Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

[Wiedzmin]

 

 

 

Leclerc

 

 

AMX-30 with BMP-3 ERA

 

[SH_MM]

 

Old Swiss report on the trials of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams.

[Wiedzmin]

 

Quite interesting M1A1 uses same spacers for crew compartment side armor as front ones

[SH_MM]

Photos showing the K2 armor thickness, taken by someone in Poland.

Frontal armor seems rather inconsistent (at least in front of the gunner's sight). Basically only achieves consistent protection when seen directly from the front and ranges from ca. 650 mm (directly next to the gun mantlet) to ca. a maximum of 850 mm. Also I am not sure if the element to which the radar panels are mounted is actual armor; it is attached with bolts from the front, but there is also a welding seam at the top. At 30° angle, armor thickness can range from <100 mm to 630 mm.

 

Not a very consistent protection.

Turret side armor is 50 mm thick, seemingly a simple steel plate. Additional ERA can be attached to the stowage boxes.

 

Side skirt armor. 50 mm baseline armor plus ERA panels (25 mm ERA + 25 mm backplate).

Rear hull, 30 mm steel.

 

[Wiedzmin]

On 9/6/2023 at 3:13 PM, SH_MM said:

Rear hull, 30 mm steel.

that's front part 

[SH_MM]

On 9/9/2023 at 10:09 PM, Wiedzmin said:

that's front part 

 

Thanks for the correction, mistook the headlights for the rear lights. I should have paid more attention.

[SH_MM]

This fits here better than into the British topic:

Comparison of hull armor of CR2 minimum requirement, CR1 (up-armored), T-72M1, T-80BV, M1A1 and Leopard 2. Some data is based on the manufacturer's claims, some of the data seems to be British estimates.

[SH_MM]

 

+

Apparently the M1A1HA has "650 mm RHAe" turret frontal protection against KE rounds according to the UK. Note that this is limited only to the turret front modules, as the side armor was not improved. So over a 60° frontal arc, the tank still remained vulnerable to much weaker rounds.

 

Also note the rate of fire for CR1: 3-4 rounds per minute!

[Wiedzmin]

51 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Apparently the M1A1HA

 

pretty much same as swedish data on M1A2

[Zach9889]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

 

 

 

Penetration figures correspond to:

CR1, 430-530mm - L23A1/L26A1

T-72, 480mm - BM-42

T-80, 530mm - BM-32

M1A1, 690mm - M829A1

Leo 2A4, 605mm - DM43(?)

 

Why was there a distinction between T-72 and T-80? I'm not clear on which projectile for the Leo 2A4 was assessed. The performance seems too high for DM33, and AFAIK DM43 was never fielded by Germany.

 

[Scav]

17 minutes ago, Zach9889 said:

 

Penetration figures correspond to:

CR1, 430-530mm - L23A1/L26A1

T-72, 480mm - BM-42

T-80, 530mm - BM-32

M1A1, 690mm - M829A1

Leo 2A4, 605mm - DM43(?)

 

Why was there a distinction between T-72 and T-80? I'm not clear on which projectile for the Leo 2A4 was assessed. The performance seems too high for DM33, and AFAIK DM43 was never fielded by Germany.

 

DM43 wasn't fielded, but it was adopted.
This is likely a bit older information and estimates for the T-series.

They seem to be advertised numbers, not normalised in tests.

[Laviduce]

3 hours ago, Scav said:

DM43 wasn't fielded, but it was adopted.
This is likely a bit older information and estimates for the T-series.

They seem to be advertised numbers, not normalised in tests.

Yes, it seems to be the DM43 used on the Rh-120-44.

 

 

Is there a better copy of the full page of this document available ?

[Fireball]

On 1/2/2024 at 2:36 PM, Zach9889 said:

CR1, 430-530mm - L23A1/L26A1

Yep Jericho 1(L23A1 + L14) and then Jericho 2(L26A1 + L14)
CHARM 1(L26A1 + L12) is 585 at the same range(2km)

[Kazynor]

Somewhat longtime lurker here with a question:

 

Does anyone here have/know of a summary on the working relations between Rhm and KMW/KNDS? From what i can tell, KNDS owns the IP for Leopard, but companies such as Rhm (and FFG, RUAG etc) are allowed to modify and sell stuff like the Wisent, Buffel and so on, while also being a subcontractor for Leopard 2 components. 

