Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Nice promo of the Rheinmettal Leopard 2. In this case polish Leopard 2PL:

 

 

Leopard 2PL in english was describe in this exelent site:

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/09/updates-on-pt-16-and-leopard-2-pl.html

 

============

Now in polish military press im publishing article about Leopard-2 estimatous protection and it's modernisation.

Conclusion propbly will not be suprising - Leopard 2A0-A4 was very good protected against soviet erly and middle 80's ATGMS and KE rounds.

My own estimatous (based on multiple sources - some public open some not) is giving Leopard -2A0-A4 sucht protection level:

450-500mm RHA vs KE

up to 860mm RHA vs HEAT

Since 96 tank from 6 btach (2A4) protection was improved but it's difficult to estimatous.

What is funny - I have very strong evidence that in 1994 german special armour (thick as Leopard-2A4 front) was able to stop LKE I (DM43) round from 2000m, so whit circa 640-700mm RHA penetration (@60. plate)... Helenic Leopard-2A6HEL  whintstand 28 shots from 120mm APFSDS... etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's confusing when you give estimates. On what part of the tank? Turret or hull?

 

 

Also, I can't seem to find confirmation anywhere, but does the Leo 2 have stronger frontal hull armor on the right side, or is thickness consistent along the entirety of the hull front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile according to ESUT magazine, the German Army is planning with the following changes:

  • increase total number of operational tanks to 320
  • upgrade (on the long run) all tanks to new standard with improved armor at turret and hull, improved optics, improved weapon systems (L55A1 according to an earlier interview with Rheinmetall) and improved engine

Unfortunately there hasn't been any mention of adopting an active protection system nor have their been more details. I wonder about how the improved turret armor will look: Just change the inserts, add side armor modules like on the 2A7+ or something completely different?

 

05_KMW_Leopard-2-A7V-Copy.jpg

 

Current plans see the budget of the German military being raised by €2.32 billion in 2017 to €36.6 billion, which will sum up with the increases of the next years to about €10.2 billion by 2020. Still falls short of NATO's 2% of GDP aim (which would correspond to €60 billion), but it might be enough to see all Leopard 2 tanks being upgraded. Earlier claims from ESUT said that 84 old tanks should be upgraded to Leopard 2A7(V) in 2017. On the other hand 200 Marder IFVs will be upgraded with MELLS (Spike-LR) and newer generation thermal imagers in order to compensate the production delays and cuts of the Puma.

 

It's confusing when you give estimates. On what part of the tank? Turret or hull?

 

Afaik it's an estimate for the frontal 30° arc of the turret, which corresponds in thickness with the frontal hull.

 

Also, I can't seem to find confirmation anywhere, but does the Leo 2 have stronger frontal hull armor on the right side, or is thickness consistent along the entirety of the hull front?

 

The frontal hull armor has the same thickness at all places, however the side hull armor at the right of the driver is thicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

The data from the UN arms register is a bit misleading. AFAIK not all Leopard 1/2 vehicles are actually MBTs (but also armored recovery vehicles, bridge-layers, etc.) and some of them are currently owned by the industry.

 

 

Qatar takes delivery of Leopard 2A7+ MBTs
Christopher F Foss, London - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
27 October 2016
 
1686715_-_main.jpg
 

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has delivered almost half of the 62 Leopard 2A7+ series main battle tanks (MBTs) on contract to Qatar. The deal is the company's first major export contract for heavy armour in the Middle East.

In addition it covers the supply of 24 PzH 2000 155 mm/52-calibre self-propelled artillery systems, 32 Fennek 4x4 reconnaissance vehicles and a batch of Dingo Heavy Duty 4x4 protected vehicles in three different versions.

The contract also includes six FFG Wisent 2 support vehicles and almost 100 Mercedes-Benz Actros 4058 6x6 tank transporters and a training and support package.

 

Rheinmetall Waffe Munition in Germany is supplying its 120 mm tank ammunition including latest DM11 programmable high-explosive, while Rheinmetall Denel Munition in South Africa is providing a 155 mm ammunition suite including projectiles, modular charge systems and fuzes.

