General Protection

[Major Victory]

hello,

I am a newbee on this forum and a beginner on the steel beasts gold edition and balkans on fire systems. I wanted to ask if tanks are truly as well protected as people, governments and propaganda claim they are ex.

The Leo2a4 has a side hull RHAe of 70mm (Janes Armour 2005, Paul Lakowski)

So really an M2A2/3 Bradley within 500m range could penetrate the side hull using M919 Rounds (penetration of 100mm Point Blank)?

This surely is a mockery of the crew that have to serve in them...

P.s. does anyone have any info about the pt-91?

All i know is that in 2000 durnig the MBT test in Malaysia, it won and survived a direct hit from an AT-14 kornet missile which knocked out every other tank in the test.

[Retro]

I don't have anything to answer your question but think that Major Victory, General Protection and Major Defeat are great nicknames!

[Companion]

For data being used in the game:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Image:Leo2sideLOS.jpg

for more pictures: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Category:Technical_Data

The values are LOS values and the picture itself is a few years old so the current ingame values might or might not differ. But it gives you an idea.

[Damian90]

Modern MBT's multilayer laminate armor is still rather heavy, also it needs space to be installed in cavity formed from steel "outerskin".

Because of that it can be mounted only on front hull, front turret and side turret surfaces if we wan't that our vehicle will weight less than 100 metric tons and will not be huge like a building.

This is why side turret and hull armor is desinged in such way that it will provide good protection withing safe manouvering angles. Safe manouvering angles means frontal arc of vehicle +/- 0 to 30 degrees from turret/hull center line (center axis).

This problem was solved in two different ways, especially in terms of turret, because different than standard hull geometry would be a tricky thing to do.

So soviets solved that problem in such way, that side armor of their tanks turrets is angled in such way, that in fact it is covered by frontal armor within safe manouvering angles.

This solution have strong and weak sides, strong sides are such that side armor can be relatively thin, it is max ~70-80mm thick CHA or RHA plate, turret is also much smaller and lighter, on the other hand as far as I know, there are some issues with turret balance as heavier front armor and gun makes turret front heavy.

West take another route, side turret armor is very thick, no less than ~300mm at 90 degrees from turret center line/axis, so with hits at angle +/- 20-30 degrees from turret center line/axis side armor on western tanks is preatty thick.

This also have strong and weak sides.

Strong side is definetly a more universal better protecting crew armor layout, good for conventional warfare and giving more protection in low intensity conflicts where side hits close to 90 degrees from turret center axis are more frequent, also thick multilayer laminate armor at turret sides even if perforated by enemy ammunition, will definetly minimize destructive effects inside. Turrets in such configuration also seems to be better balanced because heavy front armor have better counterweight in form of heavy side armor and turret bustle with ammunition or other things.

Weak sides of such design solution is that turrets are much bigger, much heavier.

As for side hull, all MBT's, at least these good ones have besides similiary thick side hull armor, also heavy ballistic skirts or dynamic protection over meatl/rubber skirts.

[Major Victory]

Thanks for the info !!!

I was wondering, is there any way in suppressing sabots by using loud speakers (ok lol sounds wierd but bear with me please).

A sonic blast that is strong enough and of the correct frequency should shatter sabots...i think, would it be a practical solution?

[Damian90]

Also there are other issues like armor materials.

Currently used composite armors in modern NATO tanks are much different from Burlington armor on first M1's and CR1's and armor on first Leo2.

Besides heavy metal alloys used in these new armors, there are also integrated dynamic or reactive elements like NERA or NxRA in many different forms. Great example here is Leopard 2A5/A6 with NERA or NxRA elements in form of these wedge elements on turret front, other tanks like modern versions of M1A1 and M1A2, Challenger 2 and Leclerc have probably similiar type of armor but integrated inside special armor cavities.

Of course, there are many different ways to improve vehicles armor protection, for example suspension, currently most popular suspension type is torsion bar based suspension system, it si good but also have weak sides, the most important one is torsion bars are inside hull, so some space is used for torsion bars, other thing is torsion bars need rather big openings in side hull armor weakening it.

Solution for that is mounted externally on bolts, hydrogas suspension. It is lighter, demands less interference in hull structure, have as far as I know better performance and is much easier to maintain, replace or repair AFAIK.

Well there really many improvement ways for currently used NATO MBT's, question is if these are possible from economic POV.

I think it is possible to increase side hull armor thickness to ~100mm without increasing vehicle width beyond railcars limit (it may however demand side skirts deinstallation for transport, but in many tanks it is done allready so I don't see a bit problem).

Engines should be placed across hull width not along it's lenght (hope that in english it sounds good). Well there are many more upgrade solutions I was thinking about, still as I said before question is if this is possible from economic POV.

[Ssnake]

I wanted to ask if tanks are truly as well protected as people, governments and propaganda claim they are ex.

The Leo2a4 has a side hull RHAe of 70mm (Janes Armour 2005, Paul Lakowski)

So really an M2A2/3 Bradley within 500m range could penetrate the side hull using M919 Rounds (penetration of 100mm Point Blank)?

