ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Your animation is BS because it doesn't show how a sabot penetrate the glacis armor . It show sabot goes thru a steel plate . which is completely different from going thru glacis armor which has layers of ceramic and other metal

I stand by my statement I don't know where you learn your physics
The law is simple
MVsquare/2 If you divide the M(mass) then there is less energy in each of the fragment
I said if the penetrator(sabot) breach the turret than it doesn't have energy to to thru another 1000 RHA and you said that armor is only on the front which is completely WRONG!.Here you said it again
I never said Western turrets (or any MBT turrets) DON'T have side protection. Where did I claim that? I told you that side (organic) turret armor MAY have enough protection to defend against IFV
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you realize this, but ONLY the frontal arc has armor that thick, so there will not be "another" 800 or 1000 mm RHA to go through. The sides and back barely have enough armor thickness to resist an IFV cannon round if even that much.
Click to expand...

Only the Russian tank doesn't have side protection most tank do have side protection!

There is no way it will pass the side turret . I assume T99 has the same arrangement . Reactive armor and applique armor are added on top of those side armor

The turret of Abram is the same front or side On leopard it is less but still considerable armor

Cold War MBT turret designs
This short article will try to cover the basic design philosophies of the modern main battle tank turrets. I have noticed three different philosophies from the predominant tank builders of the Cold War.

M1 Abrams
The Abrams' turret is massive. It is noticable wider than the turret of the Leopard 2 or Soviet tanks. Apparently the approximately one feet thick side armor covers the complete flanks of the turret.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Marked grey in this sketch is the approximate layout of the turret armor
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

At the right side, the thickness side armor cavities can be seen.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Photo showing the blow-off panles (center) and side armor (right) of the M1A1

Why does the M1 Abrams have such massive armor protection over it's turret bustle? It's quite simple. Unlike most other main battle tanks, the majority of the main gun ammunition is stored in the bustle (in case of the M1A1 all except six rounds). A penetration of the bustle would result in the tank being not able to continue combat.
The Leclerc with it's bustle mounted autoloader supposedly follows the same idea in terms of general turret armor layout.
 
Last edited:
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Hendrik_2000 said:
Your animation is BS because it doesn't show how a sabot penetrate the glacis armor . It show sabot goes thru a steel plate . which is completely different from going thru layer of ceramic and other metal
Click to expand...
Other metal, like DU? :)

And of course YOU know exactly how various armors disintegrate during penetration. Please enlighten us with a pictorial. I'm sure you also know (or maybe you don't) that ceramic plates are only sandwiched in between metal plates; they don't span the entire thickness of the armor, which means the interior face of the armor will in fact blow out just like the animation I posted. And that side tank armor essentially never has composite plates; as a general rule this is the exclusive domain of frontal armor. Also, YOU were the one who stated "800 to 1,000 mm RHA" without any qualifiers at all, which means your baseline scenario was in fact a straight up penetration of a "steel plate".

Hendrik_2000 said:
I stand by my statement I don't know where you learn your physics
The law is simple
MVsquare/2 If you divide the M(mass) then there is less energy in each of the fragment
I said if the penetrator(sabot) breach the turret than it doesn't have energy to to thru another 1000 RHA and you said that armor is only on the front which is completely WRONG!. There is no way it will pass the side turret . I assume T99 has the same arrangement . Reactive armor and applique armor are added on top of those side armor
The turret of Abram is the same front or side On leopard it is less but still considerable armor
Click to expand...
Clearly English is not your first language so you could (potentially) be forgiven if you were unintentionally misinterpreting what I said. I did NOT say that "armor is only on the front". I DID say that 800 to 1,000 mm thickness armor is only on the front: "I'm not sure if you realize this, but ONLY the frontal arc has armor that thick, so there will not be "another" 800 or 1000 mm RHA to go through". I also said that a tank's side armor may (or may not) be able to stop IFV cannon rounds, clearly indicating that I know that tanks have side armor, but again you conveniently decided to ignore that in order to portray a queer scenario in which I somehow don't know that tanks have armor on the sides as well as the front.

Hendrik_2000 said:
Why does the M1 Abrams have such massive armor protection over it's turret bustle? It's quite simple. Unlike most other main battle tanks, the majority of the main gun ammunition is stored in the bustle (in case of the M1A1 all except six rounds). A penetration of the bustle would result in the tank being not able to continue combat.
The Leclerc with it's bustle mounted autoloader supposedly follows the same idea in terms of general turret armor layout.
Click to expand...
The side armor of the M1 is less than half the thickness of the frontal armor. If half the thickness of frontal armor is already enough to stop a tank round, then why is the frontal armor twice as thick as it "needs" to be??? Logically, the thickness of the M1's frontal armor is sufficient to stop a sabot but a hit against the side is NOT sufficient unless it is struck at a highly oblique angle such that the depth of side armor the sabot has to get through (at an angle) is approximately the same as that of a direct perpendicular hit against frontal armor. BTW, this concept is the same as that which led to almost all modern tanks having "sloped" armor. Below is a graphic showing 3 sabot round attacks against an M1. The sabot has a penetrative capability of 80 pixels in this scenario. Only one of them penetrates because it is a straight on shot against the side armor.