 

The Leopard 2A7+ platform acquired by Qatar is the most advanced Leopard 2 manufactured by KMW and is optimised for operation in the high temperatures encountered in the Middle East.

In addition to the bustle-mounted air conditioning system the vehicle is also fitted with the latest armour package, roof-mounted FLW200 remote weapon station (RWS) armed with a stabilised .50 M2 HB machine gun, additional external turret stowage and a 17 kW auxiliary power unit mounted internally at the rear of the hull on the right side.

 

The final drives have been modified to provide more torque when operating in a desert environment, although this has reduced the top speed from 72 km/h to 68 km/h.

The baseline hull and turret structures for the Leopard 2A7+ are manufactured in Greece with the turret being sent to the KMW facility In Kassel where it is completed with all electric gun control equipment, computerised fire-control system, commanders and gunners stabilised sighting systems and armament.

 

The complete turret is then sent to the main KMW production and integration facility in Munich where it is mated with the hull.

 

That's a weird way to produce a tank. But KMW's factories in Germany are busy, so why not let some work be done in the Greek factory, which hasn't been very busy following the reduction of the military procurment of Greece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

The data from the UN arms register is a bit misleading. AFAIK not all Leopard 1/2 vehicles are actually MBTs (but also armored recovery vehicles, bridge-layers, etc.) and some of them are currently owned by the industry.

 

 

That's a weird way to produce a tank. But KMW's factories in Germany are busy, so why not let some work be done in the Greek factory, which hasn't been very busy following the reduction of the military procurment of Greece.

One question about that RCWS, is it mounted above the blowout panels? 

Isn't it mounted right above the panels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your blowout panels go, what happens to the RCWS is probably the least of your worries.

True, but optimally you don't want to lose it. 

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to have it above the side of the turret bustle that lacks a blowout panels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are blow-out panels at both sides of the turret, however with the electric drive system the ones at the right side of the turret aren't of much use. The problem with placing the RWS there is that the commander's PERI R17 sight will block the RWS from aiming frontwards.

 

tumblr_np53oiDd2n1tj31v2o1_1280.jpg

Just look at the older prototype being fitted with the slightly larger PERI RTWL-B.

 

Rheinmetall's Revolution upgrade (using the digital SEOSS sight instead of a PERI R17/RTWL-B located at the left side of the turret) has the RWS placed at the right side atop of the blow-out panels:

 

Das-ist-Deutschlands-Panzer-Zukunft-1200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet never forget:

 

2Ebt6yf.jpg

 

IBD armour (side hull) on Leoparda 2 concept.

@SH_MM

please look on upper glastic plate - interesting - isn't it? Pure thin HHS without cermaic or NxRA layers? Hmm...

And side modules have composite cermaic armour - pattern of bolts clearly proofe this, but...

For compare details for other IBD uparmoured Leopard2

Leopard 2NG hull:

rBI0PnA.jpg

 

Leopard 2RI:

i4cySwP.jpg

 

Leopard 2SG:

 

8HBZMPO.jpg

SBoBsVI.jpg

qJgCDsO.jpg

 

And.. 2PL:

 

IMG_2936.JPG

IMG_2803.JPG

IMG_2941.JPG

 

 

 

According to the PGZ, this armour will give the turret of the 2PL better ballistic protection than in Leopard 2A5. It will be comparable with the 2A7 version, the PGZ says.

source: http://www.miltechmag.com/2016/09/mspo-2016-pgz-presents-leopard-2pl.html(Robert Czulda) 

 

And third interesting think about Leopard 2PL - I had tryied to estimatous weight of armour block on Leopard 2PL. Tank mass is known, I know some components including spall linear area mass, so more or less for 7 armour modules (including gun mask module) we have no more then 3,5t. so circa 500kg per module, of course mask is more simple then other and have big holes for gun, coaxial mg and FERO so propably "main" armour modules weight circa 600kg eacht...

