Modern Main Battle Tanks ( MBT )

Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Something to consider about tanks:

considering that all tanks have 25 to 50mm on the rear, no tank should be able to sustain a 30mm AP-T ammo, credited with 96mm penetration at 100m vs medium RHA. In fact, even some 20mm AP rounds (from WW2 or later) could penetrate at point blank. In fact at least 1 M1 Abrams (M1A2) suffered a catastrophic mobility kill from a 14.5mm KPV machine gun in Iraq; it was in the "real war" during the few first weeks of 2003 invasion. It was even said to be a 12.7mm MG (dshk or NSV) but I doubt it.

This will be a shock to many of you, but, the Russian tanks T-72/80 have roughly 80mm side armor with a 20mm bottom (unreachable by a projectile) side plate at the level of the torsion bars (the same is found on T-54,55,62 arranged in a simpler way). T-64 is more complex, and not has 80mm everywhere on the side; I think it is 50 or 60 on some areas. T-90A I don't know, I guess it's still like T-72 but probably a bit reinforced (100mm on the forward-central area maybe)

Leopard 2 (all versions) have 50 and 25mm base side armor, it's not a joke. Leopard 2 side armor is exactly 25mm at the level of the suspension (all length), 50mm at the "habitable" (it goes down to 25 or 30mm at the debut of the engine compartment)... On the top where the "faux" side (sponsons fuel tanks) is found, there is yet another 25mm external armor on the whole length, making 50 + fuel + 25mm best side armor on this tank. The combat protection kit (skirts) improves a lot: the 4 forward panels of each side are a total of 50 + 10 + 50mm steel/air/steel (spaced 50mm x2), protecting the habitable from a forward-side strike to a good measure, and able to stop simple HEAT warheads and old 100mm and lower caliber full bore AP rounds (100mm not guarantee) on a perpendicular side hit.. It gives 50+50+50mm real armor + many gaps. The rest of the skirts are thin sheet of rubber/steel and have 0 impacts on kinetic penetrators, but can disrupt simple HEAT warheads... at this place the armor is like 50+10mm + gap.

Abrams side armor is believed to be between 30 and 50mm all the length, with this + another 30 or 50 at the fuel tanks sponsons. Abrams then uses the skirts, believed to be 35+air+35mm steel on the forward ones, and, simple thin (10-20mm) plates on the rest of the length.

Those western tanks have very week hull but strong side turret armor.

You can bet all tanks like leclerc, challenger 2 or some Asian tanks also follow the same hull armor rule.

And, back in the day, tank praised and exaggerated to be best of the best armored ever seen, the chieftain, had literally 38mm side armor + a thin skirt. WW2 T-34 had 45mm side armor, half of it angled and approaching 60mm real value.

All the while, Tank like T-10M had 90mm side armor with only a very thin and almost unreachable area where it was really 90mm vertical, the rest was 90mm at 60° for a 180mm LOS value and literally 220 to 250mm real value vs armor piercing and early sabot rounds. Soviet heavy tanks of the 1950s and 1960s (only prototypes) had monstrous side armor (= to front armor of western medium tanks like M48) thanks to ingenious angling, still being around 50t machines.

So, yes, many tanks of the 50s and even WW2 have more side armor than current MBT. However their fire control systems where no-existent.



Back to bottling my Grenache
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Using this photo, the tack width seems to be 550 mm; however, in this day and age, there are many distorted photos, thanks to change in aspect ratios that can often happen.

4qxkvrh.jpg

Due to fundamental armor vehicle design requirements, I think, a track-width of 580 mm (that for T-72, T-80, or T-90) is an upper bound for a good tank design. That is the reason ob''ekt 279 had 4 tracks; having only 2 tracks wouldn't have worked for its weight without thinning the armor.

T-72 started life with a ground pressure of 0.85 kgs/cm^2; 0.8 kgs/cm^2 may be too good, in this day and age, for a tank.

Hence, for a track width of 0.58 m, a track length on the ground of 5 m, and a ground-pressure of 0.85 kgs/cm^2, the total weight would be 49 t.


Back to bottling my Grenache
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Can This Chinese Tank Beat Russia’s T-14 Armata?
Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.

Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Last week, China Daily reported that China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Group Corporation, is aggressively promoting its products on WeChat, a social networking app with more than 500 million users.

During Norinco’s latest marketing drive on WeChat, the company claims that its VT-4 tank boasts superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems to Russia’s T-14 Armata (see: “Putin’s New ‘Wunderwaffe’: The World’s Deadliest Tank?” ). Additionally, the article claims that the VT-14s technology is in general more reliable than that of the T-14.

“The T-14′s transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade,” a WeChat article, composed by Norinco, stated (The Diplomat reported on this incident. See: “Did the ‘World’s Deadliest Tank’ Just Break Down?”) “By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far. Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with,” according to Norinco.

Additionally the article emphasizes that the VT-4 is the economically more sensible choice: “Another important issue is the price – the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States’ M1A2 Abrams. … Why don’t buyers consider Chinese tanks that have well-developed technologies and equipment as well as much-lower prices?” The lower price of the VT series is specifically designed to target the needs of militaries in developing countries.

Norinco also notes that in comparison to its Russian competition, it also can offer a much wider array of products. “Currently, Russia has only one new tank that is available for export – the T-90S. In contrast, we have the low-end VT-2, middle-end VT-1 as well as the high-end VT-4, covering the requirements of almost every client in the international market,” the company said.

The VT-2’s two major selling points are that it uses proven technology and that it is cheap. The VT-4, however, allegedly features the world’s latest tank warfare technology and can be compared to any modern third generation main battle tank like the U.S. M1A2 Abrams or Germany’s Leopard 2A6, according to Feng Yibai, chief designer of the VT-4.

The VT-4′s “main gun is a 125 m smoothbore that can fire various shells, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank warheads. It can fire anti-tank missiles with a maximum range of 5,000 meters,” China Daily notes.

Also, the VT-4 “has an advanced fire-control instrument, a new-type active protection system and a state-of-the-art, fully automatic transmission device,” he said. “In addition, the inter-unit network connects commanders of tanks and armored vehicles under a combat group, enabling them to share battlefield data in a real-time manner,” the WeChat article summarizes.

Any speculative comparison between the leading Chinese and Russian main battle tanks is in many ways premature and nonsensical; it has to be discarded as a mere clever marketing ploy to garner attention at this stage. Neither of the two tank programs have entered the mass-production phase yet and most of the current speculation is based on prototypes and the sparse public data available. Without rigorous testing it is virtually impossible to verify whether the VT-4 does display superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems.

China has traditionally relied heavily in the development of its indigenous tank force on Russian license-built technology and know-how. Judging from publicly available images, the T-14 appears to have made a clear break with older Soviet legacy tank designs, whereas the VT-4 very much looks like an improved version of the T-90s. This is as far as any sensible unclassified analysis should go at this juncture.

According to the United Nations’ Register of Conventional Arms, China exported a total of 461 tanks from 1992 to 2013, whereas Russia sold 1,297 tanks during the same period. The United States is still the leading tank export of the world with 5,511 sales, followed by Germany with 2,680 exported armored fighting vehicles.

Back to bottling my Grenache
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Miragedriver said:
Can This Chinese Tank Beat Russia’s T-14 Armata?
Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.

Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Last week, China Daily reported that China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Group Corporation, is aggressively promoting its products on WeChat, a social networking app with more than 500 million users.

During Norinco’s latest marketing drive on WeChat, the company claims that its VT-4 tank boasts superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems to Russia’s T-14 Armata (see: “Putin’s New ‘Wunderwaffe’: The World’s Deadliest Tank?” ). Additionally, the article claims that the VT-14s technology is in general more reliable than that of the T-14.

“The T-14′s transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade,” a WeChat article, composed by Norinco, stated (The Diplomat reported on this incident. See: “Did the ‘World’s Deadliest Tank’ Just Break Down?”) “By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far. Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with,” according to Norinco.

Additionally the article emphasizes that the VT-4 is the economically more sensible choice: “Another important issue is the price – the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States’ M1A2 Abrams. … Why don’t buyers consider Chinese tanks that have well-developed technologies and equipment as well as much-lower prices?” The lower price of the VT series is specifically designed to target the needs of militaries in developing countries.

