Tank Gun Size
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So realistically, how big will tank guns become as time goes on? Nowadays, the standard seems to be 120-125mm caliber for a main battle tank. Is it realistic to expect that caliber sizes will grow or have we reached the relative peak? Now, I've heard rumors that Russia plans to give the T-14 a larger caliber gun, greater than 5 inches in diameter but I don't know if I believe that. Rheinmetall has experimented with a 140 mm cannon for the Leopard II in the past but now that project has been abandoned. Have we reached the point where an increase in caliber is simply no longer practical because it would reduce ammunition capacity too much? You also must consider the size of the tank itself: if the tank is too big, it will get stuck and it won't be able to do its job effectively. Modern tanks are already massive. Any bigger is probably too big.
>>29563188
For you.
>>29563188
I don't see any western nation up-gunning to 140mm unless war with a modern well equipped nation was imminent, even then I doubt it.
ETC guns however have great potential, but the tech isn't quite there yet.
>>29563332
whoops wrong pic
We're probably at more-or-less "peak armor" right now. We miiight be able to squeeze a bit more performance out of traditional armor with high-performance polymers or better alloys, but there's just not a lot of improvement to be made there. Reactive armor works pretty well but has inherent downsides, it's likely to stick around as supplementary armor though. When hard-kill systems get smart enough to shoot down 120-ishmm sabots, we'll probably end up having to rethink tank combat entirely. At that point it's unlikely that "hurr durr bigger gun" is going to cut it anymore, like it has for the last 50 years or so, that sort of advancement in defensive tech will take a pretty fundamental reworking of tank armament to get around.
>>29563397
How are you expecting to shoot down a solid tungsten rod headed towards your tank?
>>29563188
The French and the Germans are looking at 130mm.
>>29563475
Don't have to shoot it down entirely, just knock it a couple degrees off course.
That's probably a few decades down the line though. Shit, they're just figuring out how to shoot down TOWs, by the time they figure out sabots we might all have hovertanks with gigantic DEWs running off of miniaturized fusion plants.
>>29563188
the problem with 120/125mm right now is that for the mass of the rounds being fired, we've reached the peakl velocity
Rounds start behaving weird as shit at higher muzzle velocities than we're working with now, generally performing worse penetration wise.
Basically the only way to get more pen is to make the round fly just as fast as right now, but heavier.
The way to do this is make the penetrator longer (which we have been doing, and are reaching the limit of that) or make the round bigger.
>>29563802
Projectile density could also be increased by using something like Iridium or Osmium, but that'd be hella expensive.
>>29563802
>>29564237
there's a whole lot of work going into hypervelocity aerodynamics currently, though it's not going particularly quickly. There's at least some potential for hypervelocity projectile fuckery in the future once we get a better grasp of the physics.
Ramjet rounds when?
You simple fools. Railguns will change tanks forever.
>>29563188
The Russians made a big deal about keeping the T-14 under 50 tons in terms of total weight to make it more mobile compared to other tank designs. Is it feasible for them to put their mythical 152mm gun onto the T-14 without completely screwing that up? Remember, weight restrictions are what ended up killing the T-95.
>>29563802
They aren't actually performing worse, bur rather not performing as well as velocity increases at lower velocities. DU is more affected than this by tungsten, so the US is moving towards slower but heavier sabots.
>>29563188
I think you'll see MBT designs that rival the wackiest superheavy tank desidns of WWII, and light tanks the size of modern MBTs with comparable armament within the next 50 years. Tanks are cool as shit, so they make great platforms for showing off for your country. It therefore stands to reason that in the absence of a real war tanks will just keep getting bigger and flashier.
>>29563397
Would it theoretically be possible to circumvent hard-kill with changes to projectile or velocity?
>>29564669
Probably?
If we ever hit that point I'd expect a back-and-forth similar to early tank development
>APS gets good enough to defeat tank guns
>Develop new projectile that's fast enough to slip by
>APS gets fast enough to counter new projectile system
etc etc
At that point one of the technologies will stall out and/or we'll start looking into totally new tech. Multiple projectile threats would probably put some serious strain on any APS system, so maybe some sort of duplex or even triplex round?
>>29564332
they are hitting the upper limit on how fast you can effectively propel a round with just chemical propellants.
Gas only expands so fast, and ideal gas law means pressure goes down fast as the projectile goes down the barrel.
Electro-thermal guns go around this by giving greater control over how the propellant burns, and using the electrodes to add more heat and pressure after the chemical part of the propellant is mostly used up.
>>29563397
IMI claims to have a version of Trophy in the pipeline that's capable of taking out KEPs, no hard numbers on release date or anything else
Does the tank have a need for a larger gun Vs. Can a larger gun be mounted without modification.
