Modern Main Battle Tanks ( MBT )

313230 said:

- Offensive language Removed - This is a professional forum - READ THE RULES

Railgun is governed by electric storage, which improves very little over time. The electric energy density of current tech is very low compare to explosive or gasoline (two orders of magnitude lower).

Here are some maths: 10MJ muzzle energy for a normal gun, accelerated in under 10ms, so power requirement is at least 1000MW. Power density of ultracapacitor is 15kW/kg, now, calculate the weight of storage device: 67 tonnes. That is not counting the efficiency of the system, and the storage requires for future gun tank could easily reach several hundred tonnes.

Even if somehow magic happens in electric storage device (which is unlikely), the problem of penetrating armor is not power alone. Most modern armor uses some kind of active armor (even the so called passive armor), which the armor attacks the penetrator, e.g. from side. And the penetrator must survive the attack to penetrate armor. The faster the penetrator goes, the higher the impact is, and the harder it is for surviving the attack of the armor.

That is not counting other type of APS that can destroy penetrator before it contacts armor. You guys here seem know very little on the advancement of the armor tech.

Click to expand...

Actually, 313230, numerous poster here on SD know quite a lot.

Very strong and fielded effective tactics have been developed and proven to defeat the various armor defense mechanisms that have been employed including spaced armor, reactive armor, etc., etc.

The US tests those counter measures at Los Alamos, White Sands, and other places regularly.
These include the shaping of the penetrator and its layers so they spall off in a spaced environment, or as they are knocked off in a reactive one, while the central mass of the penetrator continues on.

Rail Guns produce hyper velocity penetrators which use their mass, their shape, and the energy imparted by their velocity to penetrate all types of armor.

This does not mean that they are a panacea, or that even more mechanisms for defending armor will not be developed. They most assuredly will. it is the nature of the beast.

I would argue that armor is not rendered obsolete by Rail Guns at present because it is not nearly wide spread enough...but it is being developed and is now to the point of being deployed to the field for actual, deployed testing (well past field testing) and it will be very effective against all types of armor when using some of the methodologies I just mentioned.

Here is some more advise for you now speaking as someone who has been here on this forum coming up on ten years, and as a Super Moderator...before pronouncing such broad judgment about SD Forum and its posters, spend more time watching and listening and interacting with posters before you spout such know-it-all, judgmental comments. You will do a lot better with other forum members, and will last a lot longer and have an enjoyable experience if you do.

Re: Russian military news thread

I agree the T90MS has improvements no doubt but to claim a improvement of that degree is Deus ex machina.
Blackshark Please cool it, The Fact is Iraqi T72's failed. and that does reflect across the whole family except for updates post that model. But the numbers of the battle of 73 Eastings and Phase line Bullet had the American Army 2nd Armored Cavalry regiment Wipe out a division.
In earlier conflicts those same T72's did well against American M60 Patton and British Chieftain tanks. and you can claim that the Ural T72 would do better if you like but the fact is the battle record of the T72 is written. against M60A1 tanks it did very well in Syria and the Iran Iraq war maybe even against Merkeva 1 and was proofed against Tow. and even against other T72's but when it comes to M1A1 and M1A2 the fact is it lost. If you want to claim that other versions would have done better, feel free. It's unproven. and M1 was developed specifically to counter and hunt T72 and the US has sampled T72's and T80U's and given that they did not then move to massivly upgrade the tank other then the SEP I think that's pretty solid evidence that there is strong confidence in the out come of Abrams vs Russian tanks of that generation.
Also given that a large number of Break away republics have chosen to retain the hulls of T72's, T62's, T64's and T80's but massively
but all of this is not relating to the topic at hand the Armada series.
BAr I had Read 55 tons somewhere It could be more it could be less We don't know as the Russians have kept this one close to there chest. We have seen concept art and models but not prototypes. we don't have any real details on it other then that we have picked up form speeches and interviews. we know what came before it the T95 concept tank with a 152mm gun, unmanned turret and 30mm coax. the Black eagle which used a Abrams style compartmentalized Magazine with blow out panels.

Re: Russian military news thread

Jeff Head said:

Absolute pure conjecture.

I have no doubts that the latest Russian tanks vs the latest US tanks would produce different results than the Gulf War absolute slaughter of Iraqi armor (meaning it would be a tough battle with the US taking losses).

However, nonetheless, given the overall advantages in Joint Force fighting experience and tactics, overall battlefield sensory advantages, and advantages in certain western technologies to this day, to say that the results would be the exact opposite of those Gulf Wars (which would mean that the US forces would suffer greater than 100 to 1 losses), is just pure fantasy.