 

And the last interesting think - polish funny PT-16 mocked up accoding to manufacurer can heave in seriall T-72M1 turret up armoured by IBD armour modules at least 700mm RHA vs KE:

http://www.altair.com.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue_id=827&ref=issue#page/7(right bottom part)

and 1000mm RHA vs CE. Base T-72M1 armour is 410-420mm RHA vs KE and circa 500mm vs HEAT, so in theory those IBD modules should give protection like circa 180-200mm RHA vs KE and 500mm vs HEAT... 

Whit 600kg weight per eaht on Leopard-2PL?

Hmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the old heavy ballistic sideskirts are still fitted, couldn't they be replaced by a lighter alternative? Like ceramics or a AMAP module without increasing the weight?

As far as I know, those side sideskirts are simply a 50/10/50 mm of steel, so it could easily be exchanged for something lighter right?

 

The reason they did not up armor the hull was because the suspension would not support a much higher weight, so why not replace some of the old components with lighter ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet never forget:

 

2Ebt6yf.jpg

 

IBD armour (side hull) on Leoparda 2 concept.

@SH_MM

please look on upper glastic plate - interesting - isn't it? Pure thin HHS without cermaic or NxRA layers? Hmm...

And side modules have composite cermaic armour - pattern of bolts clearly proofe this, but...

For compare details for other IBD uparmoured Leopard2

I think the glacis armor is NERA, only the armor above the tracks is a single plate. This was already the case with the Strv 122 and Leopard 2E:

 

img20130522195014072.jpg

 

10455172276_dd1046b24d_b.jpg

 

And side modules have composite cermaic armour - pattern of bolts clearly proofe this, but...

For compare details for other IBD uparmoured Leopard2

Leopard 2NG hull:

Leopard 2RI:

Leopard 2SG:

And.. 2PL:

I think the side armor is mostly NERA and not ceramic armor. Compared to the Strf 9040C (CV9040 with AMAP) and Leopard C2 (Leopard 1A5 with MEXAS):

 

s_cv9040c.jpg

 

Xv63349.jpg

 

Lot's of small bolts to hold the NERA plates... quite similar to the Leopard 2A5 turret armor module. It's definetly NERA on the Leopard C2, based on the article "Lightweight passive armour for inantry carrier vehicle" published by F. U. Deisenroth and Richard W.O. Kwok in the 19th International Symposium of Ballistics.

 

My guess is that the differences in appearance as the result of further enhancments. The Leopard 2 Evolution used an older version of the armor; maybe the later version of the Evolution armor package feature a thicker coverplate (made of steel or ceramics covered by thin steel) atop of the NERA. The Leopard 2SG seems to feature only parts of the turret armor, maybe some part was left out in order to keep the tank within a weight limit or something similar. 

 

And third interesting think about Leopard 2PL - I had tryied to estimatous weight of armour block on Leopard 2PL. Tank mass is known, I know some components including spall linear area mass, so more or less for 7 armour modules (including gun mask module) we have no more then 3,5t. so circa 500kg per module, of course mask is more simple then other and have big holes for gun, coaxial mg and FERO so propably "main" armour modules weight circa 600kg eacht...

And the last interesting think - polish funny PT-16 mocked up accoding to manufacurer can heave in seriall T-72M1 turret up armoured by IBD armour modules at least 700mm RHA vs KE:

http://www.altair.com.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue_id=827&ref=issue#page/7(right bottom part)

and 1000mm RHA vs CE. Base T-72M1 armour is 410-420mm RHA vs KE and circa 500mm vs HEAT, so in theory those IBD modules should give protection like circa 180-200mm RHA vs KE and 500mm vs HEAT...

Whit 600kg weight per eaht on Leopard-2PL?

Hmm...

Interesting. Based on the old brochures from IBD Deisenroth's older homepage, AMAP-B has a mass efficiency of more than four, while AMAP-SC has a mass efficiency of 8 to 10. If these claims are true, I could believe that the protection values for the PT-16. I wonder how Rheinmetall does know the protection level of the Leopard 2A7 though, and why they are allowed to say that their tank provides equal protection... that's somewhat a breach of opsec.