Norinco also notes that in comparison to its Russian competition, it also can offer a much wider array of products. “Currently, Russia has only one new tank that is available for export – the T-90S. In contrast, we have the low-end VT-2, middle-end VT-1 as well as the high-end VT-4, covering the requirements of almost every client in the international market,” the company said.

The VT-2’s two major selling points are that it uses proven technology and that it is cheap. The VT-4, however, allegedly features the world’s latest tank warfare technology and can be compared to any modern third generation main battle tank like the U.S. M1A2 Abrams or Germany’s Leopard 2A6, according to Feng Yibai, chief designer of the VT-4.

The VT-4′s “main gun is a 125 m smoothbore that can fire various shells, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank warheads. It can fire anti-tank missiles with a maximum range of 5,000 meters,” China Daily notes.

Also, the VT-4 “has an advanced fire-control instrument, a new-type active protection system and a state-of-the-art, fully automatic transmission device,” he said. “In addition, the inter-unit network connects commanders of tanks and armored vehicles under a combat group, enabling them to share battlefield data in a real-time manner,” the WeChat article summarizes.

Any speculative comparison between the leading Chinese and Russian main battle tanks is in many ways premature and nonsensical; it has to be discarded as a mere clever marketing ploy to garner attention at this stage. Neither of the two tank programs have entered the mass-production phase yet and most of the current speculation is based on prototypes and the sparse public data available. Without rigorous testing it is virtually impossible to verify whether the VT-4 does display superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems.

China has traditionally relied heavily in the development of its indigenous tank force on Russian license-built technology and know-how. Judging from publicly available images, the T-14 appears to have made a clear break with older Soviet legacy tank designs, whereas the VT-4 very much looks like an improved version of the T-90s. This is as far as any sensible unclassified analysis should go at this juncture.

According to the United Nations’ Register of Conventional Arms, China exported a total of 461 tanks from 1992 to 2013, whereas Russia sold 1,297 tanks during the same period. The United States is still the leading tank export of the world with 5,511 sales, followed by Germany with 2,680 exported armored fighting vehicles.

Back to bottling my Grenache
Click to expand...

How does norinco say for certain that the vt-4 is superior to the armata unless they have one they have tested temselves.. Besides unless you have an Abrams A2 fighting a Panzer, it's all relative. Unlike fighters or aeriel combat, a one vs one tank comparo is not really applicable in the real world. Tank warfare is all about maneuver warfare and training. Training in unit cohesion, using terrain to your advantage, flanking and communication with each other and utilizing other available assets within your c4isr infrastructure.

Even if a tank is slightly superior on paper vs another tank, in the real world it's all meaningless. A modern atgm, A10 etc will kill you just the same whether you're in an Abrams, vt4, armata etc.
As we've witnessed in the real world even crude devices can disabled the mighty Abrams. It would've done the same to any other tank.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Norinco and Ugz are right now butting heads mostly because they are both looking to sell there Wears to the Came Client bases in the Middle east, Africa, Some of Asia and maybe South America.
they cant compete in North America because the only tank buyers are the US and Canada who build there own or buy European, They can't compete in Europe because of Leopard 2 and may be the Eventual 3 version, The Leclerc, and the Dozen or so Indigenous designs across NATO, Turkey, South Korea and Japan are cranking out there own designs and Australia buys either European or American. Then there are buyers who cant afford new tanks resulting in a short client list who buy from both China and Russia.
Add that for the First time the new Chinese Tanks are of Quality equal to the Russian models. That Russian models are finding less and less presence in the Chinese military.
This means that both are in real competition.

The Result is the Tank version of the Coke Driver caught drinking Pepsi commercials.

