Modern MBT Armour

[Alan]

I am trying to find accurate armour thickness figures for modern MBT's

I find that figures for russian tanks are readily available but trying to find info about western MBT's is much harder!
Does any body know where i can find how thick the armour is, front, side and rear of Leopard 2, Challenger 2, M1A2, etc, etc

Many thanks Alan

 

[tatra]

Armor thickness is only relevant if and when comparing armor of the same material e.g. steel. The problem is armor these days is mostly composite and involves different combinations of different materials (e.g. plastics, ceramics, depleted uranium, steel) in different amounts, which offer different advantages for protection. And then I'm not even including applicques which are often applied later on, or ERA.

So, what needs to be dome for purpose of comparison is to translate the characteristics of a particular armor (of whatever nature) into an equivalent measure of RHA (rolled homogenous armor steel). I'm not sure how that is dome but assume it would involve calculating or measuring the kinetic and chemical energy an armor can withstand and then calculating what thickness of RHA would be needed to achieve the same level of protection.

 

[Awang se]

concerning armor, everyone knows right how the frontal turret armor for leopard 2 look's like? the armor was sloped half upward and half downward. i don't complaining about the upward part but the downward slope, isn't going to channel the attacking round inside instead of deflecting it out of harms way? is it practical or simply just to make the tank look pretty?

 

[Awang se]

Today's armor are consist of several layers of more than one type of materials. finding thickness for armor is easy, but the thickness alone offer only small percentage of the total tank protections. finding the armor materials composition is the hard part. a 100% RHA armored tank would be like more than 100 tons or so to offer the same protection as the 60 tons modern composite armored tanks.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Composite materials are much lighter than steel, and yet they are stronger. Like Awang se said, the level of protection a tank's armour offers has more to do with the compostions of materials rather than its armour thickness. Besides the composites, a new type of electric armour is in development for next generation tanks. There are also few active measures to protect the tank from incoming projectiles such as Russian Arena system.

concerning armor, everyone knows right how the frontal turret armor for leopard 2 look's like? the armor was sloped half upward and half downward. i don't complaining about the upward part but the downward slope, isn't going to channel the attacking round inside instead of deflecting it out of harms way? is it practical or simply just to make the tank look pretty?

I'm not certain on what you mean by that. The downward slope should deflect the round towards the ground rather than the tank itself. I simply don't see how it could channel the round "inside".

 

[Aussie Digger]

In relation to slopiing armour on a turret, it's far better to have the blast deflected somewhere rather than have the full impact of the warhead on the turret itself.

Deflecting upwards will hopefully deflect the blast safely away from the vehicle, deflecting downwards will hopefully deflect the blast into the hull, the thickest part of the armour on the vehicle. Either option is preferrable to attempting to take the blast on flat armour... If the turret slopes upwards, it will still have to have an "underside" to the slope. This can either be flat or sloped downwards. Downwards is demonstrably better than nothing...

 

[Awang se]

i wonder if active protection is a good choice to protect a tank. there is a significantly large kill zone around the tank that is dangerous for the supporting infantries. furthermore, the system only protect against ATGMs and RPGs and maybe a tank HEAT round. against long rod penetrator, it is useless. currently, only passive armor able to hold a kinetic round and that means a chobham like armor. if u already have the chobham, there little need to mount an APS since the weight of the tank will be ridiculously high with the system installed.

One more thing, maybe a little out of topic. anyone know about the AntiTank fragmentation round?

 

[Alan]

I understand that the various layers of materials used in composite armour are designed to dissapate the penetrative energies used by most anti-tank weapons, and the sloped armour has a very good chance of deflecting incoming rounds.
However i do wonder just how effectively the front of a Challenger 2's turret, with its 960mm of mk3 Chobham Aromur could defeat some of the modern soviet made ATGM's such as the AT X 14 Kornet, it is claimed to pierce upto 1200mm of RHa protected behind ERA!
Also the new trend for missiles with top attack capabilities such as Javelin & MBT LAW make thick frontal armour on a tank almost redundant!

