Hi,
Longtime WWI and WWII air modeler who just recently has been bitten by the modern MBT bug. Just a couple questions regarding some of the armor I've seen on some MBT's. Noticed on the T-64, several hinged armor plates on the sides of the hull towards the front that I believe are referred to as "gills". Also noticing two sections of the (for lack of a better term) "dead space" armor on the sides of the Leopard 2A5 and newer turrets that are hinged and swing open. I've googled both and cannot find an explanation for these being hinged and able to articulate. My only guess is that they can be swung out to potentially make the tanks appear larger than they are and thereby cause a miscalculation in the enemy's range estimation.
Hoping my logic is correct but happy to hear I'm wrong and a good explanation for these.
TIA,
Bill
Hosted by Darren Baker
"Fold Out" Armor Questions
PorkChopper
Florida, United States
Joined: November 16, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Joined: November 16, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 02:09 AM UTC
spzabt501
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 05, 2016
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Joined: October 05, 2016
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 02:21 AM UTC
I'll take a stab at this (and could be wrong).
I believe that in most cases, spaced armor arrays on modern AFV's are designed to hinge up or out for maintenance purposes. I've seen this on M1's, Leopard 2's, Bradleys, and others.
I have crewed AFV's, but none of the more modern types (the most modern tank I was on was an M60A3) serving in Scout/Armored Cav units, so I can't claim any first hand user knowledge myself. I'm sure somebody else might have better information.
I don't think that anyone wants to make a vehicle look larger for any reason....all users and designers are concerned with making AFV's as small a target as possible for tactical purposes.
I believe that in most cases, spaced armor arrays on modern AFV's are designed to hinge up or out for maintenance purposes. I've seen this on M1's, Leopard 2's, Bradleys, and others.
I have crewed AFV's, but none of the more modern types (the most modern tank I was on was an M60A3) serving in Scout/Armored Cav units, so I can't claim any first hand user knowledge myself. I'm sure somebody else might have better information.
I don't think that anyone wants to make a vehicle look larger for any reason....all users and designers are concerned with making AFV's as small a target as possible for tactical purposes.
madfrog67
Ontario, Canada
Joined: February 23, 2012
KitMaker: 91 posts
Armorama: 60 posts
Joined: February 23, 2012
KitMaker: 91 posts
Armorama: 60 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 02:22 AM UTC
The bulges make the turret too wide to perform maintenance on the engine (Like most modern tanks, the turret has to be traversed perpendicular to the hull to get at the engine deck). In order to perform the maintenance, they have to be able to get the bulges out of the way, hence they swing out.
BootsDMS
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 02:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi,
Longtime WWI and WWII air modeler who just recently has been bitten by the modern MBT bug. Just a couple questions regarding some of the armor I've seen on some MBT's. Noticed on the T-64, several hinged armor plates on the sides of the hull towards the front that I believe are referred to as "gills". Also noticing two sections of the (for lack of a better term) "dead space" armor on the sides of the Leopard 2A5 and newer turrets that are hinged and swing open. I've googled both and cannot find an explanation for these being hinged and able to articulate. My only guess is that they can be swung out to potentially make the tanks appear larger than they are and thereby cause a miscalculation in the enemy's range estimation.
Hoping my logic is correct but happy to hear I'm wrong and a good explanation for these.
TIA,
Bill
Regarding the T64, the hinged plates were an attempt to defeat the hollow charge warheads that were fitted to NATO's many anti tank missiles, whereby in the frontal arc (of the vehicle)they would detonate the warhead before it could do damage to the main hull. T64's glacis and turret armour were actually underestimated by NATO until I believe, a concerted BRIXMIS attack on a garaged tank (BRIXMIS being one of the Allied "Liaison" units operating in East Germany).
Anyway, I digress a little although the T64 remains one of my favourite model subjects; the "Gill" plates were also fitted to early models of the T72 but fell out of favour as they were vulnerable to being torn off when in robust use - cross country etc. It is noticeable that later models of both tanks used a reinforced rubber sideskirt.
Brian
PorkChopper
Florida, United States
Joined: November 16, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Joined: November 16, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 03:05 AM UTC
Ha... Thanks. Clearly, I was overthinking this!
PorkChopper
Florida, United States
Joined: November 16, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Joined: November 16, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 03:07 AM UTC
Thanks Tom. You hit on the major flaw in my logic. Always, better to not be seen at all than to be seen "wrong".
PorkChopper
Florida, United States
Joined: November 16, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Joined: November 16, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 03:13 AM UTC
I think what threw me off, at least as far as the T-64 is concerned, is where the gills are hinged. It lead me to think there was some utility other than maintenance of the tracks/wheels.
Thanks for the explanation!
Thanks for the explanation!
mmeier
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 04:53 AM UTC
In the case of the the Leopard 1 variants with a cast turret the add-on armor must be partially removed to get at the engine.
Shows a "smooth" Leo1 and there the turret barely clears the engine bay. Now mentally add the turret skirt (present in most "cast turrent" Leo1)
In case of the Leo2A5 and higher this is a changeable/upgradable add-on component. Actually all Bundeswehr Leopard 2A5 startet life as earlier sub-types (mostly early A4 with the ammo hatch still present) that where upgraded
Shows a "smooth" Leo1 and there the turret barely clears the engine bay. Now mentally add the turret skirt (present in most "cast turrent" Leo1)
In case of the Leo2A5 and higher this is a changeable/upgradable add-on component. Actually all Bundeswehr Leopard 2A5 startet life as earlier sub-types (mostly early A4 with the ammo hatch still present) that where upgraded
BruceJ8365
Kansas, United States
Joined: December 25, 2012
KitMaker: 441 posts
Armorama: 441 posts
Joined: December 25, 2012
KitMaker: 441 posts
Armorama: 441 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 - 11:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
My only guess is that they can be swung out to potentially make the tanks appear larger than they are and thereby cause a miscalculation in the enemy's range estimation.
Maybe if something is trying to eat the tank, they swing out to scare the predator off... Like if Godzilla were going to eat a Japanese tank, they flare out and scare Godzilla.
easyco69
Ontario, Canada
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 22, 2017 - 12:29 AM UTC
modular armor protect against heat rounds & are replaceable.