Samee Ulhaq
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
There is no single “best armored MBT” in the world anymore. Armor design isn’t nearly as simple as it was during WW2...
Nowadays, main battle tanks tend to specialize in one particular aspect of armor design. Some designs emphasize frontal protection at the cost of side and rear armor (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2), other designs rely heavily on ERA to defeat HEAT warheads (most Russian MBTs), other tanks contend with weaker frontal armor for better all-round protection (Leclerc, Merkava MkIV), etc.
Therefore, if we consider the latest MBT designs, each of them usually has one or more advantages over its competitors in one area, while being disadvantaged in other areas. I’ll try to summarize the pros and cons of each major design as succinctly as possible (otherwise this answer would take forever).
Pt 1: This question specifically asked about “the best armored MBT”. Active protection systems (like decoys, smoke grenades, hard-kill and soft-kill systems) are countermeasures, not armor modules. Therefore, they do not come into consideration in this answer. We are only considering the “physical” armor of main battle tanks here.
Pt 2: All armor values listed below are tentative estimations based on the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR or CIFAR). They are not to be taken as absolute truths, but I generally consider these estimations to be the most objective and reliable.
M1A2 Abrams / Leopard 2A6:
The American M1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2A5, A6 and A7 follow a roughly similar design philosophy: excellent armor on the frontal arc, at the cost of weaker rear, side and top armor. Both tanks are designed to survive a 125mm APFSDS hit to the turret front, a 115mm APFSDS hit to the hull front and an RPG-7, Sagger ATGM or 100mm AP hit to the turret sides. Armor resistance to the hull sides and the tank’s rear is bare-bones however.
Specifically, both tanks have ~1000mm of RHAe (Rolled Homogenous Armor equivalent, the armor’s protective capability) on the turret front and ~600–700mm of RHAe on the hull front against APFSDS projectiles. Against HEAT warheads, the Leopard 2A6 has ~1600mm of RHAe on the turret front and ~900mm on the hull front. Thanks to heavier and more advanced composite armor package (based on several layers of depleted uranium, plexiglass, steel and ceramics) the M1A2 SEP can reach ~1700mm of RHAe on the turret front and ~1200mm of RHAe on the hull front.
As a result, the M1A2 SEP Abrams and the Leopard 2A6 have without a doubt the heaviest overall frontal armor against KEP (Kinetic Energy Penetrators) and some of the heaviest armor against HEAT warheads of any MBT currently in use worldwide.
Finally, it is worth noting that future upgrades of the M1 Abrams (the M1A2 SEPv3) will feature an extensive armor overhaul. It is already known that the Abrams’ DU armor package will extend to cover more of the tank’s side turret armor. The SEPv3 will also introduce a double layer of heavy ERA to its turret and hull sides.
M1A2 TUSK II with M32 ERA - the M1A2 SEPv3 will use a similar ERA layout
Finally, the tank’s already extensive frontal turret armor will be heavily upgraded. The picture below shows an early prototype of the SEPv3:
The big square blocks attached to the tank’s turret are called weight simulators. They are used to test how the weight of an upcoming armor upgrade will affect the tank’s functions. Judging from the massive size of those weight simulators, it appears that the Abrams’ frontal protection is about to be heavily reinforced. With all of these armor upgrades I wouldn’t be surprised if the M1A2 SEPv3 actually manages to become the single most armored MBT in the world, but that’s another debate.
T-90A:
The Russian T-90A is an interesting case. Technically speaking, the vehicle’s passive armor design is quite old. The T-90 first started as an upgrade of the T-72 called the T-72BM, or T-72BU. Therefore, the tank’s composite armor design is somewhat dated and vulnerable, especially against APFSDS projectiles.