If tank protection increases enough you will see a need to mount larger guns, If tanks can be made larger without sacrificing anything then usually larger guns will be used just because.
Looking at the direction of material science I believe armor will have the advantage over firepower in the coming decades especially on ground vehicles like tanks.
New materials are making it possible to build larger and better protected vehicles for the same weight, Which also have more room to for larger weapons and subsystems.
You can argue that tanks are big enough targets already but if that is the only downside then tanks might get very large indeed.
>>29563510
>Shit, they're just figuring out how to shoot down TOWs
that's wrong dude. Shtora is pretty good at killing TOW, and other guided, and unguided munitions. so is trophy.
Everybody is forgetting the very, very simply fact that 120/125mm guns are used because it's a nice sweetspot between a weight and rounds carried ratio. they gun itself isn't super heavy,which makes the tank lighter. the rounds aren't super heavy, which allows the tank to carry more rounds.
IIRC the Abrams can carry 25 rounds of SABOT and HE. with a 152, 155 or whatever cannon you'd probably be able to carry half of that.
>>29566522
I thought the Abrams could carry at least 40 rounds?
>>29566582
my bad, pretty sure i meant to say 20 rounds of SABOT and 20 rounds of HE.
the point still stands. 40 rounds may seem overkill and prone to exploding, but 20 is not a whole lot of ammunition.
>>29566582
He meant 25 rounds each of Sabot and HE.
>>29566609
So what would you say is the minimum acceptable number? 30?
>>29566638
30, or 35 is "acceptable"
honestly 30 is completely fine for stomping dune coons, but that's not really what our tanks are designed for in the first place.
The direct fire cannon as an anti-armor weapon is more or less obsolete already
Modern ERA & APS will finish it.
Tank cannons are already unable to penetrate frontal tank armor, when APS can degrade penetration by over 50% through tilting the penetrator, it'll be hopeless.
The future tank will feature kinetic kill missiles in a VLS, along with a small caliber gun, 40 or 50 mm for anti-infantry/light vehicle work.
Likely we'll see a laser on top too.
>>29566709
>Modern ERA & APS will finish it.
>Tank cannons are already unable to penetrate frontal tank armor, when APS can degrade penetration by over 50% through tilting the penetrator, it'll be hopeless.
t.Russia
ERA is fantastic my friend, but dual tandem warheads are thing, and you seem to forget that tank crews generally bail out once they've been hit by a round whether it penetrates or not.
this doesn't nullify your point, but you also need to remember that doctrine determines the statistics of tanks not just their actual phsyical statistics if that makes sense.
tl;dr, stop being a fucking retard who thinks tanks are obsolete
>>29566756
>tank crews generally bail out once they've been hit by a round whether it penetrates or not.
Why?
>>29563210
Here's what Germany is looking at.
>>29566806
They already gave up on trying to develop a 140 mm cannon. Why would this time be any different?
>>29566788
because my friend, depending on where the tank has been hit, you don't even know if it penned or not.
for all you know, the driver, someone you probably knew for a while and was friends with could be dead and the round could maybe be in lower ammo storage starting to cook off.
or the gunner could be dead. or the loader. etc
basically, the tank could be about to explode if it gets hit, and it USUALLY IS. It's also bad form, and iirc a warcrime to shoot escaping tank crew man. Not even the SS did that shit in world war 2.
>>29564389
I thought they had kept the weight down now so they would have plenty of capacity to spare for further upgrades.
Not start at 70 tons and then try to squeeze upgrades in to not surpass 80 tons.
>>29566825
Because it's being made in response to market demands rather than being bereft of a market with the end of the cold war.
>>29566651
Even stomping dune coons, 30 becomes a little bit of a problem when you're presented with enough targets that can't shoot back accurately.
>>29566835
I guess it makes sense. If you get hit once, and you don't know where it came from, then chances are you're about to get hit again.
>>29563332
... gonna need some sauce on that.
>>29566863
exactly. especially if the driver is dead. I know i would bail if we get hit.
>>29566835
Russia has made some doctrinal decision to have lighter tanks
dnno why
I think its questionable because a tank thats 20 tons lighter is going to inevitably have less armor.
>>29566879
?
unless your tank is on fire its safer to be inside it then fucking getting splattered by machine gun fire or the next tank round outside
>>29566879
I remember from that video of the guy talking about tanks at some war museum meeting that always gets posted in tank threads that he said that generally speaking, the tank gets off the first shot almost always wins, assuming that there isn't a huge gap in terms of armor/armament.
>>29566880
They don't have the money and logistical prowess for heavier vehicles is what i'm told
>>29566880
>a tank thats 20 tons lighter is going to inevitably have less armor
Since they are a lot smaller and more compact they need less armor.