Click to expand...

The Gulf War Abrams came with Generation 1 thermal imagers, the T-90A has Gen 3 thermal imagers. The armor of the M1 was considerably weaker compared to the current T-90As. It would be quite one-sided in the T-90's favor.

Overall, the difference between Gulf War Abrams and the Iraqi monkey models was that while the Abrams had digital electronics, including a thermal imager, the MMs came with WW2 level technology. Please note, I am not talking about any other aspect except tank to tank, so I wasn't referring to the other advantages the US had.



The Abrams could pick off the T-72s without any issues even at night, while the MMs were blind at night and shortsighted during the day.

This is the M1A1(HA). Note the turret thickness. 1980-85.


This is the T-72B. 1985.


This is the T-90A. 1997.


And finally the extremely hopeless Monkey Model.


You pit the latest M1A2 SEP against the M1, the situation would have been very grim for the M1.

Technically, the Russians kept up with the development of tanks and stayed on par with the US until the T-72B and later the T-90 while the Iraqis could not. Of course, the T-72 family was not the same as the "strategic" projects T-80 and T-64 families. T-72 wasn't a strategic project, it was meant for export and a better version was kept to fill the numbers requirement for the Red Army. Both these tanks were better than the T-72 family, and only the T-90A matches the T-80 family. The reason is the T-80 and the T-64 industries are in Ukraine today, so Russia had to make a tank equivalent to the T-80 after the Cold War, while launching the development of a better tank later.

After the Cold War, the Russian development, though it did not stop, had slowed down considerably. They couldn't convert prototypes into operational units, including the Obj 195 which could have hopelessly decimated the latest iteration of the M1.

BTW, I wasn't talking about the latest US tanks versus the latest Russian tanks. I was talking about the latest Russian tanks versus 30 year old US tanks, the situation that was during the Gulf War. When it comes to the latest US tanks, the US tanks are slightly better.

Re: Russian military news thread

TerraN_EmpirE said:

I agree the T90MS has improvements no doubt but to claim a improvement of that degree is Deus ex machina.
Blackshark Please cool it, The Fact is Iraqi T72's failed. and that does reflect across the whole family except for updates post that model. But the numbers of the battle of 73 Eastings and Phase line Bullet had the American Army 2nd Armored Cavalry regiment Wipe out a division.
In earlier conflicts those same T72's did well against American M60 Patton and British Chieftain tanks. and you can claim that the Ural T72 would do better if you like but the fact is the battle record of the T72 is written. against M60A1 tanks it did very well in Syria and the Iran Iraq war maybe even against Merkeva 1 and was proofed against Tow. and even against other T72's but when it comes to M1A1 and M1A2 the fact is it lost. If you want to claim that other versions would have done better, feel free. It's unproven. and M1 was developed specifically to counter and hunt T72 and the US has sampled T72's and T80U's and given that they did not then move to massivly upgrade the tank other then the SEP I think that's pretty solid evidence that there is strong confidence in the out come of Abrams vs Russian tanks of that generation.
Also given that a large number of Break away republics have chosen to retain the hulls of T72's, T62's, T64's and T80's but massively
but all of this is not relating to the topic at hand the Armada series.
BAr I had Read 55 tons somewhere It could be more it could be less We don't know as the Russians have kept this one close to there chest. We have seen concept art and models but not prototypes. we don't have any real details on it other then that we have picked up form speeches and interviews. we know what came before it the T95 concept tank with a 152mm gun, unmanned turret and 30mm coax. the Black eagle which used a Abrams style compartmentalized Magazine with blow out panels.

Click to expand...

Iraqis did not even had any T-72 to call them T-72's, they were monkey models made of WW2 RHA Steel build by Poland for Export countries like Iraq without any capability, no TIS, no FCS, no ammunition that was even capable beyond 360mm RHAe penetration and that was the Elite ammunition they had during that time for Tank battles. That is just pure fantasy to call that a tank battle, fighting against mainly night with TIS against an enemy which best tank was the T-55, yes better than the Monkey Models of T-72 or their Asad Babils which often are called T-72 and are no better than WW1 tanks.
Repeating a propaganda lie of the "4th biggest Army in the world" to give their non worth to mention achievements as something special is just self dellusion and only worth for armschair generals on the internet but has nothing to do with objectivity in real life.


"In earlier conflicts those same T72's did well against American M60 Patton and British Chieftain tanks. and you can claim that the Ural T72 would do better if you like but the fact is the battle record of the T72 is written. "

You can spin around how you like it fact is there is no record against Ural T-72s, and till this date russians have the best 1st generation and 2nd Generation tanks that had no competition among them, where today not a single 2nd Generation of our western tanks can even have the slightest chance against a 3rd Generation tank, where the russian T-72's can indeed defeat modern 3rd Generation tanks.

