Whats the Next Gen Tank?

[extern]

It is a generalisation because western tanks are designed for survivability.

If it's so, why they are so high, big and dont have ERA?

The Leoaprd 2 and Leclerc may have ammunition stored in a carousel (horizontal axis) but its in the most heavily armoured part of the tank, the glacis with strong side armour. Unlike the T-64-90 tanks where its in the middle and quite vulnerable to lateral fires.

You can wonder, but the T-72/T-90 A-Loader keeps the most of its amunition also in horizontal position, as it is pictured on the pic 1. Also the contemporal model of T-90 keep the remain round stock in fire-proof canisters.

By the way, T-90/T-80's much better resisted against fire than to say Abrams. In 1996 after Chechen-I campany the demonstrative trials for TV and press were done in Russia. Then many rumors were going here and there about alegedly vulnerability of the Russians tank in Chechenya. Indeed the tanks kept 5 or more RPGs from all sides before stoped to function. You can see the TV pictures and the story about this trials here: http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/otvaga2004/caleidoscope/0_tank_04.htm
Then the tank T-80 was hit 3 times by MG launched HEAT of another tank. No penetration was there. After one hit, the fuel storage vas blown, but after the fuel has been burnt out, the tank was driven like nothing happen. You can see it on the pic 2-3.

BTW in such case Abrams should became a fire brand (pic 4), and the famose Merkava just poped-up.

 

[eckherl]

It's not problem of Leo2 only. Any MBT has weaken areas on the frontal armor, including M1A2, Merkava-IV etc. You can well see the sKetches with the pictured weaken zones: 1-2) Abrams 3) Abrams vs Type-90 4) MerkIV

The chances of engaging the front slope on a M1 series is nearly impossible due to the angle, what makes you think that the gun mantlet is a weak area as far as protection.

 

[eckherl]

@Extern

Name one documented case to where a M1 series tank in Iraq was penetrated by hostile fire in the 60 degree frontal, yes we have had issues inregards to shape charged heat rounds when hit at the rear and rear sides, but name one tank that wouldn`t. Russia does have safety issues inregards to where the ammunition is stored on their tanks, thus the reason for testing with a bustle mounted system. I think Russia was freaked out for the dismal performance of their much touted T-80 in the first Chechen conflict that they had no choice but to go on a massive PR campaign so that they didn`t start losing sales. With that said, Russia and the rest of the world is scrambling to place the best urbanized kit as possible on their tanks U.S included. Here is some pictures of Russian tanks that were lost during the Chechen conflict.

 

[extern]

Here is some pictures of Russian tanks that were lost during the Chechen conflict.

So what? They are most probably were hit by some technical problem and given up, or the fuel was ended. I can bring you a lot of such kind of pics from Iraq/Lebanon. I hope, future tank will have kinda 'black box', where all data is collected, and even if a tank suddently blows for pieces, we'll know very well why.

 

[extern]

The chances of engaging the front slope on a M1 series is nearly impossible due to the angle, what makes you think that the gun mantlet is a weak area as far as protection.

It's just known thing about Abrams mantlet - it has no full level of frontal armor. Also between the turret and the hull Abrams has too big space, where the coming rod can penetrate.

 

[Waylander]

Too big space?
It is not as if you are able to snipe at those points during a fight.

 

[Grand Danois]

IIRC, this one has been discussed on DT...

It was mobility killed during the maneuver part of OIF. The penetrations are from a Bradleys 25mm M242. The same Abrams has also been hit by a Maverick on the frontal arc.

The US is making sure no sensitive technology is left behind in an intact state, before moving on...

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1755&d=1185485514

 

[Waylander]

IIRC two Mavs to the turret front and then a 120mm HEAT/MPAT in the back.

 

[AGRA]

The kill mechanism of Trophy is just the same like of Russian Arena or Drozd APS. Anyone can see it on the picture. And the coming RPGs kill DOES dangers the infantry since it makes them blown.

Absolutely not – this post is utterly wrong. Either Russian propaganda or just ignorance.

The Arena and Drozd countermeasures are completely different to Tophy. The way Arena works is the radar detects the incoming and at the right moment launches the correctly positioned counter measure located in a ring around the turret which pops into the air and detonates spraying fragments into a cone in which the missile will be entering. This destroys (hopefully) the missile. The problem with this system is the number of shots into a particular zone of approach are limited, reaction time is limited to sub-sonic missiles because of the time needed to launch the countermeasure into its detonation position, the lack of ability to engage missiles coming from high angles (Hellfire, roof launched RPGs), lack of ability counter hardened, high velocity incomings like gun shells and the high level of collateral damage caused by the countermeasure fragments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_Active_Protection_System
Explains quite accurately with graphics how it works.