 

So now we need only a proper measurement in size (how much surface is covered by each armor module) to estimate an areal density.

 

I see the old heavy ballistic sideskirts are still fitted, couldn't they be replaced by a lighter alternative? Like ceramics or a AMAP module without increasing the weight?

As far as I know, those side sideskirts are simply a 50/10/50 mm of steel, so it could easily be exchanged for something lighter right?

The reason they did not up armor the hull was because the suspension would not support a much higher weight, so why not replace some of the old components with lighter ones?

It's a matter of costs and workload. They already could have replaced the sideskirts with the slightly thicker ones of the late Leopard 2A4/Leopard 2A5 a few years ago,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not all MEXAS application include NERA. MEXAS is a brand name, a concept; each individual protection solution is different. However I am very confident about that the MEXAS kit for the Leopard C2 uses NERA and that the AMAP solutions for the Leopard 2 also include NERA.

 

The previous source - you can find it via google - itself says the following about the Leopard C2:

 

Other than performance, the next factor for considering in the selection of the type of armour to use for IFVs is the integration and survivability of vehicles protected by the armours. For reactive armour, appropriate air gaps or shock absorption systems are required when such systems are integrated onto the vehicle. This is necessary to avoid sympathetic detonation of the ERA modules and any collateral destruction. All this translate to a large unprotected area between the modules which may amount to 30–60% of the covered area (Fig. 5a). For ERA, its main application is as add-on armour and space is needed for the movement of the flyer plates. Inherent to these systems are the problem caused by the undesired interaction of the flying plates with the main armour and the environment. For IFVs, the main hull armour is typically relatively thin and therefore more likely to be deformed by the blast and impact of the reactive armour. With considerations of the interaction to the environment, the life-cycle costs of these explosive sandwich systems are also generally higher than inert systems. Passive armour systems, such as those inert sandwiches which are based on the mechanisms described in the open literature by N. Gov, Y. Kivity and D. Yaziv [6], do not require explosive materials for plate acceleration. The kinetic energy of the jet is used to create the necessary movement of the metallic plates in the form of bulging which gives similar jet/plate interaction to ERA. The inert interlayer enhances the bulging by spreading the jet momentum radially. Due to the reduced plate movement in such sandwiches, it becomes possible for them to be fully integrated in armour packages. Such packages do not require the same gaps as ERA since no explosive is present and therefore is capable of protecting up to 85–95% of the vehicle area (Fig. 5b) as compared to 60% for ERA. With passive armour packages, unwanted interactions with the environment are very limited. The damage to the main hull armour is also reduced.

 

Below that there are two pictures; one showing a T-72 tank with ERA, while the other shows a Leopard C2 tank with "passive armor". If we take a look at the quoted source by N. Gov, Y. Kivity and D. Yaziv, it is called “On the Interaction of a Shaped Charge Jet with a Rubber Filled Metallic Cassette”, which clearly describes NERA; unfortunately I wasn't able to find a free version of this document.

 

But don't forget that the interlayer material used on the most effective German double-layered NERA testbed was developed by IBD Deisenroth. It might be possible that IBD supplied this material for the turret armor wedges of the Leopard 2A5.

 

Some theory. Also not that below the EMES-18 gunner's sight is a further plate visible, located behind what I think is a NERA array.

u4P1xu4.jpg

 

I managed to find this image in a brochure from IBD, it was used (together with other images) as background:

 

42jYKpt.png

 

The white material looks like ceramics or some kind of composite fibre backing. So IMO the MEXAS kit for the Leopard C2 uses ceramics and NERA.