That beeing said slav tanks usually has inferior armor but the dont need to.
One intresting doctrinal thing was that bridges built in warsaw pact countries was usually built to be able to handle soviet tanks but would collapse if heavier western tanks would try to use them.
>>29566907
see>>29566921
and also the part of my post about it being illegal, and very very frowned upon to shoot tankers escaping their tanks.
>>29566939
Doesn't stop the sandniggers from doing it. And besides in a real war there'll bound to be war crimes. I'm not saying it won't be punished just....you know...
>>29566974
>Doesn't stop the sandniggers from doing it. And besides in a real war there'll bound to be war crimes. I'm not saying it won't be punished just....you know...
I never said it wouldn't happen, but it doesn't happen a lot. and to what you were saying about being safer inside of a burning tank
dude, it's definitely fucking not. if there's a fire in a tank, you're going to die a more agonizing death than disintegrating from a tank shell or MG fire.
>>29566939
And who do you think the US is going to fight that'll give a shit about that
>>29566999
>And who do you think the US is going to fight that'll give a shit about that
>implying we're ever ONLY going to be fighting sand niggers
come on now
>>29563332
>>29566998
Don't get me wrong i agree with you it's just relying on the enemy to not commit war crime is a 50/50 chance. If you're unlucky you'll die either way and seeing that most people fighting against the US hates it with a passion chances are high
>>29563346
HAHAHAHA
Oh man.
>>29567038
>If you're unlucky you'll die either way
it's better than burning alive dude.
I'll take the 50% chance i'll survive over slow agonizing death, only speeded up by the ammo exploding.
>>29567038
Just bring a gun with you and shot them back you pussy.
Anyone here an actual tanker?
>>29567124
Merkgunner and Frenchfag usually visits /thg/
>>29567152
Okay, thanks. But theres no one on this thread?
>>29563188
Since historically most tanks have not battled other tanks, but taken on lesser mechanized and non-mechanized forces, is it really a good idea to base your main gun on defeating other tanks?
Why not just have your main gun optimized for lesser targets and carry anti tank missiles?
>>29567231
isn't that what we thought with the bradley, and then the battle of 73 easting proved that theory wrong?
>>29567231
The Armata actually does have systems in place to fire anti-tank missiles, actually.
>>29567207
Probably not. Noice Strv 103 print you have there.
>>29566834
>it's a war crime to shoot an escaping vehicle crew
>even the SS didn't do that
It isn't and everyone did that.
>>29567231
The M60A2 tried this and failed. But I like the concept. Thats also the reason most M4s sticked with the short 75mm. The 76mm had better pen but the HE rounds was way worse and the avrage M4 fired 11 HE rounds for every AP.
>>29566907
>it's safer to sit in your stationary box, that's just been disabled by hostiles, hostiles who are still outside and know you're inside
No.>>29566939
It's not illegal and in war its not frowned upon. If you're not going to kill the crew, why even bother taking out the tank?
Pro-tip: its easier to build a tank than train a crew.
>>29567038
It's not a warcrime you asshat.
>>29563332
me in the upper left
>>29567264
>>29567274
>itt: people who don't know shit
Historically it's really really fucking frowned upon to kill people ejecting from vehicles. go look at some accounts from allied and axis tankers in Africa, and you can even go look at that interview of the P-51 pilot who was talking about how sickening it was that some SS ace in a BF109/FW190 (can't remember, doesn't really matter) was shooting bomber crew members who ejected.
>>29567332
They're enemy soldiers. They don't magically obtain some special status just because they're in a vehicle.
>>29567332
Frowned upon=illegal then?
I didn't say it wasn't frowned upon, I said it's not illegal, it did happen (implying that 'even the SS' wouldn't do it is plain wrong) and its a terrible strategy.
>>29566880
>Russia has made some doctrinal decision to have lighter tanks
Logistics mainly.
>I think its questionable because a tank thats 20 tons lighter is going to inevitably have less armor.
Assuming the same size and the same materials - yes. However the sizes aren't the same - soviet\russian tanks are traditionally smaller AND ditch the space needed for the loader, by replacing it with an autoloader.
Advantages of this - would be a smaller profile (which is irrelevant nowadays), easier strategic mobility and less volume to armor up.
Disadvantages - less internal space, harder to put it new upgrade stuff, lack of additional manpower for repairs, that stuff.
Both choices are kinda valid.
>>29566835
>I thought they had kept the weight down now so they would have plenty of capacity to spare for further upgrades.
Historically - Russians capped the max weight of the tank to somewhere around 55 tonnes due to logistic reasons. It was part of the reasons why IS-7 never went into production.
Also, it should be noted, that one of the things they did to cutdown on weight in T-14 - was the actual move to an unmanned, lightly armored turret (allows them to concentrate bulk of the armor on the crewed section).