Drozd fires a 107mm HE rocket into the area in front of the rocket which detonates spraying fragments all over the place and hopefully defeating the ATGM.

Trophy works in a totally different way. The incoming is detected and tracked and the Hard Kill (HK) countermeasure is launched directly at it. The HK is a far more powerful effector than the burst fragments of the Arena and can destroy high velocity HEAT shells from tank guns. It is being evolved to defeat KE shells like APFSDS but as this was not an original requirement of the project but the physics of the HK countermeasure will be able to defeat KE it just needs some experimenting and tailoring.

The HK is not a burst fragment weapon and will destroy any ATGM, rocket or HEAT shell. Only one HK is fired per incoming and a large magazine is available in the two launching units.

The picture posted by Extern shows the single HK countermeasure quite literally rip the warhead of a RPG to pieces. The RPG’s explosive content detonates in the process but this quite a localised and low fragmenting effect compared to the huge spray of fragments caused by the Arena or Drozd system.

 

[AGRA]

By the way, T-90/T-80's much better resisted against fire than to say Abrams. In 1996 after Chechen-I campany the demonstrative trials for TV and press were done in Russia. Then many rumors were going here and there about alegedly vulnerability of the Russians tank in Chechenya. Indeed the tanks kept 5 or more RPGs from all sides before stoped to function. You can see the TV pictures and the story about this trials here: http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/otvaga2004/caleidoscope/0_tank_04.htm
Then the tank T-80 was hit 3 times by MG launched HEAT of another tank. No penetration was there. After one hit, the fuel storage vas blown, but after the fuel has been burnt out, the tank was driven like nothing happen. You can see it on the pic 2-3.

What a fraud. The T-80 is clearly burning from an exterior fire. We have plenty of after battle reports in the west of T72-80 tanks getting thumped in combat. And those pictures you have posted show Merkavas that have gotten bogged in holes in the ground. This is nationalistic pander.

 

[eckherl]

So what? They are most probably were hit by some technical problem and given up, or the fuel was ended. I can bring you a lot of such kind of pics from Iraq/Lebanon. I hope, future tank will have kinda 'black box', where all data is collected, and even if a tank suddently blows for pieces, we'll know very well why.

You know very well that they are battlefield losses, not scuttled by their crews. They were ambushed in a urban environment, the same thing that has happened to U.S armor in Iraq. Here is some more for you, along with a destroyed Merkava.

 

[eckherl]

It's just known thing about Abrams mantlet - it has no full level of frontal armor. Also between the turret and the hull Abrams has too big space, where the coming rod can penetrate.

Why is it a known fact that you can snipe the mantlet on a M1 series and destroy it. The turret race ring area is alot smaller than what you think, but I guess you may be able to get a lucky shot in. As I have stated - there has been no penetration from the 60 degree frontal by hostile forces.

 

[AGRA]

In fact the frontal hull of the Leo is not the best protected part of the tank. Not on the Leos till A4 and the gap is even wider when we talk about A5 and A6. Only with the adaption of additional hull armor (Strv 122, Leo IIA5DK, Leo IIE and Leo IIHEL) this weakness has changed a bit.
And the ammo is not in a carousel but in a normal ammo holder next to left of the driver. So when your hull is penetrated either the ammo or the driver (Or both) is affected.

My mistake – the Leclerc has a rotating carousel and the Leopard 2 just has a rack arrangement. The carousel is actually a better option as it allows for a blast proof wall to be fitted with only a small aperture for accessing a round (I don’t know if Leclerc has this feaure). Whereas on a Leopard 2 the entire rack of ~20 rounds is exposed to the fighting compartment. As there is little or no compartmenting between the forward hull and the turret any detonation of the hull ammunition of a Leopard 2 would effect all the crew.

And Merks also caused nearly catastrophic ammo explosions during the Lebanon operation.
The problem is the reserve ammo normally transported in the rear section. If the enemy gets a shot at the rear section of the tank and penetrates it can rip a Merk literally apart.

The Merkava catastrophic destructions were due to extremely large belly blast IEDs. Such weapons have also catastrophically destroyed M1s in Iraq. By large we mean sometimes as much as 100-200kgs of explosives. No tank in the world could ever survive such a blast.

The Merkava stores its rear hull ammunition in blast proof containers. If the tank is knocked out these containers protect the ammunition from premature detonation or simultaneous/chain detonation allowing the crew time to escape. No such protection is provided for the ammunition of a T-64-90 tank or the forward hull ammunition of the Leopard 2.