Solid evidence is that M1's were incapable to defeat real Ural T-72AV which were given to GDR and then tested with M829 and were incapable to defeat ERA, that is why they had to upgrade the M829 two times, the same ammunition that penetrated iraqi Monkey models you so like to call "t-72's who's record is written" without blushing. Fact is also written by very well known and widely accepted Tank experts like Hunnicutt that the Ural T-72B/T-80 is equal to M1,M1A1 versions and inferior to M1A2. Don't throw Iraqi Monkey Models into the same basket as real russian tanks, not only an unfair comperision it is just self dellusion what you do here.

Re: Russian military news thread

TerraN_EmpirE said:

BAr I had Read 55 tons somewhere It could be more it could be less We don't know as the Russians have kept this one close to there chest. We have seen concept art and models but not prototypes. we don't have any real details on it other then that we have picked up form speeches and interviews. we know what came before it the T95 concept tank with a 152mm gun, unmanned turret and 30mm coax. the Black eagle which used a Abrams style compartmentalized Magazine with blow out panels.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we better wait for the official specs.

Jeff Head said:

Actually, 313230, numerous poster here on SD know quite a lot.

Very strong and fielded effective tactics have been developed and proven to defeat the various armor defense mechanisms that have been employed including spaced armor, reactive armor, etc., etc.

The US tests those counter measures at Los Alamos, White Sands, and other places regularly.
These include the shaping of the penetrator and its layers so they spall off in a spaced environment, or as they are knocked off in a reactive one, while the central mass of the penetrator continues on.

Rail Guns produce hyper velocity penetrators which use their mass, their shape, and the energy imparted by their velocity to penetrate all types of armor.

This does not mean that they are a panacea, or that even more mechanisms for defending armor will not be developed. They most assuredly will. it is the nature of the beast.

I would argue that armor is not rendered obsolete by Rail Guns at present because it is not nearly wide spread enough...but it is being developed and is now to the point of being deployed to the field for actual, deployed testing (well past field testing) and it will be very effective against all types of armor when using some of the methodologies I just mentioned.

Here is some more advise for you now speaking as someone who has been here on this forum coming up on ten years, and as a Super Moderator...before pronouncing such broad judgment about SD Forum and its posters, spend more time watching and listening and interacting with posters before you spout such know-it-all, judgmental comments. You will do a lot better with other forum members, and will last a lot longer and have an enjoyable experience if you do.

Click to expand...

So this is a polite threatening? Last a lot longer?

I know it does not work while you try to threat someone a polite way, in a professional manner (actually that is not professional at all). Ten years, and being a SM mean you away right? And do you know my experience? Do you know who am I? You said I post judgmental comment, but you don't know who I am, and you said other know quite a lot, it is a judgement. Everyone can be judgmental, the important point is who is right.

Next time if you want to warn someone don't try that manner, you can say it clear in a normal way, that is enough. I don't need your advise and I will do what I want. Don't be that arrogant.

Back to the topic, even the rail gun of the navy doesn't work at this time, of course someone can imagine the future, it is his right.

Your point is null, the methods you mentioned is not inherited from railgun, and could apply to normal gun as well. Actually it seems you are not seeing it from engineering point of view, but trying to name calling. I don't know exactly what you said, but is that FAPDS with low density inside heavy sheath, and other type of sheathing the penetrator? From engineer point of view, it is harder to protect a rod just merely several cm in diameter.

The point of railgun is mostly increasing muzzle velocity beyond the normal gun, but this is a costly approach. Firstly, upon a point, the efficiency of penetration decreases with increased velocity. Secondly, increase velocity is very power consuming, (energy ~ squared velocity). Lastly, that kind of velocity is not new, EFP can reach several km/s, shaped charge can reach ten km/s. And both active and reactive armor can work at this range.

Don't play the call name game. The info about railgun is not well known at this time, and I doubt most guys here know anything better than just name calling. And it is only used on Navy because the obvious reason, so to defense it is pure speculative. And of course Los Almos is a respected name, but you are (mostly) not Los Almos scientist (by the way you talked). And even if you are Los Almos scientist, you still don't know what other has in his hand (Russian or Chinese or even me???). So respect other like the way you respect your Los Almos name and you will be fine.

FORBIN said:

How many m/sec possible with a 120 mm railgun you think guys ?

Click to expand...