 

____

Now to AMAP. According to Michael Rust of IBD Deisenroth, who wrote an article on AMAP for some magazine, AMAP-SC (the anti-shaped charge component) errodes the shaped charge, so that the base armor "e.g. a ceramic protection" can protect against it. IMO that matches the other drawing from IBD's protection layout, which shows that multiple different versions of AMAP are layered ontop of each other (you also can see that in a CGI video on EODH's website):

FjQl7ek.png

Leopard_2A4_evolution_main_battle_tank_G

 

As for the Leopard 2 Evoltuion and AMAP, I found a short video at the website of EODH (Engineering Office of Deisenroth, Hellas), a subsidiary of IBD Deisenroth, which AFAIK was founded to produce the armor of the Leopard 2A6 HEL. In the video, the side armor of the Leopard 2 Evolution is tested against a PG-7VLT round (made by Bulgarian VMZ). It has a tandem warhead with 93 mm diameter (main charge) and supposedly 500 mm RHA penetration after ERA.

 

ZR3UznT.png

4OJ1k6x.png

7HM8t1H.jpg

 

vfclAft.png

Note how much lugs/loops are located at the top in order to lift the armor plates use din the module.

 

u7AC1FJ.png

Warhead penetrate outer layer (thin metal plate used as cover) before detonating.

 

l0kEZTK.png

 

 

vnLQt0U.png

A witness plate (seems to be part of the armor module based on size, thickness and color). Note that there is no penetration.

 

vtYcUPK.png

Only a simple dent on the material. Apparently "J 26624" is the test designation of the armor module (its also written at the front of the armor module) and "R.S." might mean Rückseite (back side or back plate).

In Germany a similar thick AMAP-SC module managed to protect against a German copy of the PG-7VR with tandem charge warhead (105 mm main charge diameter) and 750 mm penetration (600 mm after ERA).

rpg29.png

___

 

Btw. IBD Deisenroth is using a few new brands for calling their armor such as Flexicomp (flexible composite armor) and PROTech (professional/protection technology?):

Swnehyj.jpg?1

 

Apparently they want to move from add-on armor to supplying integrated armor for vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This AMAP armour remind me RUAG protection and some patent draws:

 

Ruag Land Systems (part of Switzerland's Ruag Technology Group) has developed a new passive and modular armoured protection system for both wheeled and tracked armoured vehicles. Called the SidePro-RPG, it is intended to provide protection against rocket propelled grenades, like the Russian RPG-7 and its variants widely used in many countries. The SidePro-RPG features a cluster of 250mm-thick, 45 kg/m2 panels made of composite materials and steel. Next April, a test vehicle fitted with the SidePro-RPG will be tested at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground.

 

 

fIanoQQ.jpg

 

QVC0r4c.png

 

 

mwarjMQ.png

 

 

from patent:

