How much does tank armor matter now the far as I know shells beat armor of any type(i might be wrong), and a tank that doesn't have composite armor only steel is even good at anything?(pic related, its a romanian MBT TR-85M1 that has nothing but steel armor and spaced armor)
>>28051041
Some tanks can take frontal hits from kinetic penetrators and HEAT rounds, but they aren't going to bounce off like they did in decades past. Not getting hit is the key, as is tracking your target and firing before they can.
>>28051080
And what ammo is more dangerous HEAT or APFSDS?I mean heat can be blocked by ERA spaced armor, cage armor, but still its the most used ammo I think
>>28051111
I think there are some shells that have the ability to fire the jet of super heated metal in tandem in order to defeat ERA.
Or is it only missiles?
Anyways, I remember watching an interview of American tankers, who said that they switched to HEAT after tanks and fighting vehicles that were declared killed after being struck by APFSDS, actually survived the impact because the crew were not inside the vehicles, climbed back inside and began firing at the rears of US tanks as they drove past. They said APFSDS killing power comes from the spalling that occurs when it penetrates a tank, but leaves the inside relatively intact, unlike HEAT which usually detonated the ammunition and killed the crew from the extreme heat.
>>28051215
But anon, HEATs don't fire super heated metal. The copper becomes a liquid (superplasticity) jet because of the pressure of the explosion.
My question still remeins, is a tank like the TR-85 relible without composite armor?
>>28051041
That's long topic.
Little bit history:
Up to 70's most tanks used steel for armor. And it worked well up to 60's.
Back then majority of penetrators came in 2 basic flavours: KE and HEAT
KE offered best accuracy and velocity and were primary choice of long-range killing. Issue is, with range their armor-defeating ability reduces, so you had, say 50/50 chance to hit, then 50/50 chance to actually defeat armor.
HEAT came ways, since introdution in WW2. By 60's they were cappable of defeating pretty much any armor introduced, thing is, with lower velocity and worse stability you also were less likely to hit.
Proliferation of guided missiles turned this game upside down. They had longer effective range than tank guns, and with constantly improving guaidance, soon they started winning in accuracy. What's more missiles were able to carry even bigger warheads than tank shells, which meant nearly every hit was almost guaranteed kill.
It shown during Yom Kippur War. Underestimation of modern ammunition was main reason of massive tank losses on both sides, In 2 weeks both sides lost more than half of their tanks.
>>28051524
To counter it NATO revised their approach to combined arms warfare, putting heavy emphasis on close cooperation of type of arms, supression and use of terrain for cover and concealment, and relying on armor as little as possible.
"If he can't see you, he can't kill you"
More interestingly, French and Germans designed tanks that completely rely on that, Leopard 1 and AMX 30
Soviets who's doctrine was about offence, not defence, started using composite armors for their tanks.
As accuracy of arms improved even more, hull down stoped beign as effective (though it allowed to concentrate armor on turret), and advanced armors like simple composites, cobham or reactive armors, remained only proper solution.
Older tanks, with steel armor, started using spaced armor addons, while not nearly as effective as new types of armor, it was far still better that ~200mm effective of basic armor, which at that point was just nothing.
>>28051491
It will do well as fire support, where biggest risk are infantry carried AT's and recoiless guns, maybe old Konkurs fired off BMP.
In tank-to-tank battle it would be deadier that dead.
Spaced armor can provide some extra protection from HEAT, but won't do jack shit aganist APFSDS or modern ATGMs. Thick, solid NERA like on Gal Batash or Enigma would probably stop modern ATGM as well. That's pretty much all you can do with tank this old.
>>28051731
here's T-55 Enigma
>>28051821
it's not just spaced armor, but complete NERA package.
During Gulf War it allowed equipped T-55s to survive hits from TOW-2 and Milan-2 missiles, both cappable of penetrating tripple of that needed to defeat armor of unequipped T-55
Tank armor has been getting better for decades. In the 50s, it was relatively worthless so a lot of those early MBTs skimped on armor protection in favor of good mobility and firepower for the time. With the development of increasingly sophisticated composite armor and ERA, tanks gained decent protection from man-portable anti-tank rocket launchers and gun-launched HEAT rounds. These days, the high end western MBTs stand a decent chance of the crew surviving a solid hit from a proper tank gun against their vehicle's frontal aspect, especially on the turret. Tank might not work after that, but a good tank crew probably costs about as much as the machine anyway.
Tank armor is good enough that old 100mm and 105mm guns aren't considered good enough for tank hunting anymore, (though I'm sure they could penetrate the sides, and generally still do some damage). Settling for less armor means being vulnerable to a greater range of threats. I'd think there would be a niche for a lighter tank armored against autocannon fire and protected against rockets by ERA, but I think IFVs fill that role these days.
>>28051041
Tanks have the same status now as battleships at the beginning of WWII completely obsolete, however will still be used for a little bit longer.With Apache Longbows, Super Cobras, A-10 Warthogs, Javelins, and drones modern tanks can be taken out very easily so the key is mobility and the ability to go undetected until you strike.
>>28051041
Tank armour exists because there are a lot more things on the battlefield than 120mm cannons. You can take all the armour off your tank if you want, hope you enjoy getting shot to shit by autocannons and light RPGs.
>>28052135
>Tanks have the same status now as battleships at the beginning of WWII completely obsolete
They may not be the kings of the battlefield any more, but tanks will always have a place. There's always a need for a mobile, highly resilient assault vehicle in combined arms warfare.
>>28052602
>They may not be the kings of the battlefield any more, but tanks will always have a place. There's always a need for a mobile, highly resilient assault vehicle in combined arms warfare.
What are IFVs and AFVs?
>>28052135
this opinion is constantly repeated since 50's, and only thing that changed since then, are names of things that "made tank obsolete"
webm from training video
using WW2 era tactics in 70's
>>28052727
>what are AFVs
Tanks by another name?
>>28052727
Squishy tin cans that either have to rely on mobility, concealment, or rear line support to not get wasted.
>>28051041
Ukranians have yet to defeat a T-90.
>>28052783
That's more because they don't have any decent AT weponry.
>>28051861
i wonder what got censored..
>>28051215
The US usually uses DU for the reason that if they fracture enough when they penetrate the dust ingintes and burns everything inside. Sadly some T-72s didn't have enough armor for that in places, so the rounds would just go completely through them, one reportedly killing 2 with 1 shell.
>>28052727
RPG magnets
>>28053141
Double penetrations happened mostly with shots going straight into side armor, where Soviet-designed tanks have only 8cm thick steel plate.
Normally it's not an issue, because under turret (most of crew compartment in fact) is filled with ammunition, and such penetration is bound to detonate it. But if there's little, or no ammunition onboard, there's chance for tank to actually survive such thing.
