That has been the case since the advent of gunpowder weapons. That's precisely why they develop things like slat armor, spaced armor, ERA, and skirt armor. They offer additional protection against low-velocity weapons that are specifically designed to penetrate armor.

I think you may be under the impression that there is some sort of armor that protects against all projectiles. That simply isn't the case. Even the most modern MBT in the world, the M1a2 Abrams, has a cage-armor turret bustle intended to deform armor-piercing projectiles before they reach the Cellular Amuunition Storage. The is no armor of proof in the modern world. Anti-tank missiles and projectiles have seen to that. There is only a combination of firepower, protection and mobility.

The pics show Leo-2A6ers in Afghanistan indeed that are being leased and operated by the Canadians. To my knowledge it is the only place where this tank type, slat armour and Canadians all three come together. :DL

Castout,
most modern tanks allow for different armour sets additionally being attached to the tank, different armour configurations is part of the design. The selection depends on the mission. Not only slat armour, but plate armour as well. These packs also could be set off for travelling or transportation, for example. The difference in weight it possibly makes to a tank, could be up to 6, 8, even 10 tons.

Nothing in war is invulnerable, and like any other vehicle, a tank can get hurt and killed. Latest generation of RPG-7 ( a very long running, diverse series) can be a threat to even most modern tanks. You are right in trying to say that today a single man with a relatively light weapon can threaten a tank - but it has alwys been like this, with tanks, guns, helicopters, fighters.

That'S why these systems are being operated in cohesive units and team interaction. ;) The doctrine of how to operate which systems on what type of battlefield, changes over time, according to experiences made. despite the Israelis it was thought until "thunder run" that tanks and cities are a big non-no. Today tanks fighting in urban envrionments is part pof doctrine - and new tank versions have emerged (Leo PSO for example) that are specialised for right this environment .

And the Russians - they are still obsessed with tanks and heavy guns. They just cannot afford to build them by the high numbers anymore.

The new wars - assymmetric war - of course relativise many of the old military doctrines and strategema (sp?) The problem is that the militaries around the world still build and train for old-fashioned, traditional warfare amongst themselves - nations versus nations, tanks versus tanks etc - but additionally must adapt to these new asymmetric conflicts as well, which in parts make the old considerations of battle theories obsolete.

And if then you even have bad intel and are ill-preparted and underestimate the enemy who has a huge supply or even most modern ATGMs himself, then it ends like it ended for the Israelis in Lebanon 2006.

A tank is no wonder weapon. It's just a tank, not more, not less.

I also wouldn't say that Germany is obsessed with tanks. Germany just has a very long and solid tradition of having experience with tank building, and since this puts the Leopards in demand, Germany builds them by higher numbers. At least in regard to sales, nobody can deny that the Leopards are the most successful Western-build tanks that leaves both Abrams and Chally behind very clearly. Germany also is not "obsessed with submarines" just because it builds the currently probably best conventional submarines wordwide.

Yeah, open that can of worms again, why not... :DL;)

It tells that the sides and rear cannot be expected to withstand some types of infantry carried Anti Tank weapons.

Chobham armor protects against both sabot and HEAT warhead but the necessasting of the installation of AD-HOC chicken cage protection around the sides and rear substantiates the suspicion that those areas are not well protected against more modern types of HEAT warheads be it RPG or ATGM type.



Umm I used the word obsessed liberally to indicate rapid development and design progress and update. In this case the countries that I mentioned fell within this category while the Russians and Americans are not or at lesser degree. :DL. Well it was more like a personal opinion which may not always be right or agreed upon .

Yea 2006 was bad for Israel. Traumatizing and disappointing indeed for the Israeli soldiers and population in general. Talk about about bad intel. Israel has always been known to be able to defend their homeland against aggression ferociously and gallantly but less when it comes to invading another country it's another matter entirely.

Invasion? Not in my book, and I tend to see it more like wikipedia also defines it:

The key terms here are "long-term" and "hold territory". In that Hezbollah has raided Israel's North in open provokation since long before, both with commandos on the ground and missiles androckets, the cross border operation by the IDF in my book is a counter-offensive. It was clear from beginning on that Israel eniether had the inention nor was prepared to conquer ground and seize it for long time to come. The operation was meant to go in, kill as much of Hezbollah as possible, and then go out again. Unfortuntely, one had msassively underestimated Hezbollah.

Just months later, Hezbollah was reported to have re-armed to even greater strength than before, trained and equipped by Iran. So much for that European hobby of having EU ships patrolling the Lebanese coast up and down, killing time.

