Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

csH1ZYm.png

The article from Jane's daily. Same text, but a better illustration of the working principle.

Basically a large push switch connected to a relay that activates one or two shaped charges? 

 

Seems to me like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xoon said:

Basically a large push switch connected to a relay that activates one or two shaped charges? 

 

Seems to me like it. 

Yep. A very solid evolution of ERA I would say. 

I assume that since different missiles have different stand off and different designs, this will be used in the same manner as ADS by shooting at a wide area with enough shrapnel to probably cover significant portions of the missile's length as well, and create redundancy.

 

Now all it takes is make one against APFSDS, if this one isnt yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stand-off killing a long-rod with an APS type system still seems like sci-fi to me, easier to bust it once it's in the armour.....That's what the article above seems to be suggesting too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Hazell, you have to smack long rods from quite some distance before they hit in order to do anything.

Imagine that you had some sort of laser APS that neatly divided a long rod in half mere centimeters before it hit.  This laser would not remove significant amounts of material from the long rod, nor would it impart significant amounts of momentum to it.

This would do nothing.  The armor would just get hit by two rods, one after the other.

Now imagine that you're whacking the long rod with something more substantial.  Great, now it could yaw and hit the armor at a significant angle of attack, which could reduce its sectional density!  Or if it gets broken, the two pieces could separate and hit different portions of the armor, which they would lack the ability to penetrate!

The only thing is that the penetrator is coming in at upwards of mach 4.  There is extremely little time to effect any sort of rotation or seperation of the projectile before it hits unless the APS hits it both very hard and very far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

Per Hazell, you have to smack long rods from quite some distance before they hit in order to do anything.

Imagine that you had some sort of laser APS that neatly divided a long rod in half mere centimeters before it hit.  This laser would not remove significant amounts of material from the long rod, nor would it impart significant amounts of momentum to it.

This would do nothing.  The armor would just get hit by two rods, one after the other.

Now imagine that you're whacking the long rod with something more substantial.  Great, now it could yaw and hit the armor at a significant angle of attack, which could reduce its sectional density!  Or if it gets broken, the two pieces could separate and hit different portions of the armor, which they would lack the ability to penetrate!

The only thing is that the penetrator is coming in at upwards of mach 4.  There is extremely little time to effect any sort of rotation or seperation of the projectile before it hits unless the APS hits it both very hard and very far away.

What about smacking rods with counter rods/hyper velocity rockets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pardus said:

 

Ok, would you be able to share it?

 

Yes, via PM.

 

Looking for sources on German DM23 ammunition, and the Swiss license produced version of it called "Pfeil Pat 87 Lsp", particularly the dimensioning and weight.
If anyone has any info, please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at it too and though of Nozh immediately. I’m doubtful of the effectiveness of this armor... or, at least how it is described. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rohrkrepierer said:

 

Yes, via PM.

 

Looking for sources on German DM23 ammunition, and the Swiss license produced version of it called "Pfeil Pat 87 Lsp", particularly the dimensioning and weight.
If anyone has any info, please let me know.

 

Is it this?

TElcgta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Isn't that just Nozh, but pre-detonated?

 

I am not sure about that. First of all the countermeasures seem to be a lot smaller (so they either cover a larger cone or can be directed towards the impact point) and not based on a linear shaped charge. The drawings also show a very small area for detecting the impact of the RPG (or the penetration by a shaped charge), which probably is not the case in a real life application.

 

ibd_smartreactive_725.jpg

 

Compared to Nozh (or rather Duplet) this armor should be lighter but require some base armor to stop the precursor warhead.

 

http://defense-update.com/20180612_eurosatory_day2.html

 

12 hours ago, Rohrkrepierer said:

If anyone has any info, please let me know.

 

The DM23's tungsten penetrator has a 32 mm diameter and a total length of 360 mm compared to the 120 mm DM13 with 26 mm diameter and 315 mm effective penetrator length. Given its velocity it really won't penetrate much armor, probably something about 400-440 mm against 60° sloped steel plates at 2 kilometres distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The DM23's tungsten penetrator has a 32 mm diameter and a total length of 360 mm compared to the 120 mm DM13 with 26 mm diameter and 315 mm effective penetrator length. Given its velocity it really won't penetrate much armor, probably something about 400-440 mm against 60° sloped steel plates at 2 kilometres distance.

 

Do you have the source for that? I have the dimensions myself too, just not the sources for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I think we should have a debate on IBD's new armor. 

I already wrote my opinion on it here, and the TL;DR is that I see a LOT of potential in this both in the short and long term. 

 

 

Quote

Jane's also report that the SMART PROTech system can be optimized to defeat long rod penetrators, i.e APFSDS,

 

Are you sure? It seemed to me like they were claiming that this was so mass efficient against shaped charges that more weight could be devoted to KE-optimised armour underneath this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pardus said:

Btw, does anyone here possess or know the accurate armour protection of the Leopard 2A4 in these areas?:

 

 

 

GE64xHE.jpg

As far as i know, roughly:

 

Orange: Should be 20-25 mm thick when the thickness is measure from the normal.

Yellow: Seems to be 30 mm primarily.   the forward section around the driver could be up to 50 mm thick. 

Light Orange:  Heavy Side skirts are up to 110 mm thick. Side hull 30 mm, up to 50 mm potentially in certain areas.

Magenta: Side skirts seem to be between 10-23 mm thick.   Side hull seems mostly to be around 30 mm in this area.

Purple:  Outer side hull sponson seems to be 10 mm thick.  Inner walls seem to be 10 mm thick in the forward section and 60 mm in the mid-section.

Cyan:   Outer side hull sponson also seems to be about 10 mm thick here. Inner side walls will also most likely be not much thicker.

 

Fuel cells, NBC system, batteries are not included in this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10mm sponsons?? Are you sure? I mean the fuel cells are right behind it, that would make them vulnerable to be penetrated and ruptured even by regular small arms fire. That can't be right, esp. for a MBT.

 

Looking at the welding lines in real life the sponson sides look like they were at least 30mm thick.

 

 

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

  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×