thick. T-72 is ~80mm over crew compartment and ~70mm over engine compartment. For all these without side skirts. Improved mine protection is achieved by use of bolt on addon armor from C-IED kit (part of TUSK kit). What makes You think that front hull armor do not have depleted Uranium? Besides this don't be so overhyped with DU when You seems to not understand how it is placed in armor and how it works. Side hull armor can't be upgraded in any tank due to weight and size restrictions. Side skirts can be improved by use of composite armor modules or dynamic protection. If nearly ~400mm thick composite armor cavity means not enough space then...:cul: I think You completely not understand against what threats, hitting tank at what angles side turret armor was designed. Not to mention that M1A1HA is old. Even official US sources says clearly that both M1A1SA and M1A2SEP have upgraded side and frontal protection. I seen video of M1A1SA that survived RPG-29 hit in hull front armor. What makes You think that protection is not good there? See document above. Now think twice before You start to make unreasonable conclusions. Good example here are Soviets and their problems with front hull protection against 105mm M111 Hetz APFSDS. What was their solution? Just to weld additional 16-30mm thick plate to the glacis, and tank was once again immune for such ammunition hitting glacis. So this was a significant redesign or not my friend? Especially that external appareance of non upgrade and upgraded tanks was not very different. My recommendation to You is to look after good literature about this subject. You might also read TankNet forums for example.

As far as open sources can say, there were several upgrades in M1 series armor protection. The basic M1 used a slightly redesigned Burlington armor (popurarly known as Chobham, but it appears that correct codename is Burlington), sometimes it is described as similiar or same to armor configuration tested by BRL under codename BRL-1. M1IP (Improved Performance) and M1A1 use improved version of the original americanized Burlington, some sources claims it might be the same improved armor configuration tested by BRL under condename BRL-2. Also front turret armor was thickened by approx ~220-230mm compared to original M1. M1A1HA use new type of armor, based but probably not directly connected to Burlington. Sometimes it is reffered as 1st generation DU armor but this is definetly misunderstanding or even lack of understanding how DU is placed in armor. The key word to this is "steel encased", this can mean that Americans tried to combine high density of DU with most probably SHS (Semi Hardness Steel), HHS (High Hardness Steel) or even THS (Triple Hardness Steel) steel plates. In such configuration this probably can really boost protection against both kinetic energy and chemical energy projectiles. Another important factor is that contrary to what most of sources claims Burlington (Chobham) design is rather far from popularly described ceramic tiles in honeycomb structure. Burlington design is definetly more closer to Non Energetic Reactive Armor. Russians describe it as Semi-Active Armor. In sources about Burlington development, the exact working mechanisms of armor are described as yaw, bending, increasing erosion, changing penetration path and one that is misterious, "whistle effect"... don't ask me what it is, I have no idea to be honest. M1A2 used 2nd generation of that armor but details are unknown. It is also probable that later production batches of M1A1HA, the M1A1HC, M1A1D also recived such upgraded armor. We can assume that frontal protection of newest M1 variants (M1A1SA, M1A2SEP and probably also M1A1FEP) with the latest 3rd generation of that new armor, is not worser than other comparable MBT's. You think that changes in Leopard 2 series after KWS-2 program are much more significant? Germans just positioned main sight higher than it was and in the old sight window, welded steel plate to cover it. But weak zone, of course reduced, is unfortunetly still existing there. They also redesigned main gun mantle to increase it's protection. And I'am 100% sure that You don't even know that in case of Leopard 2 tanks, just directly in front of gunner face, there is a hole in armor for EMES-15 optical channel. This is turret of Greek Leopard 2A6HEL, so definetly one of the most modern variants. I'am not sure if I would feel comfortably in this machine knowing about such design solutions. Turret of M1A1/M1A2 series have sight going completely through turret roof, so there is no weak zone in front armor. In a book Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank 1987-2006 by Simon Dunstan, it is written that during trails in UK for Chieftain/Challenger replacement, British Army had very negative opinion about such main sight placement, and finally decided that closest to their ideal is M1A1, becaus it's lacks such front armor design that in their words ended as "low integrity of frontal protection". Also the wedge armor on newer Leopard 2's front turret surface, are just NERA screens that acts very similiar to for example 4S22 Kontakt-5. The advantage of such screens aganst Kontakt-5 is that they are multihit capable, however the known disadvantage of NERA compared to ERA is that single layer of NERA is less effective than single layer of ERA, thus it is better to use NERA in form of thick, bulky and heavy modules. So when definetly it is hard to say anything detailed about modern MBT's protection, definetly it is rather naive to think that because of lack of significant external changes protection was not improved, or that because such external changes are significant that protection is definetly better.

Sorry for a second post, I just can't place all photos in a single one. In M1 series both turret ammo magazines are isolated and have blow off panels: Also hull ammunition magazine in M1 series have blast doors and blow off panels, although photos are difficult to find. I hope that this is clear enough.

Hull ammunition magazine in Leopard 2 do not have blast doors neither blow off panels: Turret ammunition magazine in Leopard 2 have blast doors and blow off panels:

AFAIK all Leopard 2 variants besides newest A7 variant, have the same 1st generation thermal in gunner main sight. In A5 and A6 only TC thermal was more modern.

Well, I don't know if LAHAT is comparable with KSTAM, I think that XM1111 MRM-CE is more comparable with it's autonomous IR seeker. However MRM is still not ready for production AFAIK.

Not always crew have such comfortable situation thatthey can retreat. I've only seen ERA (similiar to American one) presented by South Koreans on some graphics of K2 PIP. But if there will be NERA modules, I wonder how they will be placed on turret sides, if they will be instead of storage boxes, or on storage boxes creating rather big standoff from turret basic armor. As for South Korean ammunition... it might be good against North Korean and Chinese tanks, but something with a good composite or reactive armor on roof will have higher survivability against EFP warheads. IMHO GLATGM with HEAT warhead and top attack mode is a better idea.

So it is GLATGM? or something more similiar to STAFF? And it is allready avaiable for normal use, or still under development? Definetly the advantage of this round is a fact that it is based on allready avaiable components from different type of ammunition, so it's reduce time, risk and costs in R&D phase compared to completely new ammunition like XM1111 MRM-CE... however MRM-CE offers longer range, very advanced targeting system and HEAT warhead, what KSTAM-II have? Something like EFP warhead? HEAT have more potential that EFP, especially when it comes to attack tanks with composite or ERA on turret roof. Ok but think about the numbers, if turret will allways direct itself towards enemy that use laser range finder, or laser marker, then system can just go crazy. How many laser "shots" can be on the battlefield in a full scale war? No to mention that such system can just make a mess with engaging targets, this might be a reason why NATO designers did not bothered with LWR on tanks and just ignored such device. And remember that if a computer system reacts to laser "shot" and travers turret, it also exposes weak zone for another foe. It's not the best way to overcome this problem. Even in open field such APS with limited number of interceptors might just not handle with a number of enemy munitions flying towards a tank. Yeah I like the suspension idea. Even GDLS and US Army want to have such suspension for the next upgrade for M1 tanks, IRCC they choose one of suspension systems developed by L3 company.