>>29566756
>ERA is fantastic my friend, but dual tandem warheads are thing
So is multiple-layered ERA. In any case, it's the usual sword - armor race now.
>>29564389
>Is it feasible for them to put their mythical 152mm gun onto the T-14 without completely screwing that up?
1.) It's not mythical. Nor is Rheinmetal's 140mm.
2.) No. They put it on 195 and rejected it due to it being overkill and the low amount of shells the tank could carry.
3.) Now they're waiting for ETC.
>>29567332
sure, it's a shitty thing to do.
but it's not illegal.
in fact, it's good from a tactical perspective.
keeps them from coming back for revenge.
>>29567332
>SS ace in a BF109/FW190
I hope you are just pretending to be retarded.
>>29567332
>SS ace
>SS
>Luftwaffe
Im not saying that those retards are correct but you to are also full of shit.
A german fighter pilot actually escorted a damaged B-17 to safe airspace.
Warcrimes was displayed by both sides. The SS and soviets just made it into a sport.
>>29567348
How many shells could it carry?
>>29567346
>>29567350
Actually today it is illegal to fire at aircrew trying to save themself. Not sure if it was back in WW2.
>>29567364
>The SS and soviets just made it into a sport.
and the japanese to some extent.
general tank related question;
how would something like napalm affect a tank, say an abrams?
I know there's a bunch of filters and shit but wouldn't it kill you eventually, carbon monoxide from breathing all the oxygen in the tank since turning out means getting napalmed and letting it in the tank?
also wouldn't it fuck the optics?
legitimate question.
>>29567368
Nobody gives the exact number (obviously), but the guys in the industry hint at somewhere ~28
>>29567401
Huh. That's not as bad as I thought it would be. But obviously a big downgrade in terms of capacity.
>>29567386
After a while it would probably overheat the tank. I'm talking like hours of continuous, intense fire though, so it's probably not functionally possible.
>>29567386
Most modern MBTs are really resistant to napalm.
This video of napalm tests on a Strv 103 should be helpful
https://youtu.be/MiWCpIJ5dBw
>>29567386
Legitmate answer.
http://tanks.mod16.org/2013/11/27/report-regarding-trials-of-napalm-effects-against-tanks/
Not effective at all in 1954. More of a psychological effect.
>>29567409
The question to ask is how many of those are instantly available to the autoloader.
>>29563510
I suspect that the objective isn't to deflect it, but to make it tumble, if that makes sense. A KEP wouldn't do shit if it hit sideways and it'd lose velocity quickly.
>>29567513
Just have to tilt the penetrator a few degrees to more than halve penetration
I believe segmented penetrators are even more vulnerable to this than solid penetrators
>>29567510
Since that is an automated turret - all of them.
>>29567248
Why would one not have a print of the amazing s-tank
>>29567379
That's nice, shame we're talking about tanks fuckwad.
>>29567332
>Shoot at bomber crew that just dropped 10.000 lbs of phosphorus bombs on a civilian area
>war crime
wew lad
>>29567670
>I don't understand how total war works; the post
>>29567552
Because I litteraly has one stanting a few miles from me that I can go watch any time I want.
>>29566582
>>29566609
>>29566615
can carry 40 of whatever the hell you like
problem is you dont have easy access to all that ammunition in one hit requiring re stowage
>>29566880
>>29566925
>a tank thats 20 tons lighter is going to inevitably have less armor
>they need less armor.
>slav tanks usually has inferior armor
Oh boy, here we fucking go again. First of all, it's not 20 tons lighter, it's just that Americans use retarded units. Second, check this.
T-80U, 46 tonnes: 780 mm vs APFSDS, 1320 mm vs HEAT.
M1A1, 57 tonnes: 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT.
>>29566924
They had money and logistical power to supply tens of thousands of tanks but didn't have money and logistical power to supply tanks 10 tons heavier than usual? No, that's just a bull crap meme.
>>29566788
unless the cunts proper fucked or on fire im definately not jumping out of the fucker
cos you know, theres a fucking tank there
>>29567332
>they attempt to engage and kill you with armor
>forced to bail
>now you have to play nice just because they're vulnerable
Nah, an enemy is an enemy. No surrender, no mercy.
>>29567716
I stated that they usually had weaker base armor. Sure, slap ERA on anything and it will be a lot more difficult to pen. A large part of the Russian army still consists of old T-72s (hence most slav tanks). Hell even T-62s was used in Georgia back in 2008.
The T-80U is sexy as fugg and has good armor but its full of weakspots. And only a very small part of the russian ground forces are issued T-80Us.
>>29567231
Who knows? Russians have been putting GLATGM on every tank ever since T-64.
