T-14 Armata

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have a question for our millitary officianado's, the history books and articles I have read say that curved/rounded walls and armour was more effective protection against projectile weapons, so what has changed that it seems the more modern a tank the more flat and angular it's surfaces are?

Greater slant increases the thickness of the amour vs the projectile, this is more important against penetrators than the structural integrity of the hull vs the blast.

[Husar]

Greater slant increases the thickness of the amour vs the projectile, this is more important against penetrators than the structural integrity of the hull vs the blast.

What blast?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Read as "a blast", advances in tank armour since the end of WWII gradually made tanks invulnerable to HE shells not coming from a Battleship, so we moved to SABOT which is a penetrator and it became more important to make the front of the tank and the turret armour as thick as possible to stop said SABOT rather than to create a nice round shell which was more conventionally strong. Also, we've got better at welding things together, so nice round turrets are no longer as important.

[Montmorency]

Besides that, isn't it that much contemporary AT ammo is based on some sort of HEAT tech, meaning that the composition of the armor and/or its reactive capacities count for more than slope, and often more than even thickness per se. Perhaps its even that sloping the armor would reduce the reactive density, or sommat. Put another way, the boxy sort of shape a lot of contemporary tanks have comes from being lined with layers of replaceable and interchangeable blocks of composite/reactive armor; I can see that a lot of sloping would reduce both fungibility and resilience.

[Fragony]

That thing looks absolutily awesome

[Husar]

Read as "a blast", advances in tank armour since the end of WWII gradually made tanks invulnerable to HE shells not coming from a Battleship, so we moved to SABOT which is a penetrator and it became more important to make the front of the tank and the turret armour as thick as possible to stop said SABOT rather than to create a nice round shell which was more conventionally strong. Also, we've got better at welding things together, so nice round turrets are no longer as important.

Amazing. I was surprised you brought up blasts because the question was specifically about KE penetrators.
Or so I assumed since he said projectile weapons. If by projectile all missiles etc. are included it gets a little more complicated.
Though even in WW2 most shots were probably AP rounds and artillery can still hurt tanks quite a bit, at least by hitting the optics or with modern AT rounds that penetrate the roof with HEAT much like cluster bomb cluster munitions.

Besides that, isn't it that much contemporary AT ammo is based on some sort of HEAT tech, meaning that the composition of the armor and/or its reactive capacities count for more than slope, and often more than even thickness per se. Perhaps its even that sloping the armor would reduce the reactive density, or sommat. Put another way, the boxy sort of shape a lot of contemporary tanks have comes from being lined with layers of replaceable and interchangeable blocks of composite/reactive armor; I can see that a lot of sloping would reduce both fungibility and resilience.

Well, not for tank vs tanks, where it's mostly about giving the KE (kinetic energy) penetrator as much of that kinetic energy to make it punch right through the armor. For missiles, rocket launchers and the abovementioned cluster bombs and artillery shells you often get HEAT or CE (chemical energy), yes. Whether the armor is always easily replaceable I'm not so sure, if you mean the addon blocks they put on the outside, that's usually in the areas which are historically only protected by relatively thin armor and vulnerable to insurgents coming from all sides. so they put cages in the back as spaced armor of sorts and reactive armor blocks on the sides for additional protection. Sloping the sides would not only make the tanks much wider or smaller on the inside but also be a potential weakspot in tight streets with enemies on the roofs, who could now not only hit the roof very well, but also go for those sloped sides which would look rather flat from slightly above.
The boxy german tanks of WW2 were also boxy because it gave them more space inside and it was easier to stuff all the equipment into a box than to put it into a wedge.

[Fisherking]

The Russians claim they are using an active protection system against incoming projectiles which makes the tank unable to be hit.

Israel has fielded or is fielding a system like what the Russians claim to have. I can’t tell you much about it but you can assume everyone will be mounting them in a few years as an add-on. But the Russians claim that theirs can also stop inert rounds like Sabot.

The Russian reliance on autoloaders has mostly been because of larger ammo. It took around 3 seconds to load aim and fire a 105mm gun but twice as long for the 120mm, due in part to the weight of the rounds. The draw back is in round selection. You have more difficulty with the number of types of rounds you can fire. The currently proposed M-1A3 has an autoloader, similar to the French model. However, each crewman you eliminate makes keeping the tank functional and providing local security exponentially more difficult. How much sensors can alleviate the problem is still up in the air.