There's several things to be said about this. For example, while the 70mm figure may be true for the area under the side sponsons (where tracks revolve and roadwheels bob), this doesn't mention the side skirts which would reduce the energy of an incoming projectile and, more importantly, will make it tumble so that it could no longer bring its full power to bear.

Now, this area is difficult to hit. You have to be rather lucky, or to be very close in order to hit it with some reliability. Forcing the enemy to close the distance is exactly what helps the tank to maintain its superiority. Either it forces the enemy to lie in wait and hope that the tank will come to him (so he loses operational mobility and initiative), or it forces him to maneuver himself into a suitable position, all the while this very maneuver often exposes him to detection and fire.

Other areas offer more protection. For example, in the case of the Leopard the area above the sponsons is used for fuel tanks. Fuel makes for good armor protection (as long as it doesn't start to burn of course). Therefore the effective armor will be much thicker than just the 70mm steel that are the last layer.

Then it's a matter of impact angle. At 60° (measured from the surface normal vector) the thickness effectively doubles (not quite, but almost), at 80° it's almost six times as thick as the nominal thickness. This further limits the attacker's options, as long as the crew is aware of their presence and able to position their own vehicle accordingly (by showing the front to the enemy).

Perfect protection against any threat is a like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You can try, but you'll never reach it. Uniform protection in all directions either makes for uniformly vulnerable vehicles, or you end up with immobile bunkers, thereby ceding your mobility. Tanks, like any other weapon system, are made for the best trade-off to provide protected, mobile firepower.

[Major Victory]

Sounds good, very down to earth...i love advanced technology which is why i was involved in studying and making energy fields on a minor scale at home in a makeshift lab based on WWII and other Vimana designs so armour of conventional measures sounds rather weak. Nevermind,

Where You from Damian90?

You english is superb.

I once worked on a technology i call "canuck effect" whereby you can modify elements by crystalline forms and this way you can make rounds shift out of physical phase and cut through armour or you can use a flouride round. Can You use a flouride containing Anti-Tank round (i guess it would be a FAT round).

[dejawolf]

Thanks for the info !!!

I was wondering, is there any way in suppressing sabots by using loud speakers (ok lol sounds wierd but bear with me please).

A sonic blast that is strong enough and of the correct frequency should shatter sabots...i think, would it be a practical solution?

if a device like that is even plausible, it might just as likely shatter the armour of the tank, or the device emitting the sonic wave.

[Major Victory]

I pressume due to the angles of penetration attempts the front hull glacis has no official armour according to Paul Lakowski (Steel beasts docs).

Thanks Mr. Ssnake!

[Major Victory]

Then You claim freindly fire if its an abrams:)

[Major Victory]

If the tank is destroyed by the counter measure unit i proposed, then, granted the tank is an abrams you claim it as freindly fire...

But seriously you make the armour of a different vibronic frequency to the sabots in use.

[Major Victory]

can i ask, whilst i have this in my head (sorry for bombarding people with these questions), if alumina is still being used in tanks, you can essentially grow the armour like crystals, thus you would grow tank chassies.

[Damian90]

Where You from Damian90?

You english is superb.

I'm from Poland.

Thanks but I actually know that my english is not perfect.

Backing up to armor technology, very interesting was one incident with probably M1A1HA and Hellfire A ATGM, it was in 1991 in gulf.

Making it short, ATGM hit turret front armor and did not perforate it, IRCC armor was penetrated to half, maybe a bit more than half of it's thickness.

I have a friend that made some calculations, if I remember that correctly protection would be somewhere near ~1200-1300mm RHAe vs CE no less, however our general conclusion was that RHAe (or CHAe) is not good for modern composite armors protection estimations, RHAe is jut not enough precise compared to composite armor, it's structure etc.

I think that Dejawolf could say about that something more as his knowledge is far superior in that matter than my knowledge.

if alumina is still being used in tanks,

I highly doubt that, there were even some arguments on TankNet that ceramics are not nececary used in great amounts in 3rd generation MBT's composite armors. There are other better solutions, not neceary heavier or more expensive, like NERA or NxRA.

[Major Victory]

I'm from Poland.

Thanks but I actually know that my english is not perfect.

Backing up to armor technology, very interesting was one incident with probably M1A1HA and Hellfire A ATGM, it was in 1991 in gulf.

Making it short, ATGM hit turret front armor and did not perforate it, IRCC armor was penetrated to half, maybe a bit more than half of it's thickness.

I have a friend that made some calculations, if I remember that correctly protection would be somewhere near ~1200-1300mm RHAe vs CE no less, however our general conclusion was that RHAe (or CHAe) is not good for modern composite armors protection estimations, RHAe is jut not enough precise compared to composite armor, it's structure etc.

I think that Dejawolf could say about that something more as his knowledge is far superior in that matter than my knowledge.

Ja tez polak, znaczy sie w kanadzie urodzilem sie, wychowalem sie w angli i jestem niemcem z pochodzenia (przodkowie z przed 1000 lat), lugi.

