How Much Of The Weight Of A Tank Is The Armor?

[DesertFox]

Kind of curious how much of the weight of an Abrams (or pick another tank if you need to) is the actual armor?

[Mike Steele]

Kind of curious how much of the weight of an Abrams (or pick another tank if you need to) is the actual armor?

Lots.

[lastdingo]

.... and once again I see a 5,000+ posts forum member spamming with no content whatsoever.

----------------------------------------------------

 

Source Rolf Hilmes, "Kampfpanzer", 2007 German edition, p.134:

 

Leopard 2 48% weight share "armour structure"

T-72 A 52%

 

M1A2SEP Abrams should be slightly above 50%.

 

 

Leo2:

7% electronics and other equipment

8% weapons and ammo

15.5% powerpack and fuel

21.5% running gear

48% armour structure

Edited July 5, 2015 by lastdingo

[Justin]

Lots......does it make you feel better that I have less posts?

Edited July 5, 2015 by Justin

[DesertFox]

Thanks, it is interesting that weapon and ammo makes up less than ten percent of the tank's mass

[Mr King]

.... and once again I see a 5,000+ posts forum member spamming with no content whatsoever.

----------------------------------------------------

 

Source Rolf Hilmes, "Kampfpanzer", 2007 German edition, p.134:

 

Leopard 2 48% weight share "armour structure"

T-72 A 52%

 

M1A2SEP Abrams should be slightly above 50%.

 

 

Leo2:

7% electronics and other equipment

8% weapons and ammo

15.5% powerpack and fuel

21.5% running gear

48% armour structure

 

I have heard of grammar Nazis but you're the first content Nazi I have ever come across.

 

DesertFox, you're probably going to have a hard time getting much of a specific answer as I imagine that kind of info is pretty classified.

[DesertFox]

What Last Dingo posted is good enough. . .Trying to get an idea of how much a tank like the Abrams / Leopard / T-72 might mass assuming some revolutionary lightweight material. I did not need exact numbers but ballpark numbers were fine.

[lastdingo]

What Last Dingo posted is good enough. . .Trying to get an idea of how much a tank like the Abrams / Leopard / T-72 might mass assuming some revolutionary lightweight material. I did not need exact numbers but ballpark numbers were fine.

 

That's not how it works.

A new, more weight-efficient material would be marketed as weight-saving, but actually be used for increasing protection with marginal and short-lived weight savings.

It's the same with fighter aircraft construction, hard body armour inserts etc.

There's a limit for weight acceptance and the developments will exploit it.

[shep854]

It's like lightening an infantryman's load...in practical terms, he winds up carrying more of the lighter stuff...

Edited July 5, 2015 by shep854

[JasonJ]

An exception, the Type 90 at 50 tons was already heavier than Japan's preference. Type 10 is 44 tons with new armor that's said to still give Type 10 better armor than Type 90. Type 10 also uses a less horsepower engine at 1200hp than the Type 90s 1500hp. Although it is also said that the Type 10 module armor can mount additional armor for up to 48 tons but the 44 tons is the standard battle ready weight.

[toysoldier]

I am kinda befuddled by the 7% in electronics and other equipment, hope there´s a lot of that other equipment. A ton of electronics is a lot of electronics

[Fritz]

I am kinda befuddled by the 7% in electronics and other equipment, hope there´s a lot of that other equipment. A ton of electronics is a lot of electronics

 

Power electronics can weigh a lot actually.

[methos]

I am kinda befuddled by the 7% in electronics and other equipment, hope there´s a lot of that other equipment. A ton of electronics is a lot of electronics

 

Hilmes' data is for the basic production of the Leopard 2 from 1979, which had a hybrid computer. The weight for electronics also includes general (crew) equipment and miscellaneous things, which would not fit into the other categories.

[TTK Ciar]

I knew this was somewhere .. found it in Ogorkiewicz's Armour, which unfortunately was published in 1960 so is about half a century out of date, and perhaps unduly influenced by WW2 tank designs:

 

 

Sorry about the crappy scan.

 

The trend since the 1960's has been to increase armor weight and decrease the weights of most other components, so take it with appropriate salt. When I'm analyzing a modern vehicle I usually use a "50% armor" guesstimate.

Edited July 5, 2015 by TTK Ciar

[DesertFox]

 

What Last Dingo posted is good enough. . .Trying to get an idea of how much a tank like the Abrams / Leopard / T-72 might mass assuming some revolutionary lightweight material. I did not need exact numbers but ballpark numbers were fine.

 

That's not how it works.

A new, more weight-efficient material would be marketed as weight-saving, but actually be used for increasing protection with marginal and short-lived weight savings.

It's the same with fighter aircraft construction, hard body armour inserts etc.

There's a limit for weight acceptance and the developments will exploit it.

 

 

It is fiction related so I can do what I want

I just did not want to make things up whole cloth.

[zaarin7]

There's also an historical ellement to that. Earlier tanks would have had less given to armor, electronic's and weapons with more to structure, engine and running gear. As materials were changed and electronic's were developed and hardned for military service the ratio's changed.

[rmgill]

I am kinda befuddled by the 7% in electronics and other equipment, hope there´s a lot of that other equipment. A ton of electronics is a lot of electronics

Shielded cables, canon connectors and cases will weigh a good bit of that ton too.

[Corinthian]

mil spec electronics have to be sturdy to withstand the rigors of use (and abuse by the lowest private hehehe), so I figure that can make those electronics heavy.

[lastdingo]

There's also an historical ellement to that. Earlier tanks would have had less given to armor, electronic's and weapons with more to structure, engine and running gear.

 

Today the mechanical load-bearing structure is at least the base armour, so I see no reason to pretend there's much of a difference between armour and structure in AFVs.

[Fritz]

mil spec electronics have to be sturdy to withstand the rigors of use (and abuse by the lowest private hehehe), so I figure that can make those electronics heavy.

 

Have to be nuke-hardened too.

[toysoldier]

I reckon once they add ranged sensors, active countermeasure gizmos and all those add on kits that puzzle everybody when they see them on pictures, it might even creep into 8% or more...

[DougRichards]

 

What Last Dingo posted is good enough. . .Trying to get an idea of how much a tank like the Abrams / Leopard / T-72 might mass assuming some revolutionary lightweight material. I did not need exact numbers but ballpark numbers were fine.

 

That's not how it works.

A new, more weight-efficient material would be marketed as weight-saving, but actually be used for increasing protection with marginal and short-lived weight savings.

It's the same with fighter aircraft construction, hard body armour inserts etc.

There's a limit for weight acceptance and the developments will exploit it.

 

 

Classic example being the battleship, from ironclad to WW2 designs, from wrought iron to Krupp steel. The armour got better at resisting destruction, so it could have been lightened, except the means of attacking it got better as well, so few battleships used much thinner armour, even of better quality.

 

If it is fiction that you are talking about: you may want to investigate the 'Ogre' series of science fiction tank warfare games, where armour got MUCH better, but still remained very thick and heavy.

 

http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/articles/notes.html

Edited July 6, 2015 by DougRichards