 

So i'm assuming that there are some frameworks in place regarding how business between the KNDS and others work, maybe on a government level? 

I do a lot of work with KNDS but never really got a good answer on this, and the topic came up recently with the KF51. Because I assume that Rhm cant just go to Greece and order 1000 Leopard 2 chassis for rework into the Panther, or at least not without approval from the IP owner? My experience with both companies (and especially now that KNW has become part of KNDS) is that they are somewhat "frenemies", if that makes sense? 

[BaronTibere]

It's quite complicated as while KNDS (via KMW) owns the Leopard 2 IP, Rheinmetall is a major supplier (via itself and also acquisitions) and also by way of subsidiary acquisition has some license production rights which are disputed by KNDS. The new proposal to construct KF51s in Hungary will use a "new" hull based on the Buffel (which is itself Leopard 2 based) as Rheinmetall has rights to through the acquistion of MaK in 1990.

[arakami]

@SH_MM Do you know the title of this certain document from 1988? Also when referencing 'Challenger 2', is it referencing the Challenger 2 proper and its prototype, or is it referencing the Challenger 1 Mk.2?

 

Do we know the Line of Sight thickness of the Challenger 1 turret front and upper glacis? I would hope the designers of the Challenger 1 dictated her upper front plate as being as well, or almost as well armoured as the turret front, as the designers of the Leclerc, Type 90, and Type 10, dictated. Armour protection mates materials with volume and weight.

 

 

 

My utterly immature estimation is that the Challenger 1 Mk.1 batch 1 (33KA) had only about 300mm~ KE UFP protection, whilst the Challenger 1 Mk.1 batch 2 (34KA) and Challenger 1 Mk.2/Mk.3s were given improved hull arrays to match the make of the turret arrays. As such, the majority of Challenger 1s would be protected by around 500mm~ KE for both the UFP and turret, the turret being slightly more protected and able to stop DM33, whereas the hull would only be able to stop DM23. An additional armour plate added to the Mk.3s would hopefully allow the UFP to stop DM33. DM43 and comparable rounds would necessitate the retirement of the Challenger 1.

 

The Challenger 2s seemingly wrought the bulk of its improved armour protection with the incorporation of Dorchester. The hull arrays seem to be exactly the same thickness as those on the Challenger 1s. Whilst there is more room for variance regarding the comparative thickness of her turret, I predict it is still very comparable to that of the Challenger 1s. Challenger 2 should be proof against DM53 striking her UFP and turret face, though not proof against DM73 and similar next-generation kinetic rounds - necessitating her retirement.

 

I'm mostly concerned about the idea that the UFP is not as thick, or nearly as thick as the turret front - and is then woefully more prone to penetration. Tanks such as the Leclerc, Ariete, and Type 10 - notwithstanding weakspots and with assumptions made for the Ariete - appear to armour their UFPs as well, or almost as well as they armour their turret fronts. The Type 10 should be protected against DM53 striking her hull array, as should the most modern Leclerc which would have necessitated their up-armouring over the original S1. The Ariete meanwhile seemingly is very heavy for a tank of such small stature; her lacking LFP composite and likely non-exceptional all-aspect armour protection, would indicate high levels of concentrated armour around her turret front and UFP.

[FORMATOSE]

On 1/19/2024 at 12:44 PM, arakami said:

My utterly immature estimation is that the Challenger 1 Mk.1 batch 1 (33KA) had only about 300mm~ KE UFP protection, whilst the Challenger 1 Mk.1 batch 2 (34KA) and Challenger 1 Mk.2/Mk.3s were given improved hull arrays to match the make of the turret arrays. As such, the majority of Challenger 1s would be protected by around 500mm~ KE for both the UFP and turret, the turret being slightly more protected and able to stop DM33, whereas the hull would only be able to stop DM23. An additional armour plate added to the Mk.3s would hopefully allow the UFP to stop DM33. DM43 and comparable rounds would necessitate the retirement of the Challenger 1.

