Chobham armour invulnerable?

Yes, but not enough against the latest M829A3 and Charm3 APFSDS. These rounds have substantial penetration capability & can penetrate through portions of glacis and hull at 2Km & below.

And what evidence do you have to back up this claim? Before the kill mechanism of 2nd gen ERA was understood the West claimed their DU penetrators were able to defeat any Russian tank. They even created some of their own ERA based on how they thought it worked and proved it wouldn’t stop their DU rounds. Once the ERA was properly understood however they tested it again and found their DU rounds failed to penetrate.
Have they actually tested these new rounds on ERA equipped T-90s, or have they simply used equivelent targets. The Russians made the same mistake with the Kornet. They credited it with 1.2m penetration figures but in practise they found penetration was averaging less than 900mm. They have since corrected the problem.

To use them at 5 KM, you need optics that are far more than the current 10X systems available on most western and Russian tanks, that would allow optimum targetting.

Why? The Russians have been using auto target trackers in the FCS for some time. Have spoken to someone who was familiar with T-72s and he claimed that during exercises helicopters did not do very well as their gas turbines generated such alrge IR plumes that even if they were behind a tree they stood out clearly and could be engaged easily at great ranges. Having guided projectiles makes it much easier of course as there is no need to anticipate the future position of the target.

Plus we were speaking of frontal attack ability, this is like having stuff which you can only use in some advantageous conditions.

Tanks in combat are not always driving directly toward the tant that is firing at them. Flank attacks are still and will always been standard practise in all armies.

Its pretty hard to detect, acquire, and fire onto targets at max advertised ranges, which remain mostly for discussion- most engagements take place at the 2KM-3 Km distance.

Why do you think desert storm was so one sided? With modern FCS and Thermal sights (which the T-90M has) this will be normal rather than the exception.

Shtora – by the time it reacts, a firing solution would have been obtained and you’ll have an unjammable KE round on the way.

Firing solutions don’t fall from the sky… you have to lase the target to get a range and that is when Shtora will activate and also when the IR smoke will be fired. The tank commander will no doubt move immediately.

Plus western tanks wont use HEAT or HESH against T series tanks would they?

Against T-55s and T-72s in Desert Storm they chose to… or was that case of the Challenger hitting another Challenger with HESH a case of bad manners. (One would assume a target that size was not a troop carrier).

the system has been deployed yes, but it still has some kinks that needed to worked out for operation in all possible scenarios.

So until the F-15 has been used to shoot down an airliner being used for a terrorist attack it is not a mature system… how do we know how it will perform in such a specialist role… some subsystems might fail due to the target being obviously civilian. Is the F-15 considered a mature system?

From everything I’ve heard & read, the newer European and Israeli Act Defense systems have some critical advantages over the above types.

Like what. Please list these advantages.

The Russian ones are good, but the Russian cash crunch has meant that they havent kept evolving

So Drozd-2 as seen on the Black Eagle prototypes suggest the program is stagnant. Fitting ARENA to BMP-3s shows they are not working on it either…

eg, EADS is currently planning on fielding an anti KE APS based on its currently developed APS but Russia is still trying to find an export customer to take its APS program forward.

What operational system does EADS have in the field gather experience and data to help them with development? Having a system planned to be anti KE is really nice but planned systems don’t stop anything.
Not mature, not operational, not in service… but better than anything the Russians have. Boy they need a sarcasm tag in html… :diablo:

Contact 3 which is the generation of ERA fitted to the T-90 since it entered service will greatly reduce the penetration of any HEAT or APDSFS warhead hitting it.

Yes, but not enough against the latest M829A3 and Charm3 APFSDS. These rounds have substantial penetration capability & can penetrate through portions of glacis and hull at 2Km & below.

They already have deployed laser beam riding rounds that will penetrate enemy tanks from the side and rear and helicopters out to 5km range.