 

[agent-0011]

concerning armor, everyone knows right how the frontal turret armor for leopard 2 look's like? the armor was sloped half upward and half downward. i don't complaining about the upward part but the downward slope, isn't going to channel the attacking round inside instead of deflecting it out of harms way? is it practical or simply just to make the tank look pretty?

After it is deflected downward the projectile had already lost as much as 70% of it kinetic energy so it won't harm the amror that it had been deflected to.:coffee :coffee :coffee

 

[Revenant]

I am trying to find accurate armour thickness figures for modern MBT's

I find that figures for russian tanks are readily available but trying to find info about western MBT's is much harder!
Does any body know where i can find how thick the armour is, front, side and rear of Leopard 2, Challenger 2, M1A2, etc, etc

Many thanks Alan

Well, there's very little probability that you'd be able to get such data. Most of figures available are only assessment based on conjectures. Some producers tells what materials were used in multilayer armours but their real thickness and composition remain a secret.
The other thing is that the same type of armour often has different resistance against HEAT charges and APFSDS rounds.
For instance, T-90 frontal turret armour thickness is about 780-800mmRHA against APFSDS projectiles (at the distance of 1 km) and about 1200mmRHA against HEAT muntions.
I can only tell you that Leopard 2A4 frontal turret armour is capable to withstand:
APFSDS rounds piercing 700mmRHA (at the distance of 2km)
HEAT rounds piercing 850mmRHA
Leopard 2A5/A6 frontal turret armour thickness is the equivalent of ~1300mmRHA (this is what Leo producer claims, but it's not specified against what kind of munitions, probably HEAT).

 

[jtcohen]

I am trying to find accurate armour thickness figures for modern MBT's

I find that figures for russian tanks are readily available but trying to find info about western MBT's is much harder!
Does any body know where i can find how thick the armour is, front, side and rear of Leopard 2, Challenger 2, M1A2, etc, etc

Many thanks Alan

That is classified info Alan.

 

[Awang se]

That is classified info Alan.

i think even the crews of the tank itself don't have time to measure the armor thickness themselves.

 

[jtcohen]

I am sure they don't too. I served on an M-60A1 in the USMC and to measure the frontal armor was easy, just sit high in the drivers hatch, put one hand inside and one outside, it was about 8 inches, but don't forget the added protection of the sloped armor, now ofcourse there is the ERA, but M-60s are ofcourse not in US service anymore, except as artificial reefs in the Carabean.

 

[Awang se]

I am sure they don't too. I served on an M-60A1 in the USMC and to measure the frontal armor was easy, just sit high in the drivers hatch, put one hand inside and one outside, it was about 8 inches, but don't forget the added protection of the sloped armor, now ofcourse there is the ERA, but M-60s are ofcourse not in US service anymore, except as artificial reefs in the Carabean.

But Israel still use it though. they add some ERA tiles to their M-60 and from what i hear, it ws quite effective against light armed guerilla. furthermore, several other countries like Thailand for example still have their good ol' M-60. i'm not sure what version.

 

[jtcohen]

I agree, a well-trained one that is. There are several nations that use the M-60 series, mostly the M-60A3 versions. There was a proposal to make a 'super 60' a while ago but it never got anywhere.

It is a great vehicle but it is in fact a WWII legacy design.

 

[AlexSWE]

Old thread and I'm sorry to bring it back up to the surface! But I thought it was better to comment on the old thread then to start a new just to comment.

Regarding the V shape on the frontal part of the Leo 2 MBTs, it won't deflect a tank round at all, the tank round will easaly peirce through the steel (that and rubber, and maybe explosives, haven't gotten that confirmed yet), this will make the round to shatter and then the force won't be enough to peirce the main armor on the turrent (See Leo 2 A4). There is air between the V shape armor and the flat turrent armor (see Leo 2 A4).