However, the Russians counteract this flaw by relying on heavy layers of extremely advanced ERA on the frontal arc of their tanks. As a result, with Kontakt-5 ERA fitted (which covers ~75% of the tank’s frontal arc), the T-90A achieves ~790mm of RHAe on its turret front and ~750mm of RHAe on its hull front against APFSDS (which is a bit mediocre), and an estimated 1900mm of RHAe on the turret front and 1100mm of RHAe on the hull front (which is exceptionally good). Therefore, while the T-90A is quite vulnerable to APFSDS projectiles, it boasts an exceptional resistance to HEAT warheads on its frontal arc. However, keep in mind that ~25% of the tank’s frontal arc is not covered by ERA. Keep also in mind that tandem HEAT warheads can largely negate the effect of ERA. Combat experience in Syria has therefore shown that the T-90A’s performance against ATGMs is… unpredictable.
T-90A from the front, offering a good view of its Kontakt-5 ERA
The latest version of the T-90 is the T-90AM. The T-90AM doesn’t have any upgrade to the tank’s passive armor but replaces its Kontakt-5 ERA with the new Relikt ERA. We don’t exactly know how effective Relikt ERA is (the Russians claim it is twice as effective as Kontakt-5, but they always claim all sorts of crazy things
). In any case, the T-90AM boasts a massive overhaul to an already impressive protection against HEAT warheads with a new generation of ERA with an even better coverage (85% of the vehicle’s frontal arc + 60% of the vehicle’s sides).
T-90AM, boasting an even heavier ERA coverage
Merkava MkIV / Leclerc:
Somewhat surprisingly, the armor design philosophy of the Israeli Merkava MkIV and the French Leclerc are actually quite similar: forego some frontal protection at the benefit of better side and rear armor, especially against HEAT warheads. For instance, while the Leclerc’s and the Merkava’s frontal armor don’t quite compare with the frontal protection of a Leopard 2 or an Abrams, the Leclerc boasts ~500mm of RHAe against HEAT on the hull sides, while the Merk 4 boasts an impressive ~700mm of RHAe against HEAT on its hull sides (the most heavily armored tank from the sides, as far as I know). In addition, the Merkava MkIV also boasts the thickest roof armor of any MBT in the world.
Notice how the Merkava’s crew hatches are exceptionally thick.
Where both tanks start to differ is the architecture of their armor. The French Leclerc puts a premium on mobility, meaning that it relies heavily on highly resistant and lightweight materials for its armor like tungsten, titanium and a classified crystallized diamond material. As a result, the Leclerc combines low weight, good overall armor (barring some weak spots on the frontal arc) and an absolutely horrendous price tag (the most expensive MBT in the world, by a wide margin).
The Israelis are a bit more reasonable than the French with their defense budget, and put an emphasis on cost effectiveness for their armor design. As a result, the Merkava MkIV’s composite armor layers rely on steel and tungsten carbide ceramics (a low cost and yet very resistant alternative) and a lighter adapted special armor design.
Adapted special armor Vs integrated special armor - in an adapted special armor design, the armor’s ceramic layers are directly exposed to enemy fire, lowering armor integrity against repeated hits.
The drawback of adapted special armor designs is that they are more fragile than integrated armor designs: they take more damage for every direct hit. As a result, while the Merkava MkIV’s armor is very good at stopping the first hit, each subsequent hit can severely degrade the tank’s integrity. In that regard, the Merkava’s armor functions a bit like ERA actually.
Merkava MkIV turret following an ATGM impact. As you can see, despite stopping the warhead, the armor suffered extensive damage.
The unknown factor: T-14 Armata
The reason why I’m not including the T-14 Armata in this list is because no one really knows what this new vehicle is made of. What we know for certain is that this MBT presents a radical shift in the design philosophy of Russian tanks, with its unmanned turret and the crew inside the hull’s safety capsule. Most defense experts seem to think that the T-14 places most of its armor on its frontal arc, relying on its ERA and APS to protect its sides from HEAT warheads. There is also a growing suspicion that the T-14’s unmanned turret is only rated to resist 40mm autocanon fire, freeing up extra armor for the crew capsule. Keep in mind that all of this is purely conjecture at this point.