Yes but a caveat. To use them at 5 KM, you need optics that are far more than the current 10X systems available on most western and Russian tanks, that would allow optimum targetting. Plus we were speaking of frontal attack ability, this is like having stuff which you can only use in some advantageous conditions. Its pretty hard to detect, acquire, and fire onto targets at max advertised ranges, which remain mostly for discussion- most engagements take place at the 2KM-3 Km distance. The one exception have been the Israelis who have developed FCS in particular to engage in long range gunnery with adaptive electronics (unique FCS to each tank).

Shtora disrupts optical FCS. ARENA will stop most HEATFS rounds at 1km range or so.
It will also stop HESH rounds too.

Shtora – by the time it reacts, a firing solution would have been obtained and you’ll have an unjammable KE round on the way. Plus western tanks wont use HEAT or HESH against T series tanks would they?

In service and Operational.

Have to disagree here , the system has been deployed yes, but it still has some kinks that needed to worked out for operation in all possible scenarios.

Drozd-1 was used operationally in Afghanistan and was found to stop attacks 70% of the time. Drozd-2 is a second generation system based on that experience. Arena is also based on that experience too. These are second gen systems… compared to what system that is operational and in service?

From everything I’ve heard & read, the newer European and Israeli Act Defense systems have some critical advantages over the above types. The Russian ones are good, but the Russian cash crunch has meant that they havent kept evolving, eg, EADS is currently planning on fielding an anti KE APS based on its currently developed APS but Russia is still trying to find an export customer to take its APS program forward.

Garry, at combat ranges Charm 3 and M829A3 can take out a T-90/ZTZ99. Not vice versa.

Contact 3 which is the generation of ERA fitted to the T-90 since it entered service will greatly reduce the penetration of any HEAT or APDSFS warhead hitting it.

And “working on” is not equal to deployed.

They already have deployed laser beam riding rounds that will penetrate enemy tanks from the side and rear and helicopters out to 5km range.

Arena and Shtora do squat all for any APFSDS rounds.

Shtora disrupts optical FCS. ARENA will stop most HEATFS rounds at 1km range or so.
It will also stop HESH rounds too.

And even Shtora is not mature.

In service and Operational.

And there are a host of active kill systems out there, which perform equally well if not better.

Drozd-1 was used operationally in Afghanistan and was found to stop attacks 70% of the time. Drozd-2 is a second generation system based on that experience. Arena is also based on that experience too. These are second gen systems… compared to what system that is operational and in service?

Garry, at combat ranges Charm 3 and M829A3 can take out a T-90/ZTZ99. Not vice versa.

And “working on” is not equal to deployed. Arena and Shtora do squat all for any APFSDS rounds. And even Shtora is not mature. In Indian evaluations, it was clear that it needed more funds and time, to get ready. And there are a host of active kill systems out there, which perform equally well if not better.

In terms of ammo both of these types cant frontally take on a M1A2SEP or Chally2…

And which ammo are you referring to?
I have read that currently they are working on MMW radar guided missiles that can be fired through the gun tube that will be fire and forget much like Brimstone and will be lofted towards the target and attack from above.
With the ARENA, and SHTORA packages as well as previous generation ERA a Challenger 2 and an M1A2SEP can’t defeat a at combat ranges T-90 either.

Ok stupid question and sorry if it’s been brought up before but how the hell can someone say something is invulnerable, then go on to say that some were destroyed??? Doesn’t that therefore mean that it IS vulnerable?????? :confused:

The Abrams and Challenger 2 are not these invincible machines of war that can’t be destroyed, and if we go to war against a properly equipped nation like China or Russia with that mentality we will be in for an awful shock!!!
Chobham is old and I’m sure Russian and Chinese weapons manufacturers have developed weapons capable of taking them out with ease, and I’m sure any of the weapons on a Havoc/Night Hunter would cut them to pieces.

Jesus we go to war against an army with ancient T-55’s and “Monkey Model” T-72’s (the export downgraded variant), and think because we destroyed old 30-40 year old tanks the Abrams and Challenger 2 can walk over anything.
Put them both up against the latest T-90 or ZTZ-99 and then we’ll see…

In terms of ammo both of these types cant frontally take on a M1A2SEP or Chally2…

That’s always been the case, maybe to differing degrees but since the introduction of tanks there have always been weak spots vulnerable to attack.

and there were instances in Chechnya wherer T-80’s were hit by a dozen RPG’s and several Konkurs missiles and continued on but there were also instances where a single RPG fired top-down nuked the whole tank. The frontal arc on most modern tanks can take an amazing amount of punishment, so aim elsewhere is the lesson of the past few wars.