This object is achieved in that the bodies are formed as rods
or pins, with at least their surfaces in the end region which is
remote from the object to be protected being galvanically
conductive, in that these rods or pins project beyond an upper
inner surface of the protective layer, in that the diagonal
distance between the rods is less than the calibre of the active
projectile and greater than the tip of the projectile.
The surface in accordance with the invention may be ?at or
any spatial surface whatsoever. The holding of the rods orpins
may be effected in the surface and/or the rods may be ?xed
therebehind in a solid plate.
The features of the arrangement of the rods or pins allow
the projectile partial penetration with its nose into the matrix.
In this case, surprisingly the ignition function is directly
disrupted to such a great extent that in most cases no initiation
of the charge at all takes place. Should ignition nevertheless
take place in individual cases, in the case of precision charges
the optimum distance (standoff) of the hollow charge from the
target is exceeded, which is known to result in a considerable
reduction of the jet power thereof and/or only in simple bum
ing-up. In conjunction with conventional protective measures
(passive and/or active armor-plating), in such cases too the
object is suf?ciently protected.
A prerequisite for the prevention of initiation of the igni
tion are rods orpins which are galvanically conductive at least
in the part which is acted upon directly by the projectile.
The essential advantages over only conventional protective
measures are the relatively low weight of the subject of the
invention, the simple production thereof, its low costs and the
ability to retro?t on already existing objects.
Advantageous developments of the subject of the invention
are discussed below. Herein, the comprehensive term “rod” is
used, since the cross-section of these bodies is relatively small
compared with their length. Likewise, the term “pin” (short
rod) applies for most embodiments, because for material
related reasons and for reasons of weight the length of the
rods is selected to be as short as is functionally useful.
What are bene?cial, in particular on vehicles, are cover
surfaces which are as continuous as possible, under which the
rods are “concealed”. If the rods 3 are covered on their outer
end faces by at least one planar and continuous outer layer, the
risk of injury is eliminated and in addition deposits of dirt and
bending of the rods can thereby be avoided.
The threat situation and the probable trajectory of a pro
jectile relative to the orientation of the rods is taken into
account in that the rods are arranged at an angle to the surface
which corresponds to the probable presumed direction of
?ight on the object to be protected.
Simple orientation of the rods to the current threat, in
particular in the case of viewing slots of armored vehicles,
considerably increases the security from direct ?re. This is
achieved by arranging the rods in rows on a tiltable carrier
which is in an operative connection with tiltable carriers of
further rows. Subsequent adjustment of the few necessary
rows can take place automatically, for example by a level
regulation means. Particularly at risk and hence especially
worth protecting are entry and exit points on vehicles (air
intakes, exhausts, fuel ?ller pipes, hatches for personnel and
maintenance such as doors, covers etc.) and also inspection
windows for optical and electronic equipment.
If the end faces of the rods are provided with obtuse-angled
cones which end in sharp tips, or if these end faces are pro
vided with a central sharp-edged stud, this in many cases,
even in the event of direct, perpendicular impacting of the
projectile tip on a rod, results in direct destruction of the
piezoelectric crystal in the impact fuse. In the case of front
mounted piezo generators, the voltage drops below the nec
essary ignition voltage due to splintering of the crystal, so that
the initiation of the charge does not occur.
The rods canbe fastened particularly simply in a solid plate
out of which they project.
A solid plate can be equipped very simply with rods and in
addition also has the advantage that it is effective protection
against small-calibre ammunition.
Protection with rods which project out of the nodes of a
steel net is economically bene?cial and also temporarily
usable.
A crumple layer which is mounted in front of the inner
surface in accordance with the invention and absorbs part of
the kinetic energy of an impacting projectile is very advanta
geous.
A corrugated perforated plate made of steel sheet or a
multi-layer composite plate has proved useful as a crumple
layer.
What is particularly advantageous are crumple layers in
combination with solid inserts which have a dispersive
effect for a hollow-charge jet. This also includes the presence
of a layer made from a metallic sponge.

In order to save weight, in particular in movable protective
layers, and/or to reduce the re?ection of electromagnetic
radiation (radar, infrared etc.), in a further variant the rods
consist of an electrically non-conductive or only slightly elec
trically conductive material and have a galvanically conduc
tive coating in their end regions.
Very lightweight and inexpensive protective layers can be
produced from ?at material (metal sheet) by means of jet or
beam machining (laser, water-jet, etc.), which layers can also
be integrated in widely-varying systems.
A method for the particularly economic production of a
protective layer consists in that surfaces with a U-shaped
contour are cut out from a metal strip at equal distances such
that rods with a web remain. Punching tools can also be used
for this. In such case, the rod-shaped metal strips are effective
for protection; the webs merely serve for holding and adopt
the function of a plate.
In a further preferred embodiment, the cut-out metal strips
with their webs are placed on carriers and are connected
thereto in non-positive manner.
In order to reduce weight in webs and carriers which are
under low mechanical load, in addition cutouts are cut out at
equal distances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are mixing two different things up. The armor module with the three RPGs stuck inside was described as SidePRO-ATR by the Military Technology Magazine. The patent however does show SidePRO-RPG I think.

