Andrei_bt

Armor protection of the tanks of the second postwar generation T-64 (T-64A), Chieftain Mk5P and M60

Technical data on soviet 1-st post WW2 generation of tanks, Like T-54, T-55 and T-62 are well known and well described in literature. But what if Soviet “premium” tanks of 70-s era were engaged into real combat against western tanks in Europre.

This article provides description of "Object 432" (T-64) and T-64A tank combined protection (composite armor, anti radiation and chemical protection) in comparison to western designed tanks – “Chieftain” Mk5P and M60A1. Information on T-64 protection includes technical project (presentation) dated 1961 and technical drawings from various periods. Information on “Chieftain” Mk5P and M60A1 tanks is a result of study of captured tanks delivered to USSR in 1970s and beginning of 1980-s, published in technical reports of that period. The importance of information is the common testing criteria based on Soviet approach to tanks testing and protection design. This article contains mostly direct citations of facts and numbers published in reports with some comments.

Well, suppose this is a useless task.

Prepared a first article in English, but translating this materials is very complex task in question of terms.

Will be grateful is anybody assist in corrections of this material (terms and so on).

http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm  

It is from an article from VBTT about drum autoloader design

So the United Arab Emirates ordered German explosive reactive armor for ~125 million Euros. Does anybody know where this is going to be used? Maybe on the Leclerc or BMP-3?

What is the source of this ?

so called plenetary drums -

http://s04.radikal.ru/i177/1704/1a/99c5d45f84e3.jpg

On 09.04.2017 at 1:33 AM, Ramlaen said:

http://defence-blog.com/army/ukroboronprom-offers-modern-modular-turret-systems-at-laad-2017.html

rather ugly made models

13 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

From Andrey's site, one of proposed modernisation of T-80BV and T-64s: http://btvt.info/5library/t80moderniz.htm

 

It is basically a Kornet launcher, mounted behind turret.

 

 

In 90-s Kobra GL ATGM became quite obsolete, so this was a good idea withou limitation of gun calibre and missile size.

 Some sort of flashback to 60-s era Malutka equiped tanks.

Some updete on Soviet post war tanks armor, in communist language, but still pictures availible.

 Soon will be translated into elf's language )

Бронирование современных отечественных танков

I will translate it soon, briefly Soviets acquired live M60A1 in 70-s and Chieftain in early 80-s. They studied them very closely in all areas. Concerning armor they discovered that Chieftain is not that evil monster they considered.

It has maximal 250 mm armor LOS and can be penetrated by T-55 from 500 m, from T-62 from 1600 m and from T-64-72-80 from 3 000 m.

Results and conclussions of Soviet study of M60A1 (from IDF) and Chieftain Mk5P (from Iran) in comparisson with T-64 (T-64A).

http://btvt.info/3at...ty/432armor.htm

Quote

This level of pressure shouldn't just be dangerous, but lethal in close proximity

Yes it is local effect (close to the shape charge jet) but it has habit to reflect from tnak internal surfeces.

Concerning shaped charge Beyond-armour effect.
The results of soviet tests in 1968 (development of integrated ERA) using pressure sensors and rabbits. In case of penetration of 115 mm HEAT round inside the testing rig sensors recorded overpressure with an amplitude of 0.4 kg / cm2. Such overpressure can be considered dangerous for humans.

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/469619.html

100 photos from PLA tank Museum - link

Yes  I know the sourse is Khlopotov Yes it was not end, but  the name is different

Of course can be biger, but tanks do not find like ancient knights at 0 degree head on.

Well, no one said "it was not developed by Russian emigres". But the information of idea of ERA itself is more than possible passed with Blazer. To many coinsidenses.  

On 01.05.2016 at 1:24 PM, Militarysta said:

IMHO it was just ended Nota without Russian componenets - nothing more. This tank is top secret now, and reson wyhy whole family Ob.477A1 Molot, Ob.477A2 Nota and Ob.477A3/(or 477A2b) Biala is sec

Biala? Maybe Belka (squirrel) or "white" as you say?