Which is why you started seeing Abrams loses when they got in the city and were getting shot from behind.

and there were instances in Chechnya wherer T-80’s were hit by a dozen RPG’s and several Konkurs missiles and continued on but there were also instances where a single RPG fired top-down nuked the whole tank. The frontal arc on most modern tanks can take an amazing amount of punishment, so aim elsewhere is the lesson of the past few wars.

Ok stupid question and sorry if it’s been brought up before but how the hell can someone say something is invulnerable, then go on to say that some were destroyed??? Doesn’t that therefore mean that it IS vulnerable?????? :confused:

The Abrams and Challenger 2 are not these invincible machines of war that can’t be destroyed, and if we go to war against a properly equipped nation like China or Russia with that mentality we will be in for an awful shock!!!
Chobham is old and I’m sure Russian and Chinese weapons manufacturers have developed weapons capable of taking them out with ease, and I’m sure any of the weapons on a Havoc/Night Hunter would cut them to pieces.

Jesus we go to war against an army with ancient T-55’s and “Monkey Model” T-72’s (the export downgraded variant), and think because we destroyed old 30-40 year old tanks the Abrams and Challenger 2 can walk over anything.
Put them both up against the latest T-90 or ZTZ-99 and then we’ll see…

There were instances of M1s getting shot by accident by M1s and on at least one occassion several times in an attempt to destroy it in place. Guess what happened? The rounds didn’t penetrate. So no, they’re not just basing it on fighting POS “monkey models”. :rolleyes: If it makes you feel better to keep thinking so though by all means do so.

I don’t know but I saw a video of an Abrams going over a buried 250lb bomb (IED) and it was like an M80 in a plastic model. Sh!t was flying everywhere. About the armor though I’m pretty sure what you were seeing was before they install the “armor packages”. I can’t clarify further than that but have read numerous times that they make the hull and then ship it to a different location to install the “armor packages”.

Got to remember, that a MTB cannot be protected by the same amount of armour all the way around to the same level as its most armoured part. If it was It would not be called a Tank, but a Bunker, as it would be too heavy to move. Which part is least armoured? The bottom, followed by (in order of more protection) the Rear and the sides, with the maximum armour at the front.

Ok stupid question and sorry if it’s been brought up before but how the hell can someone say something is invulnerable, then go on to say that some were destroyed??? Doesn’t that therefore mean that it IS vulnerable?????? :confused:

The Abrams and Challenger 2 are not these invincible machines of war that can’t be destroyed, and if we go to war against a properly equipped nation like China or Russia with that mentality we will be in for an awful shock!!!
Chobham is old and I’m sure Russian and Chinese weapons manufacturers have developed weapons capable of taking them out with ease, and I’m sure any of the weapons on a Havoc/Night Hunter would cut them to pieces.

Jesus we go to war against an army with ancient T-55’s and “Monkey Model” T-72’s (the export downgraded variant), and think because we destroyed old 30-40 year old tanks the Abrams and Challenger 2 can walk over anything.
Put them both up against the latest T-90 or ZTZ-99 and then we’ll see…

Of course you also need to keep in mind that the purpose of the armour is to protect both the crew and the engine and the firepower of the tank. If it fails in any of those areas then the effectiveness of teh tank is greatly reduced or worthless.

The Zieverboy (spelling) or animal hunter was certainly able to kill German WWII animals like Tigers and Panthers, but its 152mm gun was not great at penetrating armour. Killing the crew with the shockwave of the massive explosion (43kg APHE) or simply blowing the turret off its turret race so it became useless (and killing the crew) was more common than actual armour penetration.

I remember reading an article in the late 80’s wherein they speculated that at some point it might come back to that. Maybe you can’t penetrate the tank but if you can deliver a large enough shock you can still put it out of action even if just by “shaking the bugs in the bottle” so to speak.

Of course you also need to keep in mind that the purpose of the armour is to protect both the crew and the engine and the firepower of the tank. If it fails in any of those areas then the effectiveness of teh tank is greatly reduced or worthless.

The Zieverboy (spelling) or animal hunter was certainly able to kill German WWII animals like Tigers and Panthers, but its 152mm gun was not great at penetrating armour. Killing the crew with the shockwave of the massive explosion (43kg APHE) or simply blowing the turret off its turret race so it became useless (and killing the crew) was more common than actual armour penetration.

No armour is invulnerable.

In addition to Doug97s post, some googling + searching thru other armor forums shows that Merkava is basically composite armor (similar to Chobham I guess) in cavities in welded turret, but with huge panels of NERA (Non explosive reactive armour) which give it that famous UFO + wedge shaped look.

For the most part Challenger II and M1A1/2 use similar armor with the exception that many of the M1s have the added layer of DU armor.

Challenger 2 has Dorchester armour, which is a refinement of Chobham. The Abrams has Chobham, but with a DU layer. Dorchester is said to have a layer of tungsten that fulfills a role similar to the DU.

No such thing as invulnerable. On hit from a Kh-29 would kill any tank. 317kg shaped charge warhead is designed to destroy bridges by undermining their concrete foundations. I doubt any combination of materials would stop it. Have seen video of M1A2s on the production line and the frontal armour only looks to be physically 30-40cm thick.

If a 125lb maverick can disable an M1A2 tank (remember they hit a tank that was without a crew so we don’t know how that would have effected the crew) then what would a 200lb class warhead from a Kh-25 series missile do…

I don’t know but I saw a video of an Abrams going over a buried 250lb bomb (IED) and it was like an M80 in a plastic model. Sh!t was flying everywhere. About the armor though I’m pretty sure what you were seeing was before they install the “armor packages”. I can’t clarify further than that but have read numerous times that they make the hull and then ship it to a different location to install the “armor packages”.

No such thing as invulnerable. On hit from a Kh-29 would kill any tank. 317kg shaped charge warhead is designed to destroy bridges by undermining their concrete foundations. I doubt any combination of materials would stop it. Have seen video of M1A2s on the production line and the frontal armour only looks to be physically 30-40cm thick.

If a 125lb maverick can disable an M1A2 tank (remember they hit a tank that was without a crew so we don’t know how that would have effected the crew) then what would a 200lb class warhead from a Kh-25 series missile do…

Go and post the question over on tank net and I think they will say that it is very good but nothing is invulnerable now. I might be wrong here, but last time I looked the only tank that so far had destroyed a Challenger 2 was another one. Doesn’t the M1A1 use the same armour or something derived from it, and there have been a few of them lost, though I am not sure how many, if any, were penetrations.

The Challenger 2 killed in GWII was in a hull down position with two crew outside the tank on the Turret. It was killed by a two HESH rounds from another Challenger 2 that hit the turret. The two guys outside the tank were killed and the two inside were wounded by the blast and fireball going though the open hatches. (I’ve seen one of the Survivors in 2003 while at the Op Telic Memorial service at St Paul’s and his wounds were quite horrific). One account I’ve seen says the turret was blown off, I don’t known if that was the result of fire in the tank getting to the charge bags after going though the hatchs and after the two guys in the tank had bailed out, had they been in the tank when the turret went, I would have said the whole crew would have died.

Source of info Here

Go and post the question over on tank net and I think they will say that it is very good but nothing is invulnerable now. I might be wrong here, but last time I looked the only tank that so far had destroyed a Challenger 2 was another one. Doesn’t the M1A1 use the same armour or something derived from it, and there have been a few of them lost, though I am not sure how many, if any, were penetrations.

For the most part Challenger II and M1A1/2 use similar armor with the exception that many of the M1s have the added layer of DU armor.

This is about the best tank site I’ve ever seen. Lots of very good info.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html