 

 

The document below states that the lower glacis (not to be confused with the lower hull front) of the Challenger 1 is 300 mm vs KE and 580 mm vs CE :

 

 

The Gulf column show that the Challenger 1 used during the Gulf War (the 179 Challenger 1 deployed during the Gulf War were either Challenger 1. Mk. 2 ACB or Mk. 3.) had improved protection in the lower glacis area (350/700) but this is only due to the addition of an add-on NERA sandwich above the ROMOR-A support frame. KE protection was only increased by 16%.

 

 

 

On 1/19/2024 at 12:44 PM, arakami said:

Challenger 2 should be proof against DM53 striking her UFP and turret face, though not proof against DM73 and similar next-generation kinetic rounds - necessitating her retirement.

 

Challenger 2 ballistic protection trials were completed by Vickers Defence Systems in July 1990 and at that time, the best APFSDS rounds available for testing in Britain were the 120 mm BD26 (prototype) and the L26A1 CHARM 1 or its prototype, the XL26E1 (production of the L26A1 started in 1990 but at an unspecified date).

 

There's no reason to believe that the Challenger 2 turret front (and even less its UFP) would have been proof against a foreign APFSDS that didn't even exist in 1990.

[Wiedzmin]

On 1/19/2024 at 2:44 PM, arakami said:

Challenger 2 should be proof against DM53

well it is, even vs DM63, but  20mm DM63 only, anyhow....

 

 

[arakami]

@FORMATOSE Challenger 2 entered service in 1998, only about a year before the SEP V1 and a good half-decade after the M1A2 base. DM53 entered service shortly after in 2005, and would have been likely within the 'growth margin' of rounds that the Challenger 2s armour could defeat. Assuming the M1A2 and/or SEP V1/2 are protected against DM53 from the turret front, I can't imagine the Challenger 2 would not be - especially as the Challenger 2, as with the Abrams tanks, have not been up-armoured since. It would have donned similarly advanced composite armour and armour just as thick as that of the Abrams; it is also slightly heavier.

 

Similarly I would expect the hull array of the Challenger 1 to be able to stop DM23, a round that entered service in 1982 versus 1986 for the Challenger 1 Mk.2. I've seen that first image you've attached and remain unconvinced, I'd love to hear the documents title. Those figures coincide with premature estimates made for the Challenger 1 during the late 1970s presumably measuring a tank that would have used a lesser advanced composite type. I immaturely hope that it incorrectly cited Challenger 1 Mk.1 Batch 1, or pre-production estimate protection figures for what it thought was Mk.1 Batch 2 or Mk.2/Mk.3 figures, and simply added 50mm KE protection to account for the additional armour package of the Mk.3. Documents can cite incorrect information, after all - especially when citing other sources or older documents for protection figures, and not measuring those protection figures themselves.

 

I hope to discover measurements of the LOS thickness of the CR1 hull array, to be able to compare its thickness with that of the 1980 M1 Abrams which was about 700mm~ thick and provided about 400mm KE protection. Presumably the Challenger 1 Mk.1 Batch 2, Mk.2 and Mk.3 also used a composite armour more capable and akin to BRL-2 of the M1A1 rather than the BRL-1 of the M1. In-between development of the armour donning the Challenger 1 Mk.1, and the entry into service of the Challenger 1 Mk.2 - there were a number of advancements made in British and Western composite array development that I cannot see the British not exploiting. Stillbrew would don the Chieftains after entry into service of the Challenger 1 Mk.1, and as the Challenger 1 Mk.2 entered service, for example. Does anyone have measurements of the thickness of the CR1 hull and turret array?

[Scav]

6 hours ago, arakami said:

@FORMATOSE Challenger 2 entered service in 1998, only about a year before the SEP V1 and a good half-decade after the M1A2 base. DM53 entered service shortly after in 2005, and would have been likely within the 'growth margin' of rounds that the Challenger 2s armour could defeat. Assuming the M1A2 and/or SEP V1/2 are protected against DM53 from the turret front, I can't imagine the Challenger 2 would not be - especially as the Challenger 2, as with the Abrams tanks, have not been up-armoured since. It would have donned similarly advanced composite armour and armour just as thick as that of the Abrams; it is also slightly heavier.

