A question about tanks and tank armor

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-05-13 09:33pm

I've noticed that none of the modern tanks have dome-shaped/spherical-shaped turrets.

Is there a particular reason for that?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-13 10:00pm

Domes are severely cramped. But they do offer a little more protection for the thickness of armour than a more vertical, slab sided surface.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-05-13 10:14pm

Also the current generation of composite armors do not lend themselves to being in a rounded shape easily if at all. Thusly you get the slab sided appearance of almost every third generation battletank.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 10:26pm

third generation? I really wouldnt think we are only on third gen.

Think about it

First gen would be like WWI tanks
Second gen would be WWII tanks
Third gen would be tanks up to the american M60 and Soviet T-6X(i never remember what that number is)

fourth gen, abrams, challenger II, leopard II, T-72 (maybe this would be in the above category), T-80, T-90.

Or is there some real distinction im missing becasue at each of these stages there is a major difference in tank construction, armor, armament, etc.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-05-14 12:08am

WWI era tanks are not counted, as they are the sort of formless prototype stage for armored vehicles. Once the overall design philosophy had been reached , with a chassie and turreted main weapon, then we begin recounting them generationally. If you look at it, a modern Abrams employs the same basic architecture as the first Pz I and early Renault light tanks.

WWII was also the conflict where the tank superceded the horse and infantryman to become the reigning king of the battlefield.

WWII - First Generation, Tanks come into their own after the clumsy attempts during WWI, design and operational doctrine are established.

Inter War years 1946-1983 - Second Generation, armor sees slow but incremental improvement in both design, firepower and mobility. During this era the tank faced its most serious challenge in the form of cheap man-pack Anti=tank guided missiles(ATGM's) which threatened to push the tank back ito a secondary battlefield position. Standouts from this era include the American M-60 series and the lightning quick Leopard - I from Germany.

1983 to Present Day - Third Generation, facing a massive Soviet conventional juggernaught in Europe, western nations rethink their armor designs and move to a quality over quantity approach. With the development of advanced composite armor, capable of withstanding all but the largest ATGM warheads, improvments in both fire control and firepower usher in a new era for armored combat. In time Soviet designs also incorporate almost all the new technologies originally designed to defeat them. Stand outs fron this era include the supurlative M1-A1 Abrams, The German Leopard -IIA2 , and the Russian T-80U and T-90 series.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-05-14 12:12am

It should be noted that the T-72 and M-60 tanks while coming from the Second Generation period, they were adapted with new technology and make them effective battle platforms against the Third Generation weapons. They aren't equal to the best of the Third Generation tanks, but they were upgraded enough to give many Third Generation tanks a good fight.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-05-14 12:22am

This should probably be moved to the Off topic forum.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-05-14 12:24am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:This should probably be moved to the Off topic forum.

Done

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-05-14 02:52am

So if our composite armor could be hypothetically made into a dome shape, and was implemented, it would have more protection or less protection than the standard one?

mantakai · Post by **mantakai** » 2003-05-14 02:55am

Shinova wrote:So if our composite armor could be hypothetically made into a dome shape, and was implemented, it would have more protection or less protection than the standard one?

just speaking hypothetically cause i dont really know, but wouldnt a round/curved face help deflect bullets and stuff?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-14 02:57am

In general there are considered to be three generations of tanks. But some nations divide it up differently or have sufficient leaps along their design history to have more. Russia for example is on its fifth generation of tank.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-14 03:01am

Shinova wrote:So if our composite armor could be hypothetically made into a dome shape, and was implemented, it would have more protection or less protection than the standard one?

It should give more protection then an M1ish level of sloping.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-05-14 03:10am

Im not certain how it would effect the tanks level of protection, the composites behave too diffrently from the old rolled/cast steel turrets of yesteryear. The exact composition of the armor is still classified, but its due to the meshing of the metal and ceramic layers that forced them to go with the slab sides. I would imagine that if you could do it , it would probably improve the over all protection. The dome shape cuts down on shell traps and helps improve your odds of the hit glancing off as it would be more difficult to get a 90deg on strike on the armor.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-05-14 03:13am

Sea Skimmer wrote: It should give more protection then an M1ish level of sloping.

I've always though that they should have sloped the M1'a front glacis much harder than they did, not quite as hard as they sloped Challenger, but its far to brick like...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-14 03:22am

Sokar wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: It should give more protection then an M1ish level of sloping.
I've always though that they should have sloped the M1'a front glacis much harder than they did, not quite as hard as they sloped Challenger, but its far to brick like...

That would take up more a lot more weight and space though. The choice was the result of extensive trials and seems to have worked quite well.