>>29563346
>>29567732
So if the krauts would shoot any american soldier trying desperatly to escape a burning tank you would think that they do the right thing?
>inb4 cant kill muh Abrahams
>>29567743
Disregard
>Cant kill muh Abrahams
It was meant for another post.
>>29567743
>trying to do the right thing
>war
its doctrine to spray any vehicle with men bailing with coax after you pumped it with a main round and there arent other priority targets
>>29567332
You're halfway right. It's a breach of the Hague (iirc) convention to attack aircrew who are abandoning their aircraft - because at that point they no longer pose a threat to anyone, and are effectivley surrenduring. That rule specifically applies to aircrew though, no one else, and it only covers them when they're abandoning their aircraft - once their on the ground their fair game again. No one else get's covered by it though, not even paratroopers abandoning a damaged aircraft. It does not and never did apply to crews of ground vehicles.
>>29567743
Yes. If you don't want to get killed escaping a burning wreck then don't ride armor into battle. What's the difference between a bailing tank crew and retreating infantry? Why should tanks crews (or pilots for that matter) get special treatment for trying and failing to kill you? It's war. Kill or be killed. No white flag, no raised hands, no mercy.
If I like you I might play nice and be gentlemanly about it, but that extends to all combat, and I'd expect the same in return. There is absolutely no compelling reason to treat any vehicle crew as categorically different from infantry.
>>29567736
No, they really did not.
T-54/55, 36 tonnes: 100 mm hull, 205 mm turret.
M60, 46 tonnes: 93 mm hull, 180 mm turret.
T-62, 37 tonnes: 102 mm hull, 214 mm (later 242 mm) turret.
M60A1, 47-49 tonnes: 109 mm hull, 250 mm turret.
T-64A, 38 tonnes: 370-440 mm vs APFSDS, 500-575 mm vs HEAT.
T-72A, 41 tonnes: 360-500 mm vs APFSDS, 490-560 mm vs HEAT.
At this point Soviet thanks have started to absolutely shit on anything else and have become virtually impenetrable for quite a long time period.
T-80B, 42.5 tonnes: 440-500 mm vs APFSDS, 500-650 mm vs HEAT.
M1, 54 tonnes: 350-470 mm vs APFSDS, 650-700 mm vs HEAT. Note weak APFSDS protection and heavily emphasized HEAT protection in response to the development of Soviet GLATGM.
Only at this point ERA starts to appear on Soviet tanks. Note that for instance in the case of T-72B, the increase of protection was achieved not only through the use of ERA, but also with the improvement of composite fillers.
T-72B, 42-43 tonnes, not more than 46 tonnes: 480-540 mm vs APFSDS, 900-950 vs HEAT.
T-80BV, 43,7 tonnes: unfortunately couldn't find info on its protection levels, but it most likely received an improvement compared to T-80B in about the same range as T-72B compared to T-72A. Same for T-64BV, though its weight increased significantly up to 42 tonnes.
M1A1, 57 tonnes: 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT.
T-80U, 46 tonnes: 780 mm vs APFSDS, 1320 mm vs HEAT.
M1A1HA, 57+ tonnes: 600-800 mm vs APFSDS, 700-1300 mm vs HEAT.
T-72B 1989, ~46 tonnes: 690-800 mm vs APFSDS, 940-1180 vs HEAT.
>>29567736
>Hell even T-62s was used in Georgia back in 2008.
Yeah, which triggered the military reform to upgrade their equipment. T-62 are not in service since 2011 and T-72B are mostly upgraded to T-72BA1 or T-72B3.
>>29567736
>Hell even T-62s was used in Georgia back in 2008.
>>29567964
>Yeah, which triggered the military reform to upgrade their equipment. T-62 are not in service since 2011 and T-72B are mostly upgraded to T-72BA1 or T-72B3.
To be completely fair - T-62 was used as counter-insurgent tank in Chechnya (and the unit with those tanks rolled out of Checnya to Georgia). Nowhere else.
>>29568017
I remember reading a story about a Russian T-62 knocking out two Georgian T-72 in a row on one street.
>>29563188
why not mortar for top attack ?
>>29568119
Because self-propelled mortars do already exist, duh.
>>29567933
ok so a better breakdown.
> T-54/55, 36 tonnes: 100 mm hull, 205 mm turret.
100mm@60 degrees hull = 200mm
>M60, 46 tonnes: 93 mm hull, 180 mm turret.
93 mm @ 65 degrees = 220mm hull
>T-62, 37 tonnes: 102 mm hull, 214 mm (later 242 mm) turret.
102mm @ 62 degrees = 217mm hull
>M60A1, 47-49 tonnes: 109 mm hull, 250 mm turret.