What makes you think M1A2 and SEPs are protected against DM53?
They couldn't even resist some LKE2 prototype during Swedish trials.

ISD ≠ armour from this date.
Yeah, they were never up-armoured significantly apart from IED/RPG protection, which doesn't mean they didn't need it.

 

 

7 hours ago, arakami said:

Similarly I would expect the hull array of the Challenger 1 to be able to stop DM23, a round that entered service in 1982 versus 1986 for the Challenger 1 Mk.2. I've seen that first image you've attached and remain unconvinced, I'd love to hear the documents title. Those figures coincide with premature estimates made for the Challenger 1 during the late 1970s presumably measuring a tank that would have used a lesser advanced composite type. I immaturely hope that it incorrectly cited Challenger 1 Mk.1 Batch 1, or pre-production estimate protection figures for what it thought was Mk.1 Batch 2 or Mk.2/Mk.3 figures, and simply added 50mm KE protection to account for the additional armour package of the Mk.3. Documents can cite incorrect information, after all - especially when citing other sources or older documents for protection figures, and not measuring those protection figures themselves.

You expect and assume way too much.
There were no real armour upgrades between Challenger batches.
50mm of KE protection extra comes from the 25mm thick mounting plate for ROMOR...
 

7 hours ago, arakami said:

I hope to discover measurements of the LOS thickness of the CR1 hull array, to be able to compare its thickness with that of the 1980 M1 Abrams which was about 700mm~ thick and provided about 400mm KE protection. Presumably the Challenger 1 Mk.1 Batch 2, Mk.2 and Mk.3 also used a composite armour more capable and akin to BRL-2 of the M1A1 rather than the BRL-1 of the M1. In-between development of the armour donning the Challenger 1 Mk.1, and the entry into service of the Challenger 1 Mk.2 - there were a number of advancements made in British and Western composite array development that I cannot see the British not exploiting. Stillbrew would don the Chieftains after entry into service of the Challenger 1 Mk.1, and as the Challenger 1 Mk.2 entered service, for example. Does anyone have measurements of the thickness of the CR1 hull and turret array?

M1 hull didn't provide 400mm RHAe.
Only about 350mm.
BRL-2 is a misnomer, M1A1/IP use the same armour arrays as M1, just with a higher thickness on the front of the turret.
Stillbrew is just cast steel + rubber damper.

[arakami]

@Scav I'm aware of Stillbrew's composition as am I of the ROMOR mounting plate. "ISD ≠ armour from this date.", I am also aware of that. They wouldn't stop developing armour composites past 1990, they'd keep doing so until the Challenger 2s production, then into possible upgrades for acceptance into service, and then even beyond. Is it not possible that between the inception of the Challenger 2 Prototype in 1989/surrounding armour tests/early production units, and its entry into service in 1998... A newer armour composite could have been developed and later employed on in-service units, through retrofitting of even possibly early production units before their acceptance into service. That would annul the armour composites tested in and around 1990 donned by pre-production/prototype units and also possibly even the armour composite donning early 1993 production units. Is that not likely? That would certainly be frugal, those older composites would not yet be in mass production and little effort would be needed to ready the newer designs for production and installation.

 

Otherwise thank you for information regarding the Abrams, details are nice. I'm aware that the M1A1 turret was thickened compared to the M1, I thought the M1A1s turret was also upgraded through the use of a denser composite - no? Anyway, what tanks do we think are proof against DM53 around the turret, if not for the Abrams or Challenger? Certainly if the Wests' heaviest MBTs are not, none would be. Perhaps the superior engineering of the Germans would permit their turret so. When the 2A5 entered service in 1995 then, its level of protection would be lightyears ahead of contemporary MBTs - by 30 odd years, as the armour upgrades to make the Abrams and Challenger proof against DM53 are only just rearing their heads. Yeah, I can't reason that. Are NATO tanks just unable to stop APFSDS rounds, even where they are best protected? I'd need more convincing.

