Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

VertigoEx

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VertigoEx

  1. Sorry for the late reply.. It does appear we agree on much. As for the T-90A in the UKR, a talk was given on youtube by a US adviser in the Donbas, he stated that T-90s were used in one the the battles for Donetsk airport and very hard to knock out. Perhaps he is mistaken. I will try and find he video cheers.
  2. There have been a few T-90s destroyed in Syria and in the Donbass iirc. The Tow-2 should not be that effective against anything with K5. A Tow-2A should have little issue against K5 armored tanks. A captured T-90A was knocked out by a T-72 for example. APFSDS impact from the side. I suspect it was probably a BM-22/42. That said their combat performance seems to have been very good, and excellent in certain roles. The videos we see are selection bias, tank hunter killer teams in Yemen knew rather well that shooting an Abrams from the front was a death sentence, as you would
  3. I don't think it has been established with any certainty that the Swedish leaks represent HAP-1 or HAP-2 as opposed to a export armor package. US army magazine documents (which I don't place much faith in), place the CE rating of the M1A1 HA with HAP-1 around 1200 mm across the frontal arc vs 900mm in the Swedish tests. It is possible that a large trade off was made with an export armor package. It could be that the Challenger 2 does get about 600mm vs KE across the frontal ARC and they are referencing its performance against HAP-2 armor package, that would have a mo
  4. One small issue, the M833 pen value appears to be pen against RHA plate at 2km @ 0 degrees not 60. Penetration calc @ 60 seems to be about 410-420mm from the math and dimensions I have.
  5. You are correct I measured just to the mounting bracket on the top end, Looking at my picture I see the error now. There were probably lots of testing models seeing how much weight they could add progressively. The 2.5' (estimate) plate, seems to cover most but not all of the area. It seems safe to assume that a good chunk of the weight goes into the extra structural armor, side armor, extra mounting brackets. That said 50-70mm of extra steel mass seems reasonable. The efficiency ME / TE increase vs KE vs BRL-1 is all conjecture at this point. Perhaps ~10% ME,
  6. It is difficult to gauge how much armor is here. I measured the front plate thickness to ~40mm and side skirts and around ~50mm on a M1 on display. It appears that the armor here is a 1.25' and 2.5' thick plate, slightly elevated by welds. Looking at the pictures, it is safe to assume that some of the weight simulators are simulating the extra material required to extend the turret another ~200mm. If the thicker plates are 2.5' alone represents the extra steel weight (or Titanium ? ) of the inserts then we are looking at ~65mm at angle. If the efficiency of the armor improves onl
  7. The BM26 seemed to be the temporary solution until the more advanced rounds could be delivered. IIRC the Soviet view of Western Armor was not spaced composite arrays. Rather multi layer arrays of steel, early ceramics and aluminum. This was the nature of some the arrays that the Bm32/42 was tested against. The BM26 would perform better against such targets but worst against advanced Spaced NERA arrays. I still agree that it would probably be sufficient at close range against the hull arrays of the Leo-2 and C1. Against the M1 it might pen the area around the driver, to his left and right I don
  8. I think that you could be correct here. Or it could be one component of the armor mix of Thermal sights also are in conflict with that goal. Depends on business and economic factors around such things in the late 1970s etc. The cost of titanium vs RHA or HHS could come down with economies of scale. The F-14 wing box is a good example of this. Once the sunk cost is accounted for the cost comes way down. So the USA certainly had the facilities to machine simple shapes out of 10-20mm titanium at the time. The cost of one material in the armor being say 20,000 vs 2000 in 19
  9. The USA has been working with powder metallurgy for some time. No surprise they moved onto Titanium alloys. There is good evidence that the M829A2 is improved in such ways. I did some research about a year ago before my hard drive crash but wrote on SB form..that in the late 1980s the USA was conducting very serious research into improving " tensile and yield strength of heavy metal alloys. In some cases gaining improvements of 300-400% through some methods that caused dissolution uniform recrystallization of ultra fine powders of various metals mixed with the main heavy metal. "
  10. Yes the effect of a plug of material being separated and pushed out was an issue for stand alone Ti-alloys up until very recently. Very hard steel alloys often had that same issue for that matter. The alloys in a laminate configuration with multiple thin plates and backing of Kevlar, polycarbonate and dyneema seemed to transmit the stresses laterally much more effectively and solve the issue of shear failure rather well, having a greater TE then Ti alloys alone and a far better ME then RHA.
  11. The source (1984 Army Magazine Volume 34 Pg 453) is rather clear in describing at least part of the armor.. " ..a pair of titanium alloy sheets sandwiching a layer of ballistic grade nylon.." I don't have the source in front of me but I recall the common thickness of ballistic (hardened) grade titanium alloy plate around that time being approx 3/4 to 1 inch in thickness. 19-25mm. Another possibility is the use of the titanium and ballistic fiber to encase and compress a ceramic backing layer. A low LD slug or APFSDS fragment impacting at yaw angle , a well confined cera
  12. Almost certainly this is the case. There are no official sources that I can find. There are some who suggest that the IPM1 is BRL-1 but more of it, and the M1A1 is BRL-2. There are many pictures of M1E1 with what appears to be different weight simulators. Perhaps this is evidence of this. Not evidence of anything but interesting take. https://www.quora.com/Does-an-M1-IP-have-the-same-armor-as-a-baseline-M1A1 "No, the Armor on the M1 IP is an advancement of the BRL-1 Burlington Armor on the M1. (mostly just more of it) It was optimized to prot
  13. I found this and reposted this on the SB forum. Interested in what others here think.. More insight into assumed threats to early 1980s armor. If it is a threat to a IFV it is a threat to tanks that fight with them. So the USA experimented with armor arrays similar to the Xm-1 that could defeat 115mm DU ammo across the frontal arc. So at some point the USA was testing BRL-1 or BRL-1 like armor arrays against not use W, but DU ammo. Perhaps this is what evolved into BRL-2, or a reformulated version of BRL-1. IIRC Tankograd has evidenc
×
×
  • Create New...