 

SidePRO-RPG does have an areal density of 45 kg/m² according to RUAG's flyers. This is the weight of a 6-7 mm thick steel plate per square-metre! SidePRO-RPG does not protect against RPGs with tandem warheads according to RUAG's data... just like the steel spikes should not provide protection against tandem charges. The steel spikes can defeat single stage warheads by punching holes in the liner, so that no HEAT jet is formed. When there are two warheads, the spikes won't be able to reach the second warhead; no holes will be inside of it, so that it can fuze and form a fully functional HEAT jet with great armor penetration.

 

SidePRO-ATR is heavier and probably uses some sort of NERA + passive armor. It also provides protection against KE threats and EFPs.

 

____

 

I don't think that AMAP looks like SidePRO-RPG. The armor module was not fitted with a heavy coverplate, only a very thin steel layer was used. The PG-7VLT could penetrate this steel without the warhead being fuzed. Similar things happened with "Chobham armor" on the Warrior IFV:

 

 

73kx6y7.png

The coverplate of the armor design from 1969 was only 3.1 milimetres thick.

 

AMAP-SC has a mass-efficiency of 8 to 10 according to IBD Deisenroth. To stop a RPG-7 firing a PG-7VLT with tandem charge warhead, the weight of the armor should equivalent to between 50 and 70 mm thick steel plates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intresting think:

in polish Leopard 2PL will be replaced special armour in block behind EMES-15 sight. Peoples from PGZ company claim that this 660mm thick armour (whit circa 550mm special armour block made by IBD) will give this part of the turret protection like rebuild EMES-15 sight zone in Leopard 2A5...

Hmm now 650 equal to erly 90s' 200mm + 650mm? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A composite with better thickness efficiency than steel?  That would be remarkable if true.

 

Nano-ceramic armor has better thickness efficiency than steel against AP ammunitions:

1412502710_eurosatory-2014-ibd-nanotech_

RHA - blue; armor using conventional ceramic materials - grey: armor using nano-ceramics - light blue.

 

For this application (armor protection meeting the STANAG 4569 level 3 requirements) the thickness efficiency seems to be two or more, tthe mass efficiency is five!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nano-ceramic armor has better thickness efficiency than steel against AP ammunitions:

1412502710_eurosatory-2014-ibd-nanotech_

RHA - blue; armor using conventional ceramic materials - grey: armor using nano-ceramics - light blue.

 

For this application (armor protection meeting the STANAG 4569 level 3 requirements) the thickness efficiency seems to be two or more, tthe mass efficiency is five!

So considering you need 18mm of RHA to stop AP 7,62mm, does this mean that we only need 9mm of nano-ceramics for the same protection? 

 

Considering this, would it be possible to use 5/500/5  (Cermics/Air/Ceramic) setup to provide STANAG IV protection? 

 

And I guess the two times thickness efficiency figure is not taking  the containers into the equation right? So For example a AFV would need a 3mm thick steel walled container to contain the ceramics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but then again maybe not.  At 9mm of armor you're damn close to the diameter of the penetrator, and might start suffering from overmatch effects.  Not sure if ceramics do that though.

 

The pamphlet doesn't say anything about containers, although their armor does appear to be some sort of multi-layer laminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but then again maybe not.  At 9mm of armor you're damn close to the diameter of the penetrator, and might start suffering from overmatch effects.  Not sure if ceramics do that though.

 

The pamphlet doesn't say anything about containers, although their armor does appear to be some sort of multi-layer laminate.

So two spaced 12,7mm plates to protect accomplish STANAG IV then?

 

To avoid overmatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So two spaced 12,7mm plates to protect accomplish STANAG IV then?

 

To avoid overmatch.

 

According to this paper on spaced armor, you pretty much never want two plates of equal thickness spaced apart.

 

If you take the same thickness of the two plates and combine them into a single plate, the resulting monolithic plate will be stiffer than the two half-thickness plates and thus resist penetration better.

 

If the point of the leading plate is to decap, yaw or fragment the threat, this can usually be accomplished with a fairly thin standoff plate, and the fragments then taken care of with a thinner main plate behind it.

 

For rifle-caliber and HMG threats vs. APCs I think the most popular approach is to use a perforated stand-off plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×