There is a lot about the T-14 that could pose difficulties for Western Nations if it works as advertised. If nothing else, it should shake the US out of its complacency and ambivalence toward Armor and perhaps convince the European Nations to increase that combat arm.

Also, on HEAT ammunition, the Russians have moved toward EFP and MEFP rounds. (Explosively Formed Penetrators) They seem to have a better effect in dealing with advanced armour and reactive armour. HEAT has become pretty much useless in dealing with the ceramic and copper sandwiched in more advanced armours.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Russians claim they are using an active protection system against incoming projectiles which makes the tank unable to be hit.

Israel has fielded or is fielding a system like what the Russians claim to have. I can’t tell you much about it but you can assume everyone will be mounting them in a few years as an add-on. But the Russians claim that theirs can also stop inert rounds like Sabot.

I don't buy it, stopping SABOT is the same as stopping a bullet.

The Russian reliance on autoloaders has mostly been because of larger ammo. It took around 3 seconds to load aim and fire a 105mm gun but twice as long for the 120mm, due in part to the weight of the rounds. The draw back is in round selection. You have more difficulty with the number of types of rounds you can fire. The currently proposed M-1A3 has an autoloader, similar to the French model. However, each crewman you eliminate makes keeping the tank functional and providing local security exponentially more difficult. How much sensors can alleviate the problem is still up in the air.

One notes that the 120mm gun on British tanks uses two-part ammunition, which significantly reduces the weight problem. The British rifled gun also fires HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) about twice as far as anyone's smoothbore can fire HEAT or similar rounds, which has implications against the lightly armours American Stryker tank-killers, because they would be vulnerable to HESH. Of course, this comes at the expense of SABOT performance to a degree and the need to completely replace the barrel and send a faulty one back to blighty in the middle of the cricket match.

There is a lot about the T-14 that could pose difficulties for Western Nations if it works as advertised. If nothing else, it should shake the US out of its complacency and ambivalence toward Armor and perhaps convince the European Nations to increase that combat arm.

Also, on HEAT ammunition, the Russians have moved toward EFP and MEFP rounds. (Explosively Formed Penetrators) They seem to have a better effect in dealing with advanced armour and reactive armour. HEAT has become pretty much useless in dealing with the ceramic and copper sandwiched in more advanced armours.

Irrc the Israelis have the most modern tank, followed by the British, every other design is from the Cold War - although the Russians have produced the T-90 I'm not sure how much it's new parts (Challenger II is roughly 2% the same parts as Challenger I).

Ahhhh.... If only I hadn't broken my ankle.

[Pannonian]

Read as "a blast", advances in tank armour since the end of WWII gradually made tanks invulnerable to HE shells not coming from a Battleship, so we moved to SABOT which is a penetrator and it became more important to make the front of the tank and the turret armour as thick as possible to stop said SABOT rather than to create a nice round shell which was more conventionally strong. Also, we've got better at welding things together, so nice round turrets are no longer as important.

I wonder if there would be anything remaining of an Abrams if it caught a direct hit from one of Yamato's main guns.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder if there would be anything remaining of an Abrams if it caught a direct hit from one of Yamato's main guns.

Yeah, probably the turret glassis and nothing else.

[Husar]

The Swedes actually did some interesting tests with their S-Tanks:



Keep in mind that this is a 70s tank or so and probably doesn't have quite the same armor as more modern (upgraded) MBTs.

[Greyblades]

Looks less like a tank and more like a mobile artillery piece.

I wonder if there would be anything remaining of an Abrams if it caught a direct hit from one of Yamato's main guns.

For that matter, would there be anything remaining of anything less than a modern bunker?

[Kadagar_AV]

The Swedes actually did some interesting tests with their S-Tanks:



Keep in mind that this is a 70s tank or so and probably doesn't have quite the same armor as more modern (upgraded) MBTs.

The S-model... LOL!!!

What can I say, its one and only function in the Swedish military was target practise and testing, to be honest... It was like the WORST TANK EVER (compared to other tanks at the time).


Regardless, I had a talk with a friend of mine who is colonel for a mechanized brigade... He said we know very little about the T-14... But that from all he could say it seems like a VERY competent tank, and he wouldn't want to face it with what we have now (Stridsvagn 122), basically a German Leopard 2A5 with upgraded command, control, and fire control systems, as well as reinforced armour and long-term combat capacity.

I think that is comparable with the best US or British tanks, so yeah...

I still claim westerners wouldnt want to meet the T-14 on the battlefield.