 

[Waylander]

My mistake – the Leclerc has a rotating carousel and the Leopard 2 just has a rack arrangement. The carousel is actually a better option as it allows for a blast proof wall to be fitted with only a small aperture for accessing a round (I don’t know if Leclerc has this feaure). Whereas on a Leopard 2 the entire rack of ~20 rounds is exposed to the fighting compartment. As there is little or no compartmenting between the forward hull and the turret any detonation of the hull ammunition of a Leopard 2 would effect all the crew.

The problem with a carousel is that you don't get the same amount of ammo into it like in a normal unprotected ammo rack.
I am the last to say that a protected ammo rack is not a favourable addition to the Leo II.
But you would need to go down with the number of reserve rounds (27) stored in the hull.
IMHO it would be a problem to add a protected ammo rack there because the ammo rack is a really tight fit length wise and so with adding the needed massive plates one would maybe not be able to store the longer LKE IIs there.

And there is no need to tell me what a scary feeling it is to sit next to the unprotected reserve ammo...

The Merkava catastrophic destructions were due to extremely large belly blast IEDs. Such weapons have also catastrophically destroyed M1s in Iraq. By large we mean sometimes as much as 100-200kgs of explosives. No tank in the world could ever survive such a blast.

The Merkava stores its rear hull ammunition in blast proof containers. If the tank is knocked out these containers protect the ammunition from premature detonation or simultaneous/chain detonation allowing the crew time to escape. No such protection is provided for the ammunition of a T-64-90 tank or the forward hull ammunition of the Leopard 2.

Those blast proof containers are not going to help you when the penetrating ATGM runs directly into it and only one round blows up. Without blast panels your back is shredded.
The blast proof containers limit the possibility of a catastrophic hit when the back armor is penetrated but they don't protect the tank and its crew in the same way like seperated ammo racks with blast panels do.

 

[eckherl]

The problem with a carousel is that you don't get the same amount of ammo into it like in a normal unprotected ammo rack.
I am the last to say that a protected ammo rack is not a favourable addition to the Leo II.
But you would need to go down with the number of reserve rounds (27) stored in the hull.
IMHO it would be a problem to add a protected ammo rack there because the ammo rack is a really tight fit length wise and so with adding the needed massive plates one would maybe not be able to store the longer LKE IIs there.

And there is no need to tell me what a scary feeling it is to sit next to the unprotected reserve ammo...

Also have to agree with you on the carousel ammunition rack, Type 90 suffers from the same drawback, but they do limit the amount of exposer when loading a new round.



Those blast proof containers are not going to help you when the penetrating ATGM runs directly into it and only one round blows up. Without blast panels your back is shredded.
The blast proof containers limit the possibility of a catastrophic hit when the back armor is penetrated but they don't protect the tank and its crew in the same way like seperated ammo racks with blast panels do.

There were a few Merkavas killed with ATGMs, all rear shots.

 

[eckherl]

:cheers @Extern

Lets take this current conversation/friendly debate back over to the T-90/ Western armor thread. so that we can keep this thread on track with possible future MBTs that will perform better in urbanized settings.

 

[10ringr]

Currently everyone is throwing blows to each other about the Leopard 2, Abrams or the challenger 2 (Not so often) But whats after them, I mean after all they are all over 15 years old and some were designed from 50's technology still!

Whats next for the tank, I have no doubt it will get lighter, more heavily armed and protected and smaller but what else and what projects are in motion as we speak?

No they completely rebuild these things from the ground up and since they have about 5000 of them yet to play with they intend to do this indefinetely. Like the B52, F15 and a number of other weapons platforms we think we can afford to half Azz our defensive capability. I know that sucks and no one wants to hear it but it's true. Even our ICBM's and nuclear stockpiles are unilaterally being reduced because Bush in his genius has decided to appease the Russians instead of doing what Reagan did and so we're working on a ballistic missile defense yes, but look at Russia now building and testing/deploying new ICBM's with 10 + MIRV warheads. We're simply going to try to add other ground attack platforms to compliment the Abrams, which it will, until China has amassed so much power they can do nothing but use it and by that time we'll probably have a 3 ship navy! 130 F/A 22's to try to compete with the huge volume of fighters China is producing. Remember they have the economy now to back it up with the US having 13 Trillion - 15 Trillion and China now having 10 Trillion but with Twice the growth. Do the math and vote. Hutch

 

[10ringr]

What a fraud. The T-80 is clearly burning from an exterior fire. We have plenty of after battle reports in the west of T72-80 tanks getting thumped in combat. And those pictures you have posted show Merkavas that have gotten bogged in holes in the ground. This is nationalistic pander.

Admin: text deleted. Please refer to forum guidelines on posting etiquette.

1st warning issued.

Hutch