The Russians will Claim that even the PRC wants there wears well the Chinese will laugh it off and showcase there own.
This might be a great thing or a terrible one for the end buyer though. Great as when done properly Competition drives up quality and down prices meaning, high end tanks at low end prices... or when done improperly problems as tank builders cut every corner to make every dime of profit. on the other side of the Coin these also seem to be pushing the Western nations to reevaluate there armor needs.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Norinco and Ugz are right now butting heads mostly because they are both looking to sell there Wears to the Came Client bases in the Middle east, Africa, Some of Asia and maybe South America.
they cant compete in North America because the only tank buyers are the US and Canada who build there own or buy European, They can't compete in Europe because of Leopard 2 and may be the Eventual 3 version, The Leclerc, and the Dozen or so Indigenous designs across NATO, Turkey, South Korea and Japan are cranking out there own designs and Australia buys either European or American. Then there are buyers who cant afford new tanks resulting in a short client list who buy from both China and Russia.
Add that for the First time the new Chinese Tanks are of Quality equal to the Russian models. That Russian models are finding less and less presence in the Chinese military.
This means that both are in real competition.

The Result is the Tank version of the Coke Driver caught drinking Pepsi commercials.

The Russians will Claim that even the PRC wants there wears well the Chinese will laugh it off and showcase there own.
This might be a great thing or a terrible one for the end buyer though. Great as when done properly Competition drives up quality and down prices meaning, high end tanks at low end prices... or when done improperly problems as tank builders cut every corner to make every dime of profit. on the other side of the Coin these also seem to be pushing the Western nations to reevaluate there armor needs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's more marketing than anything. Unlike fighters, tanks are relatively easy to built. The R&D involved is certainly a few order of magnitudes less than fighters let alone 5th generation ones. I would imagine profit margin is probably not that great either.

Good news is while most countries cannot afford fast jets, most can afford tanks.... And tanks are probably more useful in most of the asymmetrical conflicts/ guerrilla warfare than $100M fighter bombers.
I see Africa as a good place for norinco to market their hardware with the dozens of seemingly endless conflicts that goes on there.
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
TerraN. I want to know your thoughts about this:
Black Eagle/Object 640's turret bustle:
xFC7Kua.jpg


q6LSnCy.jpg

You can store very long Sabot rounds in that bustle, if Armata ever gets a modular bustle that was that large don't you think? Do you think that an Armata with this bustle this large would be a disadvantage?


Back to bottling my Grenache
 
A

aksha

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




The Indian Army plans to design and develop a futuristic combat vehicle called the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) to replace the T-72 tanks of the Armored Corp starting 2025-27. [RFI]

This tracked fighting vehicle would feature a modular design that will be leveraged to create a family of combat vehicles.

The FRCV's modular design would be flexible to an extent where it can be configured to operate in varying terrain.

The following variants are planned to be developed on the FRCV platform:


  1. Tracked Main Battle Tank - Primary variant.
  2. Tracked Light Tank.
  3. Wheeled Version.
  4. Bridge Layer Tank (BLT).
  5. Trawl Tank and Mine Ploughs.
  6. Armored Recovery Vehicle (ARV).
  7. Self Propelled Artillery Gun/Howitzer.
  8. Air Defense Gun/Msl System.
  9. Artillery Observation Post Vehicle.
  10. Engineer Reconnaissance Vehicle.
  11. Armored Ambulance.
  12. FRCV Development Process



The FRCV has been conceived as a Design and Development project, to be executed in three stages as under:


  1. Design Stage.
  2. Prototype Development Stage.
  3. Production Stage.

The FRCV would be required to conduct sustained continuous operations by day and night in all weather conditions in terrain and temperature ranges obtaining on India’s Western borders.

The FRCV should be in the `Medium Tank’ category whose physical dimensions should facilitate transportability over existing terrain, in-service military bridges and major civilian infrastructure (including bridges) in the border areas (on either side of the Western border).

Crew

The number of crew members should be such that they can perform their
designated tasks, and operate all on-board systems without hindrance and without any overlapping of duties/ responsibilities.

Fire Power

Should be well matched to contemporary MBTs in engagement ranges, all weather day/night fighting capability, depth of penetration and variety of ammunition.
Should have very high accuracy [High FRHP (First Round Hit Probability)] and very high lethality [High SSKP (Single Shot Kill Probability)], at par with contemporary MBTs.

Protection.