M1 armor.png

Regardless of how thick the side armor is, there is NO other "800 to 1,000 mm RHA" for your theoretical round to "ricochet" off of (assuming by those numbers you mean to give just a general stand-in for whatever the standard thickness of modern frontal armor is), so you remain incorrect regardless of how many pics you post here.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
You don't have to use language to buttress your argument
The first thing you said was the main cause of explosion in the tank is because the sabot fragment once it hit the armor which is not correct as clearly shown on your video demonstration.

Plus as I prove it the sabot need all the kinetic energy to punch thru the armor dividing it into fragment will lessen the power of the sabot

Then you said only the front of the tank is well protected and the side of the turret is hardly protected. So any sabot will go thru the side or back once it breached the turret

I prove it that the side turret is well protected and any sabot that breached the turret doesn't have enough energy to punch thru another composite armor steel. It might not be 1000 RHA but maybe 600 RHA who knows ?

So if the sabot is now contained inside the turret what will it do. It still has considerable energy but cannot pass thru the turret . Will it just flop inside the turret?

I know the principle of angle glacis is to increase the penetration thickness of the armor steel
But modern composite armor is not straight forward as simple layering of steel and ceramic or gap?
I think I will stop here and now the discussion is getting long winding it will bore people
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Hendrik_2000 said:
You don't have to use language to buttress your argument
The first thing you said was the main cause of explosion in the tank is because the sabot fragment once it hit the armor which is not correct as clearly shown on your video demonstration.
Click to expand...
Clearly language is important here because you definitely are not understanding what I have been saying. I didn't make any mention anywhere of the "main cause" of "explosion" being due to sabot fragments. The MAIN cause of damage is in fact the main body of the sabot round penetrating into the ammo compartment or other internal machinery and/or crew. ADDITIONAL damage will be the result of sabot and armor fragments traveling into the crew compartment along with the main sabot round, as was illustrated by the video I linked.

Hendrik_2000 said:
Plus as I prove it the sabot need all the kinetic energy to punch thru the armor dividing it into fragment will lessen the power of the sabot
Click to expand...
You didn't prove that the sabot will need "all" the kinetic energy to punch through the armor, and you certainly did not prove that it loses so much energy in the process that it could not punch out the back or the side armor. There are way too many variables in penetration (type of round, type of armor, impact velocity, angle of impact) for you to make a blanket rejection and claim that a round couldn't possibly penetrate two sides of armor to go through and through. Front through back is nearly a 100% given unless there is an ammo bustle in the way, but then that would be a victory not a defeat. Side through side would depend on all the variables mentioned above. Just because you picked an M1 with thick side armor doesn't mean the majority of other tanks in the world also have sides as thick. In fact they almost all don't.

Also, I didn't say that the sabot will totally fragment when penetrating armor. In fact it will retain most of its mass. It will however lose at least some mass during penetration and this is what will partially enter the tank as fragments.

Hendrik_2000 said:
Then you said only the front of the tank is well protected and the side of the turret is hardly protected. So any sabot will go thru the side or back once it breached the turret

I prove it that the side turret is well protected and any sabot that breached the turret doesn't have enough energy to punch thru another composite armor steel. It might not be 1000 RHA but maybe 600 RHA who knows ?

So if the sabot is now contained inside the turret what will it do. It still has considerable energy but cannot pass thru the turret . Will it just flop inside the turret?
Click to expand...
You didn't prove that the side turret is "well protected" enough to stop a penetrating round from leaving the other side. I didn't see that anywhere in your statements or pictures. And even if a round is unable to exit the tank entirely, that doesn't mean it will "ricochet" inside the compartment. More than likely the sabot would just partially penetrate the next piece of armor and get stuck in the armor without exiting. What WOULD potentially "ricochet" is all the fragments that the sabot brought inside the tank with it that weren't stopped by the anti-spall lining. Those definitely don't have the KE to even partially penetrate the next piece of armor and could definitely bounce around inside the compartment causing all kinds of damage. If the sabot is DU then there is also a bonus pyrophoric effect (you can look this one up) which results in even greater flammability than rounds made of tungsten.
 
Last edited:
J

jobjed

Captain
WestRiver said:
The first official photo of the new light tank. It was taken during the extreme temperature testing.View attachment 37598
Click to expand...

Seems to be the losing 201st Institute design as opposed to the winning 617th Plant design, respectively above and below:

201st:
RAXsRZC.jpg



617th:
1LCeelO.png
 
J

jobjed

Captain
J16B MRF said:
Not sure which place this was taken
Click to expand...
Probably somewhere in Yunnan or Guangdong. The ZTQ was spotted on rail transports heading to the 41st or 14th GA's area of responsibility, and since the 14th GA got disbaned like last month, logic dictates the ZTQ probably now serves the 75th GA (former 41st), whose area of responsibility includes both the former 14th's and 41st GA's, which is Yunnan and western Guangdong. The mountains in the background reinforce the Yunnan hypothesis since it's a very mountainous province.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top