The Velocities aimed for from Railguns are between 6-7 Mach that a range between 2,041.74 m/s to 2,382.03 m/s however because of energy consumption and velocity to mass at that speed 120mm is over kill. the Penetrator for a 120mm M829A3 is about 22 pounds of high denisty DU and a muzzle velocity of 1,555 m/s. By using a rail gun as your basis you can Shrink the bore and projectile because energy equals mass times velocity. a 4.5 pound DU round propelled to mach 7 would easily punch into any tank in the world perhaps even pass through it.
the downside of course is that this would be optimized for use as a tank buster as HE round which use explosive loads and Canister rounds which use large numbers of "Shot" Projectiles would suffer due to smaller explosive content.
the advantage though if it could be made really practical would be that the Rounds would not need a propellent charge, which is the most dangerous part of conventional artillery. the Projectiles are very stable the cartridge or powder charge is the killer for the crews that handle it.
So it's very safe for the crews got lots of penetration against armor. but the electrical requirements are high and you loose most of your infantry support capability

so lets take a moment or so and look at possible alternatives
The Conventional.
now 313230 brought up the 140mm. there was testing of it but a number of things happened. first the Coldwar ended and the feared Super mega Soviet tanks it was made to kill never materialized. The larger round cost more and the size of the rounds means a smaller magazine. the advantages of scaling up the gun didn't out weight the disadvantages. the cost benefit ruled against it. instead the Germans created the L55 long barrel smooth bore 120mm.
The Russians T95 was said to be using a 152mm this is another large scale cannon but one that would be familiar to us westerners as the MBT70 used the same caliber. the MBT70's gun could fire conventional 152mm rounds like High Explosive, anti-personnel, High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) and Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) rounds, and the Shillelagh missile. the advantage to a high velocity cannon of this is power all the rounds were big and packed a wallup. at the time the perceived range of the 152mm cannon was 3 Km.
the cost for such is the size and weight of the rounds in either the 140mm or 152mm the cannon needs a Autoloader.

Electrothermal-chemical
this is primarily a change in the ignition of the tank shell's propellent by using plasma to ignite the charge the gun burns the propellent more efficiently well placing less stress on the gun. now as I said there would still be a propellent charge but the Plasma ignition is compatible with other forms of propellent like Liquid propellants which would offer even higher velocities then conventional ones. the Power requirements for a ETC gun are much lower then a Rail gun and the technologies are very mature to the point infact that it was supposed to be part of the FCS system and may still be part of the M1A3 upgrade. it can also be built into existing tank guns.
You have more efficient firing cycle, can still fire HEAT, Anti personal and even Missiles if you like. It's a fraction of the electrical costs of a Rail gun still has a higher velocity and can even be retrofit to your existing guns.

313230 said:

So this is a polite threatening? Last a lot longer?

Click to expand...

It was advise...exactly as I said it was. Freely given and entirely up to you if you want to take it or not.

Read the rules, You signed up here and are expected to abide them.

If I want to moderate, 31320, I will do so in Bold Blue per the rules.

As it is...you can take advise anyway you want. Totally your choice.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

[video=youtube_share;8rsML92PLbU]http://youtu.be/8rsML92PLbU[/video]

Click to expand...

Good too see that they are thinking about auto loader, but at the current combat environment, I don't think they will use it. Less ammo can be carried is the first point. The other point, IMO, would be that the "human" loader still have sufficient speed when they are fighting insurgent and old MBT, and they can be replaced when injured.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The Velocities aimed for from Railguns are between 6-7 Mach that a range between 2,041.74 m/s to 2,382.03 m/s however because of energy consumption and velocity to mass at that speed 120mm is over kill. the Penetrator for a 120mm M829A3 is about 22 pounds of high denisty DU and a muzzle velocity of 1,555 m/s. By using a rail gun as your basis you can Shrink the bore and projectile because energy equals mass times velocity. a 4.5 pound DU round propelled to mach 7 would easily punch into any tank in the world perhaps even pass through it.

Click to expand...

You are clueless.

The penetration is not based merely on the weight of the penetrator, or the speed of it. You talked like you are a professional on the matter but you are not. Look at this graph, made by a respected scientist dedicated in long rod penetrator, as you can see mach 7 is nothing special on that graph, and actually for DU, the best velocity is at 1.6km/s, by increasing velocity, you decrease the penetration (for the same energy).

Your 4.5 pound DU at Mach 7 only has 5.8MJ, even less than 10MJ in the graph. And even those penetrators in the graph may have a hard time penetrating latest armor, your railgun DU will surely not punch through them. But I think telling people here some simple facts may get me banned.