Name a tank that can! :damn: What the Tiger? Close but its rear end could still be penetrated by the infantry portable AT weapons of the day.

Tanks are built to punch though enemy forces so they have the heaviest armor on the front. The Taliban and AQ forces don't fight a conventional battle so will not provide a solid defensive line for US forces to punch though or provide a mass assault to defend against. Taliban and AQ attack aiming for the weak points, slat armor removes or minimizes the weak points susceptibility to HEAT warheads with out adding the weight of additional "steel" armor. (Yes I know not really "steel" but lets keep things simple here).

But Chobham armor is heavy, it protects against both but its still HEAVY! Slat armor is light and protects against HEAT only however when was the last time you saw a Taliban fighter with a gun that could fire a SABOT round?

Tankers over there are forced to drive up one lane dirt roads where they are subject to attack from the sides. In a conventional battle most current MBTs were built for they would no do this! They would fight line abreast with infantry guarding their flanks or in some other formation that minimizes exposure of the weaker side and rear armor.

Slat armor is simply the adapting of the current MBTs to a less than optimal situation where the addition of additional steel armor would be wasteful and unnecessary.

Okay agreed invasion was not the right word for it :DL

Why weren't they be protected by slats armor before?
The thing is slats armor or chicken cage protection for MBTs is an ad-hoc(temporary emergency fix) solution to immediate threat just realized. At least until newer chobham could better protect tanks' sides against HEAT warheads.

Actually Chobham is light compared to conventional steel armor and one of the main purpose is to lighten a tank weight to afford it some more maneuverability with enhanced protection.

Anyway I'm a tank enthusiast and seeing slat or chicken cage armor installed on a main battle tank is just ridiculous to me. It directly points to inadequacy of their default protection. Kind of heart breaking because it made MBTs look silly. It made the tanks look like a wimpy sheep to me meaning I hate it.
It's like seeing a caged lion but the purpose of the cage is to protect the lion from the crowd instead and not the other way around.

I hope better chobham armor could be produced and installed to get rid of the necessity to install these chicken cage armor to MBTs. It may look good on Stryker but for God sake now way for MBTs. Though I can understand the reasoning behind them.

See previous post:

Think of that "chicken cage" this way... Look at both those pictures above? What do you see in the the Slat Armor? Kit, lots of kit- spare parts, ammo, water, whatever the crew needs out in the bush to keep their tank going. You can't store gear in Cobham armor. ;)

Here's my vote:

http://www.tankdoctor.com.au/images/...pair_rust5.jpg


:yeah:

Is that part of your home made still Krashkart? :03:

I love my enemies in war favouring cosmetics over efficiency - it gives me the easiest possible fight.

Do some research on the difference in any kind of armour for kinetic and chemical ammunition - you always have TWO ratings describing the protection of armour at a given spot of the tank - the protection against two basically different types of projectiles, SABOT and HEAT. The first rating may say "equals 740 mm of RHAe (steel) against SABOT", while the same armour may have a rating of 1860 mm of RHAe against chemical warheads". The differences can be huge, and the relations between both values is not linear and is no constant, because the way in which different pieces of armour on different parts of the tank are produced, varies.

the only question with slat armour is: does it serve it'S intended purpose and does it offer the protection against certain types of ammon, yes or no? If it does serve its function, then it looks good and nice. If it does not, then it looks ugly. the only thing that always looks ugly, is a sexy-looking tank that is burning.

"Caged lion" - now, come on, why the dramatic language? That is pathetic.

Yea I'm aware of the turret rack bustle in M1 tanks but that looks good on the tank while slat armor well . . .

Actually chobham protects against all just that tandem HEAT warheads pose great risk because the ceramics is only so thick.

ERA looks great on tank because they are properly put on the tanks surfaces.

I know I'm complaining about a tank's aesthetic aspect when given slat armor and it's ridiculous but I'm a ridiculous man :D

ERA, spaced armor, angled armor, and skirt armor as well as chobham were all born from tank designers and incorporated well into the inherent design while slat armors were never meant to protect MBTs as far as I knowand was only added as an ad-hoc solution.

But I never meant to argue, just saying that I hate slat armors on MBTs though I accept the reasoning behind them and I believe it's fairly easy to defeat the slat armors it just needs a preceding explosive to open the way for the the real warhead to pass through. With a little innovation this could be added to AT weapon system and or warhead. It would just make anti tank weapons a little heavier.

:o
Anyone notice that ad at the top of the page for THIS site!

:damn: O M F G.... tank.... WRONG TANK....... :doh:

Is it just me, or do all these tanks look the same (more or less):doh: