Militarysta

After waths all ISIS video, all photos, drone video, satmaps and other  -my conclusion on one picture.

After waths all ISIS video, all photos, drone video, satmaps and other  -my conclusion on one picture.

I have a greate satisfaction couse somthing what was very possible form me, (even obvious) become true based on facts and hard data:
Leopard 2A0-A3 was better armoured then M1. Knowing mass (kg) on armour cubic m2 in Leo-2 and M1 it was almoust sure,
now we have some hard data:
M1:

 
Leo-2:

 
 
So we have then:
M1:
400mm RHA vs KE
750mm RHA vs CE
Leopard 2A0-A3:
450mm RHA vs KE*
około 800-900mm RHA vs CE**
 
 
* it'smass equiwalent - consedering way of working burlington style armour it shoud be multiple by even 1,1-1,2 do up to 500-540mm (!), again - fact about posibilities DM-13 to perforate Leo-2A0 armour form less then 1000m give us up to 500mm RHA value.
** estimatous based on knowing relatio between "burlington style armour" protecion between CE and KE. Propably it shoud be number close to 850mm RHA in case Leo-2A0-A4.

What is the source for the US estimations? Is this a document from CIA and can it be accessed online?
But in general good to know that we were correct. That the Leopard 2 has supposedly better frontal armor has been claimed by German sources since the US tests of the Leopard 2AV in 1976.
 
I cannot download the document, the website always reloads with a new advertisment in a pop-up window.
 
 
___
 
I have been trying to figure out the thickness of the Leopard 2 optional hull add-on armor (MEXAS-H/AMAP).
 
I am not a 100% sure, but it seems that the height of the glacis plate is the same in front and behind the mounting mechanism for the sliding hatch of the Leopard 2A5/2A6:

(that's what seems to be the most likely assumption)
 
Bronezhilet measured the height of the Leopard 2A6 hatch mechanism in August.

So assuming above theory is correct, the hatch sliding mechanism extrudes over the glacis by ~65 mm. I am a bit puzzled by the "lower level" of the hatch sliding mechanism... is the lower edge of the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7 hatch located below the glaics? I am not sure, I think it is not. But to be sure I noted that that this might inflate the measurement by ~20 mm if that's the case.
 
Now let's take a look at the Leopard 2A7V demonstrator from Eurosatory 2016. In general the hull armor seems to have the same thickness as on the Strv 122, Leopard 2A6HEL, Leopard 2DK and Leopardo 2E (however the armor composition was most likely altered, the position and size of the bolts is different):

The hatch sliding mechansim seems to be flush with the armor, so the armor is most likely 65 mm (also possible 45 mm). If we take the slope and thickness of the glacis into account (40 mm at 7° from the horizontal) this leads to 85 mm or 105 mm at 7° from the horizontal - line of sight this is equal to 697 mm or (more likely) 861 mm. That's as thick as the turret of a Leopard 2A4!

https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj7s5yTgp7RAhXddlAKHaWsDhcQFggkMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fyadda.icm.edu.pl%2Fbaztech%2Felement%2Fbwmeta1.element.baztech-article-PWAA-0029-0006%2Fc%2Fhttpwww_witu_mil_plwwwbiuletynzeszyty20110118p51.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGcuealc1kZEFR5OEIIqeLBX_uu8g&sig2=GVzoIr4HeO685vcGTaPNIQ
 

 

http://www.kones.eu/ep/2011/vol18/no1/79.pdf
 

https://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2016/139/23.pdf
(pdf in polish and englis)



 slides from pdf:

 

 

https://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2016/139/23.pdf
(pdf in polish and englis)



 slides from pdf:

 

 

https://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2016/139/23.pdf
(pdf in polish and englis)



 slides from pdf:

 

 

http://www.kones.eu/ep/2011/vol18/no1/79.pdf
 

https://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2016/139/23.pdf
(pdf in polish and englis)



 slides from pdf:

 

 

I know very well the influence of ex-Soviet immigrants. I'm one as well, but their involvement in some of the more well known project at the time, was not substantial. There's also no way to confirm who was on the design team. All the available info is a certain Rafael division in cooperation with a German scientist (I forgot his name, sorry).
 
According to my father's friend, who used to work for Rafael and Elbit, Russian presence was felt mostly in optronics (night vision mostly) in both these companies, and automotives design in MANTAK. 
It's important to note that armor solutions in the IDF are provided by IMI+MANTAK for heavy applications, and Plasan for light applications. Rafael only deals in Reactive, Hybrid, and Active protection. 

Nano-ceramic armor has better thickness efficiency than steel against AP ammunitions:

RHA - blue; armor using conventional ceramic materials - grey: armor using nano-ceramics - light blue.
 
For this application (armor protection meeting the STANAG 4569 level 3 requirements) the thickness efficiency seems to be two or more, tthe mass efficiency is five!

I think you are mixing two different things up. The armor module with the three RPGs stuck inside was described as SidePRO-ATR by the Military Technology Magazine. The patent however does show SidePRO-RPG I think.
 
SidePRO-RPG does have an areal density of 45 kg/m² according to RUAG's flyers. This is the weight of a 6-7 mm thick steel plate per square-metre! SidePRO-RPG does not protect against RPGs with tandem warheads according to RUAG's data... just like the steel spikes should not provide protection against tandem charges. The steel spikes can defeat single stage warheads by punching holes in the liner, so that no HEAT jet is formed. When there are two warheads, the spikes won't be able to reach the second warhead; no holes will be inside of it, so that it can fuze and form a fully functional HEAT jet with great armor penetration.
 
SidePRO-ATR is heavier and probably uses some sort of NERA + passive armor. It also provides protection against KE threats and EFPs.
 
____
 
I don't think that AMAP looks like SidePRO-RPG. The armor module was not fitted with a heavy coverplate, only a very thin steel layer was used. The PG-7VLT could penetrate this steel without the warhead being fuzed. Similar things happened with "Chobham armor" on the Warrior IFV:
 
 

The coverplate of the armor design from 1969 was only 3.1 milimetres thick.
 
AMAP-SC has a mass-efficiency of 8 to 10 according to IBD Deisenroth. To stop a RPG-7 firing a PG-7VLT with tandem charge warhead, the weight of the armor should equivalent to between 50 and 70 mm thick steel plates.

I think the glacis armor is NERA, only the armor above the tracks is a single plate. This was already the case with the Strv 122 and Leopard 2E:
 

 

 

I think the side armor is mostly NERA and not ceramic armor. Compared to the Strf 9040C (CV9040 with AMAP) and Leopard C2 (Leopard 1A5 with MEXAS):
 

 

 
Lot's of small bolts to hold the NERA plates... quite similar to the Leopard 2A5 turret armor module. It's definetly NERA on the Leopard C2, based on the article "Lightweight passive armour for inantry carrier vehicle" published by F. U. Deisenroth and Richard W.O. Kwok in the 19th International Symposium of Ballistics.
 
My guess is that the differences in appearance as the result of further enhancments. The Leopard 2 Evolution used an older version of the armor; maybe the later version of the Evolution armor package feature a thicker coverplate (made of steel or ceramics covered by thin steel) atop of the NERA. The Leopard 2SG seems to feature only parts of the turret armor, maybe some part was left out in order to keep the tank within a weight limit or something similar. 
 

Interesting. Based on the old brochures from IBD Deisenroth's older homepage, AMAP-B has a mass efficiency of more than four, while AMAP-SC has a mass efficiency of 8 to 10. If these claims are true, I could believe that the protection values for the PT-16. I wonder how Rheinmetall does know the protection level of the Leopard 2A7 though, and why they are allowed to say that their tank provides equal protection... that's somewhat a breach of opsec.
 
So now we need only a proper measurement in size (how much surface is covered by each armor module) to estimate an areal density.
 