Nowadays, main battle tanks tend to specialize in one particular aspect of armor design. Some designs emphasize frontal protection at the cost of side and rear armor (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2), other designs rely heavily on ERA to defeat HEAT warheads (most Russian MBTs), other tanks contend with weaker frontal armor for better all-round protection (Leclerc, Merkava MkIV), etc.
Therefore, if we consider the latest MBT designs, each of them usually has one or more advantages over its competitors in one area, while being disadvantaged in other areas. I’ll try to summarize the pros and cons of each major design as succinctly as possible (otherwise this answer would take forever).
Pt 1: This question specifically asked about “the best armored MBT”. Active protection systems (like decoys, smoke grenades, hard-kill and soft-kill systems) are countermeasures, not armor modules. Therefore, they do not come into consideration in this answer. We are only considering the “physical” armor of main battle tanks here.
Pt 2: All armor values listed below are tentative estimations based on the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR or CIFAR). They are not to be taken as absolute truths, but I generally consider these estimations to be the most objective and reliable.
M1A2 Abrams / Leopard 2A6:
The American M1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2A5, A6 and A7 follow a roughly similar design philosophy: excellent armor on the frontal arc, at the cost of weaker rear, side and top armor. Both tanks are designed to survive a 125mm APFSDS hit to the turret front, a 115mm APFSDS hit to the hull front and an RPG-7, Sagger ATGM or 100mm AP hit to the turret sides. Armor resistance to the hull sides and the tank’s rear is bare-bones however.
Specifically, both tanks have ~1000mm of RHAe (Rolled Homogenous Armor equivalent, the armor’s protective capability) on the turret front and ~600–700mm of RHAe on the hull front against APFSDS projectiles. Against HEAT warheads, the Leopard 2A6 has ~1600mm of RHAe on the turret front and ~900mm on the hull front. Thanks to heavier and more advanced composite armor package (based on several layers of depleted uranium, plexiglass, steel and ceramics) the M1A2 SEP can reach ~1700mm of RHAe on the turret front and ~1200mm of RHAe on the hull front.
As a result, the M1A2 SEP Abrams and the Leopard 2A6 have without a doubt the heaviest overall frontal armor against KEP (Kinetic Energy Penetrators) and some of the heaviest armor against HEAT warheads of any MBT currently in use worldwide.
Finally, it is worth noting that future upgrades of the M1 Abrams (the M1A2 SEPv3) will feature an extensive armor overhaul. It is already known that the Abrams’ DU armor package will extend to cover more of the tank’s side turret armor. The SEPv3 will also introduce a double layer of heavy ERA to its turret and hull sides.
M1A2 TUSK II with M32 ERA - the M1A2 SEPv3 will use a similar ERA layout
Finally, the tank’s already extensive frontal turret armor will be heavily upgraded. The picture below shows an early prototype of the SEPv3:
The big square blocks attached to the tank’s turret are called weight simulators. They are used to test how the weight of an upcoming armor upgrade will affect the tank’s functions. Judging from the massive size of those weight simulators, it appears that the Abrams’ frontal protection is about to be heavily reinforced. With all of these armor upgrades I wouldn’t be surprised if the M1A2 SEPv3 actually manages to become the single most armored MBT in the world, but that’s another debate.
T-90A:
The Russian T-90A is an interesting case. Technically speaking, the vehicle’s passive armor design is quite old. The T-90 first started as an upgrade of the T-72 called the T-72BM, or T-72BU. Therefore, the tank’s composite armor design is somewhat dated and vulnerable, especially against APFSDS projectiles.