Should provide very high all-round protection, including ballistic, active and any other form of anti-armor technologies, to ensure survivability in the contemporary and future battlefield.
Should incorporate signature reduction technologies.
High response evasion/ anti-detection system.

Mobility

Should have adequately high power-to-weight ratio to enable all on-board systems to be run simultaneously, without disrupting the agility and mobility of the vehicle.
Should have high operating range, comparable to contemporary MBTs
Click to expand...
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Miragedriver said:
TerraN. I want to know your thoughts about this:
Black Eagle/Object 640's turret bustle:
xFC7Kua.jpg


q6LSnCy.jpg

You can store very long Sabot rounds in that bustle, if Armata ever gets a modular bustle that was that large don't you think? Do you think that an Armata with this bustle this large would be a disadvantage?


Back to bottling my Grenache
Click to expand...
I Don't know enough beyond Rumors to really qualify my opinion. but Black Eagle has to have had a Influence on T14 Armada. I mean 7 the seven Road wheels on T14 same seven on the Black Eagle.
From what we think we know the Turret bustle of Black Eagle had more in common with K2 Black Panther and Abrams.
Abrams takes it's ammo storage based on studies by the Us army that concluded that placing the ammo in the hull was dangerous. That in the event of a antitank mine strike the Carousel would blow the tank apart form the inside out. The US therefore pushed for placing all ammo in a bustle module that features blow out panels and could be removed from the tank. The Reasoning being that the main gun and frontal armor face facing the enemy with the ammo facing away. In Asymmetric though this seems to be facing unexpected issues as enemy forces are all around the tank and can easily popup and attack the rear.
in the first Gulf There was only one KIA from a Ammo cook off when a RPG struck below the bustle and cooked off three DU rounds. Turrets of Abrams have been popped but normally demanding special cases a IED made of over half a ton of high explosives. Well there are other cases where 155mm shells rigged as IED's have knocked off wheels or Abrams tanks have rolled over IED's and remained operational. Of 5 cases of Abrams tank ammo cook offs form penetration of the bustle only one KIA 4 wounded.

The Russians have held the opposing view by tradition. favoring storing the ammo in the hull in the Carousel auto loader. reasoning that it was surrounded by all the tanks maximum armor protection. the problem of course is when the armor fails. as seen in Iraq where a number of tanks suffered catastrophic failings with turrets blown off.

Black Eagle went with a system like the Abrams and Black Panther. All or most of the Ammo in the bustle which like Black Panther was mated to a Auto loader now all indications are the Turret of Black Eagle was conventional meaning the crew were in the fighting compartment making it like the Black Panther. farther more it had a Gas turbine engine which makes it and it's design a total 180 from the T90 and the main line of Russian Tanks closer to the splinter T80 which is more popular among the splinter republics then the main Russian Federation in design. Which ultimately doomed it.

Now Could T14 be fitted with a ammo bustle like Black eagle? No. Not with the Existing Turret even if you rebuilt the autoloader the small scale of the Turret not counting the additional armor modules would limit the number of rounds to maybe a dozen or more.
The key advantages for the system is that the Turret is small and makes a smaller target even with additional armor. this makes the Turret smaller by design limiting the number of rounds that can be bustle stored.
Could a Tank be built with a Unmanned Turret using the bustle storage system? yes Armada likely has a small store for one but likely as additional ammo and not connected to the auto-loader.
Could a Unmanned turret be built with a Autoloader connected and using a bustle Magazine? Yes It could In fact it might be safer then any other tank design.
As the Ammo store in the bustle even if the ammo cooked off Catastrophically and the blow out panels did fail.
The turret would likely be destroyed but depending on turret angle vs hull direction and a encapsulated crew. the blast and fragmentation effects would have to penetrate the tank's own armor and mass in reverse to get at the crew. the worst I can think of would be if the cook off happened with the turret pointed backwards relative to the hull. I mean if it happened with the tank in line the engine compartment would likely take the brunt of the blast and act as a fire wall. pointed to the side the blast would likely destroy the Skirt and damage the tracks and wheels and cook off the fuel cell. pointed aft the bustle blast would hit the roof of the tank crew compartment but that's likely armored the question is then if it was penetrated, and if not then the question is getting the crew out of the tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top