109mm @ 65 degrees = 255mm hull
>T-64A, 38 tonnes: 370-440 mm vs APFSDS, 500-575 mm vs HEAT.
This estimate for T-64A is generally considered to be too high. The glacis of T-64A is 80mm steel + 100mm glass composite +20mm steel @ 68 degrees. The glass composite was relatively ineffective against sabot, but highly effective against HEAT. KE protection for the T-64A is generally considered to be slightly better than 300mm.
> T-72A, 41 tonnes: 360-500 mm vs APFSDS, 490-560 mm vs HEAT.
This is about accurate, but T-72A is not the first T-72 model, and was roughly contemporary to M1 and Leopard 2. Before that was T-72 Ural, which has very similar protection to T-64A.
>>29563188
I think minitiaurization in munitions is the future hence smaller bore guns would play a bigger role. Why would you dickwave with a big bore gun on a big ass tank if you can have a medium size tank deliver equal payload in smaller calibers.
Also, laser tanks when? Would love to see this baby cook tank crews and set off active armour.
>>29568145
>T-72A, 41 tonnes: 360-500 mm vs APFSDS,
That's unlikely for the low and high end due to the T-72A being a direct product of capture of Hetz rounds and the Soviets only adding applique armor to protect against it.
>>29567692
Well, not everyone here has won at life, fuckcunt ( upload a pic of it sometime)
>>29568145
Thanks anon, I noticed the misconception only after re-reading the post.
Skipped original T-72 because it's really, really rare. But by all means for its time it was an absolute beast and much simpler than T-64A. I should've included export monkey model T-72M to give the general idea of why it preformed poorly in the Gulf War. It was basically worse protected than the said original model.
>>29568145
T-80B, 42.5 tonnes: 440-500 mm vs APFSDS, 500-650 mm vs HEAT.
T-80B glacis is 50mm of steel alternating with 35mm of composite. This is about right.
> M1, 54 tonnes: 350-470 mm vs APFSDS, 650-700 mm vs HEAT. Note weak APFSDS protection and heavily emphasized HEAT protection in response to the development of Soviet GLATGM.
Correct, but the threat was not from just GLATGM, but all ATGM's in general. NATO feared soviet ATGM's but did not think highly of Soviet sabots. Leopard 2 also prioritized HEAT protection, and added better KE protection in 2A4
> T-80BV
T--80BV is a T-80B fitted with Kontakt 1, other aspects of the armor remained identical. Kontakt 1 was designed towards defeating HEAT rounds, and is limited use against sabots. It's estimated to be worth about 50mm vs KE and 250-300 vs CE.
>M1A1, 57 tonnes: 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT
Actually 61 tons, the L44 was a heavy gun. KE protection for the M1A1 is estimated to be in the 550 range, but close to 1000 for CE on the turret.
> T-80U, 46 tonnes: 780 mm vs APFSDS, 1320 mm vs HEAT.
Note that Kontakt-5 coverage leaves a number of holes. The strongpoints of T-80U are very strong, but it has more than a few weak spots that are very weak.
> M1A1HA, 57+ tonnes: 600-800 mm vs APFSDS, 700-1300 mm vs HEAT.
62 tons.
Overall Soviet armor was not as "overwhelming" as people would think. M48 and M60 were better armored than T-55 and T-62, but they were considerably bigger and heavier tanks. The Soviet advantage was largest in the late 60's to mid 70's. The US and Germany skipping a tank generation due to MBT-70 falling apart. US budget for armor was also slashed due to Vietnam.
After NATO's new tank programs in the 70's paid off, they held the qualitative advantage over the USSR. Leopard 2, Abrams, and Challenger were more than a match for most T-72, T-64, and T-80 variants. T-80U could match the new NATO tanks but was produced in relatively small numbers.
>>29568194
The low end probably excludes the lower glacis, which is <100mm. The Soviets did not consider lower glacis hits a likely possibility. The 500 number is appropriate for the the turret cheeks right next to the gun mantlet.
When the Soviets tested the Hetz, they found that the turret was immune, but the hull wasn't.
>>29568272
>The low end probably excludes the lower glacis, which is <100mm.
As it should, I was referring to the actual glacis itself.
>When the Soviets tested the Hetz, they found that the turret was immune, but the hull wasn't.
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
Upper bounds for the Hetz is generally believed to be around 370-390mm of penetration and it's known that the solution to the issue was 30mm applique armor for the T-72A, so middle of the road scenario where the 30mm was 'enough' would show that it's standard protection would be less than 30mm away from Hetz penetration.
>>29568194
Stop this Hetz meme already, that's nothing but a cool story.
>>29568318
>Hetz rounds
What is it?
