"Great Modern Armor Overview with Stats" Topic

Ran across this by accident, but it is really a superb overview of modern day armored vehicle protection, and the various ways people are using high-tech materials in order to provide better protection:

link

Definitely worth a look, and has conjectural stats at the end for late Cold War, and post Cold War tank armor for the Soviets, British, Germans, and Americans.

Wish they provided the same for some of the earlier models, but these will be useful too.

Here's a good article on modern tank performance during the Gulf War as well:

link

I found this especially interesting:

Notes – Greek tank evaluation

•Leopard 2A5 was judged the overall best with 78,65%, followed by M1 Abrams (72,21%), AMX-56 Leclerc (72,03%) and Challenger 2E (69,19%)
•Only Leopard 2A5 demonstrated deep fording ability.
•Main gun firing results (10 rounds static, 10 rounds on the move) were as follows: ◦2000 m distance daytime: M1A2 17; Leclerc 20; Leopard 2A5 19; T-84 11; T-80U 11
◦1500 m distance nightime: M1A2 20; Leclerc 20; Leopard 2A5 19; T-80 13
◦Hunter-kill: Leclerc 13; Leopard 2A5 17; Challenger 2E 8; T-84 9
◦Note that Challenger 2 did not have proper ammo for the gun. T-80UE and T-84 used practice rounds which behave unpredictably past 2.000 m and do not correspond to BM15 past 1.500 m.

•Main gun rate of fire: M1A2 8 rpm; Leclerc 9 rpm; Leopard 2A5 9 rpm; Challenger 2E 9 rpm; T-84 6-7 rpm; T-80U 6 rpm
•Range: M1A2 365 km; Leclerc 500 km; Leopard 2A5 375 km; Challenger 2E 440 km; T-84 450 km; T-80U 412 km ◦Both Leclerc and Challenger 2E were fitted with German 1.500 HP MTU EuroPowerPack instead of their indigenous engines.

•Only Leopard 2A5 demonstrated deep fording capability.
•Neither Leopard 2A5 or Challenger 2E could pass 30 grad slope.
•T-80U had the best mobility and reliability.

Amazing find Mako, thanks and well done!!!

I would say its complete twaddle. The AMX 30 classed as a medium tank, come on.

And the T64 a Soviet version of the Leopard, nuts.

The really interesting thing I have found about modern AFV development is the increased use of ERA.

No mention of DU armour under armour materials either and thats a pretty big thing these days. How about anti-radiation protection, I gather the Russians are fairly big on that as well as active defence systems.

There's tons of mention of DU, or dU in the first link above, especially for the conjectural vehicle stats.

From what I've read, the AMX-30, similar to the Leopard 1, is very lightly armored, so I can see how a "Medium Tank" description might fit, especially compared to much better armored contemporaries.

Also, suggest you take the Greek reviews with a grain of salt, since as we know many weapons trials are sometimes weighted to favor certain manufacturers, especially when large sums of cash have traded hands. Still, it is very interesting, nonetheless.

A pity though, about the Brits not having the correct ammo, and the Russians using poor, training rounds. Would loved to have seen who they would have fared without those issues, side by side.

I have to agree with Mako on the "medium" designation and wouldn't worry about it. Such terms are relative. A Bradley is about on par with a WWII Sherman "medium" tank.

"There's tons of mention of DU, or dU in the first link above, especially for the conjectural vehicle stats."

Not as a material for the protection of AFV, as I mentioned.

The AMX30 was really lightly armoured and weighed in at 36 metric tons (6 tons lighter than a Leopard 1). Basically the the idea was not to be hit.

IIRC most modern main battle tanks weigh in around 50 to 70 tons.

For example, the antiquated M48 was about 50 short tons, the later models of the Abrams are about 70 short tons.

APCs such as the M113 and BTR are under 20 short tons.

Seems like 30 to 40 short tons could be classed as "medium".

I would agree that armor classification would be another matter. The AMX and Leopard I are clearly in different armor classes.

From what I've run across, doing a little surfing, DU armor is at least 2.5X as dense as RHA, for the same thickness.

And DU alloys are also hard. Which is important as well. Gold is dense but is not hard.

The Lakowski article is really interesting, and well researched and written.

The second link is interesting, but where are the references? I would have thought he would have had a list of sources as long as my arm, but he only provides a couple of links. And correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be basing the gunnery conclusions on a single 20-round shoot-off. Too bad.