On 05.05.2016 at 10:59 PM, Militarysta said:

Propably the most interesting was T-80B armour in turret (hull -the same as T-72A)

 

T-80B (1978-1984)

 

Psyhical thickness in the thickest place before crew comparment: 715mm

psyhical thickenss at 30. degree from turret centre - 530mm

psyhical thicnes in thinest place whit kvarc "sepcial armour": 520mm

 

Wery simple armour, heavy weight, but...cheap and effective! Material thickens effectivens is well known (vs. APFSDS and HEAT)

 

cast steel circa 270-330HB - 0,85 vs APFSDS and HEAT

kvarc "snadbars"  - 1.22 vs HEAT and 0.77 vs APFSDS

Whole turret protection looks good, very good:

 for LOS thicknes equal 715mm:
vs APFSDS: ~590mm (sic!)
vs HEAT: ~670mm


for LOS thicknes equal  530mm
vs APFSDS: ~440mm
vs HEAT:  500mm

for LOS thicknes equal 520mm
vs APFSDS: ~430mm
vs HEAT: ~490mm


And for compare older NATO 120mm rifted and 105mm APFSDS munition:

(2km, plate slopped at 60 degree (angle)  so the most comfortable conditions for penetrator, for 0. angle penetration must be mucht worse)

 

105mm rifted:

M111 (???) - 340mm RHA
M774 (1979) - 360mm RHA
M833 (1983) - 500mm RHA

 

120mm L-44 Leo-2:

DM13 (1979) - 440mm RHA
DM23 (1985) - 480mm RHA

In Soviets protection estimates only 30 degree was taken into account, so it has modest 420 mm vs APFSDS.

On 03.11.2016 at 11:34 AM, LoooSeR said:

It looks like rumors about Oplot not having composite/layered armor in its UFP are true.

UFP armor module is duplet ERA blocks and steelplate between them.

 

 

Other pics:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Duplet side armor modules parts:

 

Side armor plates:

 

 

 

 

Turret:

Yes it's true - it's just rumors

On 17.12.2016 at 2:34 PM, SH_MM said:

Rafael did probably not receive any Soviet input for the Blazer ERA. However they also did not really "design" ERA, as (Western) ERA was invented and developed by Dr. Manfred Held. Dr. Held has patented numerous different ERA designs between 1967 and 1974. A lot of them can be accessed in the German/European patent office. As wirtten by Marsh, Dr. Held unsuccessfully pitched his ERA designs to numerous countries until he demonstrated his ERA to Israel in 1974.

 

Given that there are patents from 1970 that show an identical ERA layout to Blazer (simple tiles, three layers of the same thickness), all "design" work Rafael probably had to make was chose the size of the ERA tiles for the tanks.

Well, it's official story. Maybe it is correct, maybe not. It is hard to compare level of Dr. Held works with the Soviet ones which were state supported.

From 1968 to 1975 about 100 000 people migrated from USSR to Israel, it is said the one who was mentioned in 1968 report among the Soviet ERA developer is among them.

On 14.12.2016 at 11:31 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The Author in the narod blog claims Blazer was a Soviet development, when IRL it was Rafael's development - an Israeli company.

He shows a general bias and lack of knowledge when it comes to Israeli developments

Thanks for comment, but these are documents, not just someone's opinion.

So we have the development of ERA in USSR .

It started in 1940-s (first published in 1949).

In 1968 test with above mentioned report.

One of the developers has the name Blazer. Later he repatriated from USSR to his historical motherland.

---Can you please explain this a bit more? According to R. Lindström, the T-80U send to the Swedish tests had essentially the same armor, just slightly different thickness.

Hi! I can not explain what did they send to Sweeden, just it's not wat was in T-80U-UD. it's early 219A like on a drawing well known for years.

But the above mentioned Swedish picture describes the overall design rather good. Cast plates with holes in them (both sides) filled with resin.

On 15.02.2017 at 5:10 PM, LoooSeR said:

Click link to topic for more pics and schematics.

Actualy to understand this pic

it is not t-80U or UD, it's early 219A

Red is cast metal

Yellow is a resin

and it is not correct.

On 15.02.2017 at 10:38 PM, Collimatrix said:

 

This is why you shouldn't believe wikipedia about the technical aspects of tank design.  Wikipedia articles about tanks are often written by people that have no idea what they're talking about.  Also, I have heard rumors that they are occasionally vandalized by hooligans.  Does it make any sense to you that a tank designed to replace the T-64, T-72 and T-80, all tanks that had composite hull armor, would itself lack composite hull armor?

Moreover, even if the Object 187 prototypes didn't have the composite modules actually installed (no way to be sure), the clearly had provisions for advanced armor on the hull and turret.  Here's a picture of one of them with hull ERA installed:

 

and here is a picture of the turret composite armor package:



Also, what makes the Object 187 glacis design so good isn't the specific armor package that was used in it, it was the shape.  Unlike every other modern tank it lacked the weak point around the driver's position.  But you should know this already, you wrote an article on it once.

I'm beginning to get the impression that you simply enjoy arguing.

Actually it did not lacked the weak point around the driver's position, but it was reduced.

It's clear from inside photos. But the level depends on variants.