>>29564815
Another improvement could be combustion light gas guns. Basically instead of using solid propellent you use methane or hydrogen and oxygen. Tests show 30% higher muzzle velocity. There are lots of (theoretical) advantages in logistics/dunnage too. The only problem is instability in the combustion chamber which is not good for consistency and hence accuracy. But that's mostly a problem for indirect fire weapons, and should improve as we get better at modeling the combustion process.
>>29568460
Very good Israeli APFSDS for the Royal Ordinance L7 and it's offspring.
The story is that the Soviets were convinced that the T-72M was immune to any 105 gun in the world. Then the Syrians fought the Israeli's in 1982 with T-72M's. Israel claims they killed some with their Merkavas and Pattons, Syria claims they didn't lose any.
Anyhow, an Isareli Patton was abandoned without properly destroying it's loadout of M111 hetz rounds. The Syrians captured it and sent it to Russia to be tested. The Russians found out that the Hetz could penetrate the front of a T-72A/T-72M, so they ordered a field modification to add a very hard 16mm plate to the glacis of all T-72A and T-72M.
The T-72's the Iraqis used in Desert Storm were this standard, T-72M1. The Warsaw Pact countries used the same model, and a number of Saddam's tanks were made by Poland.
>>29568258
>NATO feared soviet ATGM's but did not think highly of Soviet sabots
They had a good reason not to. IIRC autoloader restricted the length of a sabot to a certain value, so while Soviet sabots preformed well against M60, M1 remained relatively safe for quite a while even with its rather crippled APFSDS protection.
>T--80BV is a T-80B fitted with Kontakt 1, other aspects of the armor remained identical.
Yeah, mixed up T-80 and T-80B.
>Actually 61 tons, the L44 was a heavy gun
M1 is 54 tonnes. +3 tonnes for the gun and armour on M1A1 sounds pretty realistic. 62 tonnes is the weight of M1A2. Are you really sure we're talking the same units here?
>Note that Kontakt-5 coverage leaves a number of holes. The strongpoints of T-80U are very strong, but it has more than a few weak spots that are very weak.
This is incorrect, K-5 blocks on T-80U are really well fitted and leave almost no weak spots. What you have noted is however true in the case of upgraded T-72B variants, including the very first T-90 model. They indeed have weak spots for the reason you mentioned. Note however that these spots are relatively small and it would require an immense amount of luck to take advantage of them from any sane combat distance. I really don't understand why they didn't take the more T-80-ish approach to ERA composition on these, but I am aware that the turret front compensates it with armour composition so that naked spots are much thicker. This is especially true in the case of T-90A with its welded turret taken from Object 187.
>M48 and M60 were better armored than T-55 and T-62
Not until M60A1. Before it they were comparably protected with simply different armour composition. T-55/62 had thicker turret, M48/60 had thicker glacis.
>T-80U could match the new NATO tanks but was produced in relatively small numbers.
T-80U was more than a match for new NATO tanks, same as T-72B 1989 and T-72BU (T-90). K-5 ERA was really a wonder of its time that should not be underestimated.
>>29566476
>Shtora is pretty good at killing TOW
Early TOW, anything 2A and later have defenses against how Shtora works.
>>29567716
Too be fair, the US and UK managed to get their hands on some T-80Us with Kontakt 5 and have since developed APFSDSTs specifically to deal with it and tandem warheads for ATGMs are widespread now.
So the extra protection offered by Kontact 5 is almost null these days.
>>29563346
Fucking fag, only Yui will win 8man's heart.
>>29566925
>Since they are a lot smaller and more compact they need less armor
The difference in size is not enough to account for the ~15 ton weight difference.
>>29570412
To be completely fair, it took the West 8 years, the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR to catch up on Kontakt-5. And it's not like Russians stopped developing ERA afterwards.
>>29567716
>Oh boy, here we fucking go again.
>posts armor values that the original source says are no good
>>29571117
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
>>29571039
I did say "these days"
And yes they have been developing new ERA like Kaktus but last I checked they haven't deployed it.
And even if they did, the vast majority of Russian tank forces would still either have kontakt 5, kontakt 1 or no ERA.
>>29568228
>It was basically worse protected than the said original model.
Unless we find something which say it had a lower brinell hardness then no.
The T-72M got pretty much the same armor as the T-72 Ural, only difference is that the T-72 Ural is from 1973 or before and the T-72M much later.
>>29571137
>stop pointing out my numbers are meaningless
Ok
>>29570958
Infact it is. The surface area of the armor on the T-80 is a lot smaller than that of a M1.
>>29571341
The layout of the armor on both is very different.
>>29571145
"These days" are 30 years after K-5 introduction and 25 years after the end of the Cold War. Like I said, K-5 was a wonder of its time. Russians indeed skipped the deployment of next generation ERA because their country was in tatters, but they never skipped its development, specifically in the field of neglecting the devastating effect of longer rods and tandem warheads. And as a result they can now field T-14 with modern ERA instead of just building in 80s K5, 90s Kaktus or 00s Relikt.