It's a matter of costs and workload. They already could have replaced the sideskirts with the slightly thicker ones of the late Leopard 2A4/Leopard 2A5 a few years ago,

It's not true to be honest. And there are 3 diffrent "Sviniets" round in Russia:
3BM48 Sviniets  1991 DU rod for Sprut-SD, T-90, T-90A, and propably for some T-80U whit ESSA and PLISA.
3BM59 Sviniets-1 2002 DU for T-90A and T-72B3 since 2014
3BM60 Sviniets-2 2002  WHA as above.
 
And even the oldes "Sviniets" 3BM48 (DOI 1991) was in mass production:

T-80BV №180 near railroad station of Grozny, later was send for repairs. 

 
- 2 APDS (APFSDS?) hits in frontal armor (one just above number 8), 1 ricocheted from UFP;
- 1 APDS (APFSDS?) round hit towing hook, hook was destroyed, no penetration;
- 1 or 2 hits from HEAT shell (possible from tank gun or AT gun) in LFP at an angle. Dozer blade mounts damaged, no penetration;
- 1 hit to the turret rear. OPVT damaged, radios were damaged inside.
 
- 1 hit that did penetrate was RPG to UFP, just near driver periscope. ERA blocks were empty, driver was hit in the head by HEAT jet, damaged main gun stabilizator, autoloader and 2 other smaller systems.

Some APFSDS marks on destroyed tanks:
 
T-72M ODS 1991:
 


 
 
Separatist T-72B m.1989:


(the most strange think is that this tank not blow out after sucht hit..)
 
 
UA Army T-64 BW after hit:


 
 
well known separatist T-64BW destroyed by two APFSDS hit:


 
 
Iraqi T-62 2003 OIF:
 
1st example:

 
2th example:

 
Russian/separatist T-72BW after friendly fire to destroy damage tank:

what is interesting - fist shoot was on sucht short distance that we can see sabot mark on plate -so distance was under 50m... interesting. 
About fins marks - 3BM42 in action?

Eurostatory2016 - Nexter munition (IMHO mucht more interesting then intenrational onanism on 130mm Rheinmettal gun)









Yes...datalink and programator in APFSDS-T Nexter F1B-NG:



And it's not firs western APFSDS-T whit data link and programator:



Why there is data-link/progamator in APFSDS-T round?
I have a theory:
Propably it is to somehow use a precursor that is "fired ahead" of the main rod.



So how the rod designs looks like here? The rod is made from two segments, the "precursor" and the main rod behind it. How they are connected? it might be some sort of polymer, glue that can be weakened by heat and the release precursor, and during flight rods heat up pretty nicely.

The precursor can also be relased based on a simple difference of speed between it and the main rod, and main rod can be slowed down by some sort of additional fins (aerodynamic breaks) released at specific point programmed by FCS. In such case precuros would initiate ERA and the main rod would have a clear way to main armor of the target.

How to cheat APS tough? Counting that precursor will be qualified by APS as threat and APS will be initiated, creating a time gap in APS reaction so it won't be able to counter the main rod? Possible yes, but then there is question, if APS will just not ignore the precursor, and this might happen, now of course there is a question how dangerous is precursor itself? For a MBT or vehicle with similiar levels of protection, for it's front it won't be dangerous in most cases, sides? If they do not have any addon armor, very possible. For lightweight platforms, yeah precursor also will be dangerous.

Of course these are only hypothesis, and we will see if other nations will also design APFSDS rounds with data link. Then we might get closer to the truth. Right now, treat it as food for thoughts.