[Scav]

2 hours ago, arakami said:

@Scav I'm aware of Stillbrew's composition as am I of the ROMOR mounting plate. "ISD ≠ armour from this date.", I am also aware of that. They wouldn't stop developing armour composites past 1990, they'd keep doing so until the Challenger 2s production, then into possible upgrades for acceptance into service, and then even beyond. Is it not possible that between the inception of the Challenger 2 Prototype in 1989/surrounding armour tests/early production units, and its entry into service in 1998... A newer armour composite could have been developed and later employed on in-service units, through retrofitting of even possibly early production units before their acceptance into service. That would annul the armour composites tested in and around 1990 donned by pre-production/prototype units and also possibly even the armour composite donning early 1993 production units. Is that not likely? That would certainly be frugal, those older composites would not yet be in mass production and little effort would be needed to ready the newer designs for production and installation.

As Cold War had "ended", the need for improved frontal KE protection was significantly less with most tank losses during the Gulf War happening from friendly fire and RPG/mines/IEDs.
They didn't even implement thermal viewer for the commander as cost cutting measure and there are no remarks about improved base armour in any sources (compared with earlier prototypes).
 

2 hours ago, arakami said:

Otherwise thank you for information regarding the Abrams, details are nice. I'm aware that the M1A1 turret was thickened compared to the M1, I thought the M1A1s turret was also upgraded through the use of a denser composite - no? Anyway, what tanks do we think are proof against DM53 around the turret, if not for the Abrams or Challenger? Certainly if the Wests' heaviest MBTs are not, none would be. Perhaps the superior engineering of the Germans would permit their turret so. When the 2A5 entered service in 1995 then, its level of protection would be lightyears ahead of contemporary MBTs - by 30 odd years, as the armour upgrades to make the Abrams and Challenger proof against DM53 are only just rearing their heads. Yeah, I can't reason that. Are NATO tanks just unable to stop APFSDS rounds, even where they are best protected? I'd need more convincing.

Just because they can't stop a round that only entered service in 1998, doesn't mean they can't stop anything.
They have their own requirements, M1A2 is probably designed to defeat M829A1 at some velocity to simulate WP rounds.
CR2 is likely designed to defeat L26 at some velocity to simulate WP rounds.

Nations tend to use their own ammunition to test their tanks, unless they use STANAG testing procedures.

[BaronTibere]

At a certain point in tank development you have a design freeze. CR2's ISD was 1998 but deliveries started in 1994, the 4 year delay was down to reliability and quality issues. That means it's exceedingly likely that the internal armour composition was finalized and frozen prior to 1994 by a year or so, if not more.

 

 

[FORMATOSE]

12 hours ago, arakami said:

@FORMATOSE Challenger 2 entered service in 1998, only about a year before the SEP V1 and a good half-decade after the M1A2 base. DM53 entered service shortly after in 2005, and would have been likely within the 'growth margin' of rounds that the Challenger 2s armour could defeat. Assuming the M1A2 and/or SEP V1/2 are protected against DM53 from the turret front, I can't imagine the Challenger 2 would not be - especially as the Challenger 2, as with the Abrams tanks, have not been up-armoured since. It would have donned similarly advanced composite armour and armour just as thick as that of the Abrams; it is also slightly heavier.

 

The what would become the Challenger 2 protection requirements (SR(L) 4026) were promulgated in November 1987.

And what you call a "growth margin" has occured as the SR(L) 4026 requirements were amended somewhere between 1990 and 1992, as there was now a possibility to stretch levels from 500 mm to 600 mm vs KE (and 800 mm to 900 mm vs CE).

The latest proposal made by Vickers Defence Systems to the MoD was 540 mm vs KE and 900 mm CE for the turret front.

 

The FV4034 Challenger 2 entered service in June 1998 not because they continued to work on its composite armour until 1998 but because they have been subject to lengthy user trials (reliability, availability, service) between 1991 and 1998.

As I said before, ballistic testing ended in 1990. It makes sense that the whole design of the tank was frozen as expected to go into production.

In fact, the first 127 Challenger 2 were ordered in June 1991 and built in 1993-94. The Challenger 2 was accepted for service on 16 May 1994 and the first service Challenger 2 were delivered to the ATDU the next month, in June 1994, for testing and the same month, 259 other Challenger 2 were ordered.