However, the Russians counteract this flaw by relying on heavy layers of extremely advanced ERA on the frontal arc of their tanks. As a result, with Kontakt-5 ERA fitted (which covers ~75% of the tank’s frontal arc), the T-90A achieves ~790mm of RHAe on its turret front and ~750mm of RHAe on its hull front against APFSDS (which is a bit mediocre), and an estimated 1900mm of RHAe on the turret front and 1100mm of RHAe on the hull front (which is exceptionally good). Therefore, while the T-90A is quite vulnerable to APFSDS projectiles, it boasts an exceptional resistance to HEAT warheads on its frontal arc. However, keep in mind that ~25% of the tank’s frontal arc is not covered by ERA. Keep also in mind that tandem HEAT warheads can largely negate the effect of ERA. Combat experience in Syria has therefore shown that the T-90A’s performance against ATGMs is… unpredictable.
T-90A from the front, offering a good view of its Kontakt-5 ERA
The latest version of the T-90 is the T-90AM. The T-90AM doesn’t have any upgrade to the tank’s passive armor but replaces its Kontakt-5 ERA with the new Relikt ERA. We don’t exactly know how effective Relikt ERA is (the Russians claim it is twice as effective as Kontakt-5, but they always claim all sorts of crazy things
). In any case, the T-90AM boasts a massive overhaul to an already impressive protection against HEAT warheads with a new generation of ERA with an even better coverage (85% of the vehicle’s frontal arc + 60% of the vehicle’s sides).T-90AM, boasting an even heavier ERA coverage
Merkava MkIV / Leclerc:
Somewhat surprisingly, the armor design philosophy of the Israeli Merkava MkIV and the French Leclerc are actually quite similar: forego some frontal protection at the benefit of better side and rear armor, especially against HEAT warheads. For instance, while the Leclerc’s and the Merkava’s frontal armor don’t quite compare with the frontal protection of a Leopard 2 or an Abrams, the Leclerc boasts ~500mm of RHAe against HEAT on the hull sides, while the Merk 4 boasts an impressive ~700mm of RHAe against HEAT on its hull sides (the most heavily armored tank from the sides, as far as I know). In addition, the Merkava MkIV also boasts the thickest roof armor of any MBT in the world.
Notice how the Merkava’s crew hatches are exceptionally thick.
Where both tanks start to differ is the architecture of their armor. The French Leclerc puts a premium on mobility, meaning that it relies heavily on highly resistant and lightweight materials for its armor like tungsten, titanium and a classified crystallized diamond material. As a result, the Leclerc combines low weight, good overall armor (barring some weak spots on the frontal arc) and an absolutely horrendous price tag (the most expensive MBT in the world, by a wide margin).
The Israelis are a bit more reasonable than the French with their defense budget, and put an emphasis on cost effectiveness for their armor design. As a result, the Merkava MkIV’s composite armor layers rely on steel and tungsten carbide ceramics (a low cost and yet very resistant alternative) and a lighter adapted special armor design.
Adapted special armor Vs integrated special armor - in an adapted special armor design, the armor’s ceramic layers are directly exposed to enemy fire, lowering armor integrity against repeated hits.
The drawback of adapted special armor designs is that they are more fragile than integrated armor designs: they take more damage for every direct hit. As a result, while the Merkava MkIV’s armor is very good at stopping the first hit, each subsequent hit can severely degrade the tank’s integrity. In that regard, the Merkava’s armor functions a bit like ERA actually.
Merkava MkIV turret following an ATGM impact. As you can see, despite stopping the warhead, the armor suffered extensive damage.
The unknown factor: T-14 Armata
The reason why I’m not including the T-14 Armata in this list is because no one really knows what this new vehicle is made of. What we know for certain is that this MBT presents a radical shift in the design philosophy of Russian tanks, with its unmanned turret and the crew inside the hull’s safety capsule. Most defense experts seem to think that the T-14 places most of its armor on its frontal arc, relying on its ERA and APS to protect its sides from HEAT warheads. There is also a growing suspicion that the T-14’s unmanned turret is only rated to resist 40mm autocanon fire, freeing up extra armor for the crew capsule. Keep in mind that all of this is purely conjecture at this point.