>And even if they did, the vast majority of Russian tank forces would still either have kontakt 5, kontakt 1
The vast majority of Russian tank forces had Kontakt-1 before the 2008 war. Now it's 2016 and the vast majority of Russian tank forces has Kontakt-5.
>or no ERA
Just because a sole 42nd Guards Motor Rifle Division remained with T-62 8 years ago doesn't mean you could meet them anywhere else even back then. T-62 were removed from service shortly after the war during the subsequent military reform. Nowadays even tanks with Kontakt-1 are a rather rare sight.
>>29571171
Just about every Russian source I can find says T-72M differs in turret armour composition. But even if my statement was incorrect, by the time of the Gulf War it was legitimately outdated with the introduction of T-72B and subsequently Kontakt-5 that offered pretty much literally double the protection level of the basic T-72 model. My intention was to point this out.
>>29570958
It very much is.
>>29571706
The first T-72 and T-72 Ural had a pure cast turret just like the T-72M.
T-72A was the first T-72 with cast turret with non metal material.
The T-72M1 was a T-72M uped to T-72A level of protection.
>>29566865
yahari ore no seishun
character is Saika Totsuka
>>29567332
>SS ace
>Fighter pilot
kek
Fucking /k/ is a joke.
Reminds me why I'm right every time I shit on a Fury movie thread with retards like that defending Sony.
>>29568152
>Solartank
>>29567688
>i dont understand what justified reprisal is: the post
>>29571744
You are now aware that these images are not scaled by the same measure, as an example the vehicle height where one tank is measured to the turret roof and another is measured to the top of the commanders cupola.
>>29573369
These images are scaled well and your example only further proves it, since while indeed measured to the top of the commanders cupola on the picture, the value of T-90 heigh is listed there as 2280 mm, while the heigh figure of T-90 is 2220-2230 mm. Which very much confirms the scale is correct.
>>29573857
Or it means the numbers on that chart are wrong, as the T-90 is wider than an Abrams.
>>29563188
Eh, if we seriously suddenly need to increase penetration without significantly increasing weight, I imagine we'd see better gains from developments in missiles over developments on existing guns, which are really becoming significant work for minute upgrades. Missiles have the advantage of being able to strike from above when fire towards the face of the tank, and depending on the firing mechanism, allows even more of the vehicle remaining in a hull down position. Think like a periscope targeting system position over a berm. They could also realistically permit more accurate fire over distance, as a missile can redirect itself in route.
Ultimately, your deciding between more and more expensive guns for the vehicles, perhaps more delicate guns too as finer and finer tolerances are involved to eek out the performance, or a higher per shot cost, as a proper guided missile is (I would think) significantly more expensive than a 120mm shell.
>>29573981
Or could mean that your knowledges on the subject are off because the picture quite clearly shows the width of tank tracks, which in the case of T-72/90 is exactly 3370 mm.
>>29563397
Metal foams will be a game changer. I've been saying this for years, but recently there have been tests that are getting real recognition.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/metal-foam-armor-disintegrates-bullets-160408.htm
>>29574040
With modern production methods, missile costs really aren't much
You buy them in huge numbers and it'll be like 20k a missile
>>29563188
The issues we faced with the 140MM was Ammo capacity, size, and maintenance due to an autoloader when at the time there was no sizable benefit over the current tech of the 120MM.
Now we may see larger cannons in the future as these issues are mitigated ( simpler compartmentalized ammo storage and revolving autoloader like the MGS) and the benefits of having a larger round increase due to current technology.
>>29574040
Having already gone the missile route previously and scrapping them (Shillelagh, STAFF, etc.) I doubt the U.S. will throw their money at them for Tanks. That was part of the idea behind having a Combine Arms Battalion, so the Bradley's could support with the TOW in a high intensity conflict.
>>29575246
I don't think that combined arms doctrine would work if they were fighting enemies with modern tanks
Bradleys can't handle tank fire, their ATGM's aren't well protected, and need to be manually reloaded from outside the vehicle
>>29575461
That's exactly what a Armor company team is supposed to counter.
>>29575461
>>29576069
plus can't tanks just call in air support to rain hell all over everything if they need to?
bradley runs out of tows, call in an apache and fuck shit up.
>>29574161
>doubling down on incorrect numbers
>>29575246
FYI the tank in the bottom picture has a 120mm gun.
>>29576095
Yes. You can actually do it without ever leaving the defilade too. It has a Far Target Locator where you can post the grid directly to the BFT and all the Air Support for miles can see it, Not just your integrated Apaches.
>>29576928
I didn't know that. Cool.