Abrams potrafi nawet 1500mm Chemical Energy wytrzymac ale najlepszy to polski twardy bo wytrzymal bezposrednio pocisk Kornet AT-14.

(Malaysia MBT Test), Lepszy oficjalnie od t-90 hahaha.

[Damian90]

Witam rodaka! No prawie rodaka But we should back to english.

Abrams potrafi nawet 1500mm Chemical Energy wytrzymac ale najlepszy to polski twardy bo wytrzymal bezposrednio pocisk Kornet AT-14.

It depends what model of M1 tank we should consider here, the newest M1A1SA and M1A2SEP after latest armor upgrades are probably even close to ~2000mm RHAe vs CE. Everything depends on armor thickness, armor angle, armor materials.

AFAIK in M1 series and Leopard 2 series from some data collected with my friend, armor inserts technology in both US and FRG were upgraded at least 6 times. Dunno how close to truth it is.

As for PT-91, there were no tests of it's armor against 9M133 Kornet, I susspect that what You heard is some fantasy of some fanboy, such tests were not conducted. There were however other tests where PT-91 and PT-91 glacis plate simulator withstand DM33A1 hits from Leopard 2A4, there are no much data about that, only two photographs of that glacis plate simulator.

(Malaysia MBT Test), Lepszy oficjalnie od t-90 hahaha.

Nope, PT-91 is not better than T-90, You should know backgrounds of that deal.

[Major Victory]

In which case it must have been a fan site, but i know that it is a pretty good tank, funny thing is that of all places malaysia uses it, it is like the philipennes with their stinger tank something like 14.5 mm RHA i think and a 100mm barrel.

I cant remember, anyways i love the Abrams M1A1HA, but even more so the Leopard.

[Major Victory]

I would love to see a K1A2 in action, hyundai makes crap cars,(compared with volvo for example) and hyundai, who would expect them to make anything better than cars for the third world, its like proton making a new APC with a pricetag of atleast $5M.

[Damian90]

In which case it must have been a fan site, but i know that it is a pretty good tank,

Polish tank crews have different opinion, PT-91 was just good T-72M1 upgrade but because of economic reasons also potential waste modernisation.

stinger tank something like 14.5 mm RHA i think and a 100mm barrel.

Stingray is a light tank armed with 105mm gun, some sort of L7/M68 derivative.

I would love to see a K1A2 in action,

You mean the upgrade of old K1/K1A1? AFAIK it is still in R&D phase. K2 is also still under R&D phase, they have engine problems, ROK goverment decided to develop their own 1500HP engine for new tank, this is their option A, if development of their own engine will be failure then they will use MTU engines (option B), still however K2 tank production will be delayed, and from armor protection point of view, there is a strange connection to India, the same side turret armor scheme, a thin ~70-80mm RHA plate covered by storage boxes only, it looks just the same on K2 and Arjun Mk1, my suspicion is that these were solutions for weight savings.

And one more thing, please, edit Your posts, so You will not write one after another.

[Grenny]

can i ask, whilst i have this in my head (sorry for bombarding people with these questions), if alumina is still being used in tanks, you can essentially grow the armour like crystals, thus you would grow tank chassies.

This is leg-pulling isn't it??

[Major Victory]

This is leg-pulling isn't it??

Nope, just askin.

The WASP II project back in the 60s and the Rei(ss) Projekt in Germany looked at using and growing crystalline mater into potential forms, i worked on the theory behind it for a while some time ago.

[Major Victory]

i work with UFOs and sometimes i cross info from the dulce papers that deal with this crystal growing for UFOs (the mentioned projects did happen and were disclosed in 2002 to some degree).

Other than that i love tanks, my dad was in the army in Poland during the 80s and as a conscript (by law all 21 year olds had to do some time like that) and he drove the t-72 as a main instructor and other vehicles this is where i get some of the army stuff in the family, furthermore i am decended from the khazarian mercenaries, so anything military is music to my ears, this further explains my fascination for these things,

I godda go

Enjoy Yourselves everyone, glad to have had time to exchange info and thoughts

ALL THE BEST

Mattk

[Ssnake]

is there any way in suppressing sabots by using loud speakers ...

...i was involved in studying and making energy fields on a minor scale at home in a makeshift lab based on WWII and other Vimana designs so armour of conventional measures sounds rather weak.

I once worked on a technology ... [that] ... can make rounds shift out of physical phase and cut through armour or you can use a flouride round.

...But seriously you make the armour of a different vibronic frequency to the sabots in use.

can i ask ... if alumina is still being used in tanks, you can essentially grow the armour like crystals, thus you would grow tank chassies.

...growing crystalline mater into potential forms, i worked on the theory behind it for a while some time ago.

i work with UFOs

Is there any other ground-breaking bullshit that you want to share with us?

[Grenny]

Damn, Ssnake...you spoilled it (prob.). I was just gettin

my popcorn :-)

Could have been more subtle BS though...would have baited more 8-)

Well, I just think I know where it comes from...

[Homer]

...i worked on the theory behind it for a while some time ago.

You are 19 years old according to the birthdate you supplied during signup. Can you clarify "a while" and "some time ago"?