And now French "new generation" OFL have progrmator. In case Abrams - datalink can be used for secure resons. In M1 gunner (not loader like in Leo-2) is setting type of ammo, so in theory there is posibilty that loader put for example APFSDS-T but gunner have still HEAT set up in FCS. So programator was some theory how to avoid sucht mistakes. But in Leclerc ammo? There are two barcode scaner in Leclerc Seriee XXI and bar code on ammo. So there is no posibility to "mistaken" loaded ammo.
So meybe my crazy theory about precursor in APFSDS could be real?

ps. USA had tested T-84 whit Knive = programator in new M829A4
Frencht had tested Knive ERA = pogramator   in new F1B-NG
Poland had tested Kinve ERA = "new" Leopard-2PL will have programator in Rh120mm gun...
Strange...

Eurostatory2016 - Nexter munition (IMHO mucht more interesting then intenrational onanism on 130mm Rheinmettal gun)









Yes...datalink and programator in APFSDS-T Nexter F1B-NG:



And it's not firs western APFSDS-T whit data link and programator:



Why there is data-link/progamator in APFSDS-T round?
I have a theory:
Propably it is to somehow use a precursor that is "fired ahead" of the main rod.



So how the rod designs looks like here? The rod is made from two segments, the "precursor" and the main rod behind it. How they are connected? it might be some sort of polymer, glue that can be weakened by heat and the release precursor, and during flight rods heat up pretty nicely.

The precursor can also be relased based on a simple difference of speed between it and the main rod, and main rod can be slowed down by some sort of additional fins (aerodynamic breaks) released at specific point programmed by FCS. In such case precuros would initiate ERA and the main rod would have a clear way to main armor of the target.

How to cheat APS tough? Counting that precursor will be qualified by APS as threat and APS will be initiated, creating a time gap in APS reaction so it won't be able to counter the main rod? Possible yes, but then there is question, if APS will just not ignore the precursor, and this might happen, now of course there is a question how dangerous is precursor itself? For a MBT or vehicle with similiar levels of protection, for it's front it won't be dangerous in most cases, sides? If they do not have any addon armor, very possible. For lightweight platforms, yeah precursor also will be dangerous.

Of course these are only hypothesis, and we will see if other nations will also design APFSDS rounds with data link. Then we might get closer to the truth. Right now, treat it as food for thoughts.


And now French "new generation" OFL have progrmator. In case Abrams - datalink can be used for secure resons. In M1 gunner (not loader like in Leo-2) is setting type of ammo, so in theory there is posibilty that loader put for example APFSDS-T but gunner have still HEAT set up in FCS. So programator was some theory how to avoid sucht mistakes. But in Leclerc ammo? There are two barcode scaner in Leclerc Seriee XXI and bar code on ammo. So there is no posibility to "mistaken" loaded ammo.
So meybe my crazy theory about precursor in APFSDS could be real?

ps. USA had tested T-84 whit Knive = programator in new M829A4
Frencht had tested Knive ERA = pogramator   in new F1B-NG
Poland had tested Kinve ERA = "new" Leopard-2PL will have programator in Rh120mm gun...
Strange...

No. It;s not ETC.
 

Unfortunately very offen there is replicated myth about soviet Kontakt 1 ERA (4s20) as captured BLAZER copy.
It's completly false statment - developed 4s20 was independent soviet work and had started even erlyer then Blazer..
 
All is visible on cut-viev of the Blazer and Kontakt 1 ERA:
 

 
First of all - erly Blazer mostly have ONE reactive element inside ERA casette, Kontakt - always TWO elements.
Second - there is diffrent build of reactive elements in Blazer and 4s20 -what is visible.

Unfortunately very offen there is replicated myth about soviet Kontakt 1 ERA (4s20) as captured BLAZER copy.
It's completly false statment - developed 4s20 was independent soviet work and had started even erlyer then Blazer..
 
All is visible on cut-viev of the Blazer and Kontakt 1 ERA:
 

 
First of all - erly Blazer mostly have ONE reactive element inside ERA casette, Kontakt - always TWO elements.
Second - there is diffrent build of reactive elements in Blazer and 4s20 -what is visible.

ps:
 

 
More tank and APC/IFV videos I will post soon :-)

My job, from my little archive -a few armour LOS thickenss ;-)