 

12 hours ago, arakami said:

Similarly I would expect the hull array of the Challenger 1 to be able to stop DM23, a round that entered service in 1982 versus 1986 for the Challenger 1 Mk.2.

 

Mk. 2 upgrade of the Challenger 1 is related to the factory-fitting of the TOGS thermal sight. There was never any official reference to improved glacis protection.

 

 

[arakami]

@FORMATOSE I would imagine armour development would not freeze, as it would be conducted independent from the CR programme by some lab or whatnot. Are you sure the Challenger 2 was 'accepted into service' in 1994, and not just delivered to the army then? The terms seem to have gotten us confused. The Ajax was delivered back in 2020, yet it is thought to not have yet entered service and is undergoing a number of changes to the design. Location of the acusonic sensors have been juggled about for one, the 'design' is being changed and it is still undergoing extensive testing before it is thought to provide 'full operational capability'. Then is when I quote the Challenger 2s proper entry into service.

 

Between 1994 and 1998, the Army could have seen said labs recent developments in armour technology and decided to adopt that into the design of the Challenger 2 - as it would with say, suspension parts or fuel injectors that may have been causing reliability issues and stalling introduction. They wouldn't be changing anything inherent about the design, they'd simply be replacing the armour arrays out with new ones - as they would do for say, an array damaged in combat that would need to be replaced. Certainly it could have done so between 1989 and 1994, before the tank was delivered. The Army would have been incentivized to as well, considering the lightning-fast development of composite armours and penetrators at the time.

 

https://imgur.com/VmpObAC

 

Regarding the armour of the Challenger 1 Mk.2, there is this document that was made between entry into service of the Challenger 1 Mk.1 and Challenger 1 Mk.2, that proposed as with the TOGS upgrade, the Mk.2 would receive upgraded armour as well as an upgraded gun, the latter prospect not bearing fruit. I'm sure you've seen it and would have a bone to pick with it, though that does seem to be proof that up-armouring of the CR1 Mk.2 was at least thought of. Anyway, I have gotten some rough estimates for the Challengers if anyone wants to know: the hull seems to be about 700mm thick LOS for both the CR1 and CR2, whilst the Challenger 2s turret appears to be about 900-1000mm thick LOS. I'm still missing a measurement of the Challenger 1 turret array, which I very much need.

 

Again you can compare that to the M1A1 Abrams, which should have an LOS thickness for the LFP of about 700mm and about 900mmm for the turret, thickened from 700mm~ on the M1. The 1985 M1A1 hull array was not upgraded with a newer composite nor thickened compared to the 1980 M1; however the turret was thickened and I believe given a new composite providing it with I think in-between or around 450mm-600mm KE protection, versus around 350-400mm for the 1980 M1. The hull array of the Challenger 1 should be proof against 300mm KE at the very least - a smidge less than the M1 and M1A1 Abrams hull which provided 350mm KE protection. I cannot see its arrays being any lesser advanced than those on the 1980 M1, though I can see it slightly favouring CE protection over KE protection. Then as well and as earlier stated, there is a chance the Challenger 1 Mk.2 donned arrays more modern than those equipping the Challenger 1 Mk.1 Batch 1 giving it a level of protection more on-par with the M1A1.

 

Generally I'm seeing two figures quoted for the Challenger 1: One claiming the hull to be protected against 300mm or 350mm KE, and its turret against 430mm KE; and another claiming the Challenger 1 turret to be proof against about 500-620mm of KE with an unknown value set for the hull - I predict about 350-450mm or even 500mm of KE hull protection, when accounting for the difference in thickness and assuming the arrays are of the same type between hull and turret. I would rather believe the latter is accurate for the majority of Challenger 1 units, providing them protection more akin to the M1A1; the former figure likely instead quotes old measurements made for Challenger 1 Mk.1 Batch 1 units and pre-production or prototype units providing protection more akin to the M1. Perhaps though the real figure is a mix of the two... If the turret is woefully thicker than its hull OR if the turret and not the hull was only modernised with a more advanced composite: she could provide about 300mm KE protection for the hull and 500-620mm KE protection for the turret.