Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

And which modern tank don't have NERA? I feel that NERA is like sloped armor in the second half of WW2, everybody use it.

 

 

Several of the modernized derivatives of old Soviet designs still use the old thermoset glass fiber matrix glacis plate, e.g. PT-91 and probably M-84 and T-84.  I don't believe that this behaves like NERA; purpose designed NERA arrays have many thin layers of steel and many thin layers of polymer/rubber, instead of a few big, inches-thick slabs of both.

 

How much of the Type 59 production equipment does the Al-Khalid re-use?  It might not have NERA either.

 

I'm also not particularly clear on the Leo 2's turret protection.

 

Abrams' upper hull isn't NERA either.  It appears to just be very sloped steel that is only a few inches thick (but not necessarily RHA, possibly a steel laminate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia thought of it first!

 

Several of the modernized derivatives of old Soviet designs still use the old thermoset glass fiber matrix glacis plate, e.g. PT-91 and probably M-84 and T-84.  I don't believe that this behaves like NERA; purpose designed NERA arrays have many thin layers of steel and many thin layers of polymer/rubber, instead of a few big, inches-thick slabs of both.

 

How much of the Type 59 production equipment does the Al-Khalid re-use?  It might not have NERA either.

 

I'm also not particularly clear on the Leo 2's turret protection.

 

Abrams' upper hull isn't NERA either.  It appears to just be very sloped steel that is only a few inches thick (but not necessarily RHA, possibly a steel laminate).

 

I dont think the Leo 2 is nearly as well protected as everyone makes it out to be, atleast the Abrams has DU armor and great ammo storage 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A post from Overlord on the matter (found via Walters blog).

 

For those just getting here, it is my studied opinion from squinting at pictures of battle-damaged tanks that "Chobham" armor is most likely NERA.

 

NERA, or Non Explosive Reactive Armor, consists of layers of steel (or titanium) and layers of some polymer (usually rubber).  When the armor is penetrated by a threat, the rubber reacts, causing the steel to shift and bulge, feeding more steel into the path of the threat.  This effectively increases the thickness of the armor without making it heavier.  There is also supposed to be some sort of effect that screws up HEAT jets when they have to transition between perforating materials with very different densities, this may also be at play.

 

In addition to lots and lots and lots of pictures of damaged tank armor arrays that look like NERA:

 

T-72B3_Glacis%20Array%20Exposed_Lighter_

 

There are other reasons to think that the majority of "special armor" in tanks today is NERA.

 

 

1)  NERA works best when threats hit it obliquely.  Sloping conventional homogeneous steel armor does not improve its efficiency against HEAT threats, and actually makes it slightly less efficient against long rod penetrators.  Ceramic armors likewise do not work very well when hit obliquely.  Most modern tanks have sloped armor.

 

2)  NERA, being made of fairly prosaic materials, would be much cheaper than ceramic-heavy armor arrays.

 

3)  NERA, lacking anything brittle enough to degrade from normal operations, would have a very long shelf life.

 

4)  NERA, lacking explosive elements, would be easier to store safely, and does not generate additional shock and fragments when hit, making it safer for use on tanks around supporting infantry than explosive reactive armor (ERA).

 

5)  Unlike ERA, it is possible to stack multiple layers of NERA on top of each other.

 

Odds and ends:

 

Q:  What about the reports that boron carbide in some Soviet armor?  Wouldn't that be an example of non-NERA protection in a modern MBT?
A:  Boron carbide is an extremely hard, relatively light ceramic.  Theoretically, large pieces of it would provide excellent protection against both long rod penetrators and HEAT jets.  However, it would also be extremely expensive to make large, homogeneous pieces of boron carbide.  They would also be very brittle and likely need periodic replacement.  The most likely explanation is that reports of boron carbide armor are mistaken.  They are actually referring to a small amount of boron carbide mixed into a layer in the armor for shielding against fast neutrons from neutron bombs.  Enriched boron is an excellent neutron absorber.

 

Q:  What about the depleted uranium used in the armor of the most recent Abrams variants?
A:  Conjecture on my part, but battle-damaged M1A2s appear to show NERA.  I suspect that the "DU mesh" sit in front of the NERA, where it acts as perforated armor and degrades the effectiveness of long rod penetrators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   You can stack ERA on top of each other with pretty high efficiency. At least Armata new ERA (or MERA) was designed to be layered (to defeat tandem HEAT warhead, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can have a single brick of ERA with multiple flyer plates inside, sure, the Russian designs appear to have been doing this for some time.  However, AIUI, you can't put multiple bricks of ERA on top of each other because the explosions from the first brick squishes or detonates the one underneath.

 

Unless the Russians have cooked up something new and clever, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am speaking about separate ERA/MERA modules. Armata ERA/MERA was deisgned to be stacked (not inside of single module), per one comrade description of roof ERA on Armata HUTP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having grown up with the understanding that composite armour was some sort of amazing blend of high-tech ceramics, superalloys and advanced polymers; it has been supremely disappointing to learn how much of it is boring stuff like fibreglass sandwiches and NERA.

 

It's a bit like the discovery that the 'secret' to making a stradivarius was reasonable craftsmanship, a shit-ton of varnish and good marketing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stillbrew was more crude than that. IIRC it was just a layer of cast steel with 3 or 4 hard rubber layers behind it.

That looks closer to Burlington's NERA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stillbrew was more crude than that. IIRC it was just a layer of cast steel with 3 or 4 hard rubber layers behind it.

That looks closer to Burlington's NERA.

Looking at it again - it now reminds me Merkava 3BdD and Merk 4 turret sides armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it does. Burlington inspired a lot of armour typs after it arrived.

Is there a good diagram of BDD out there? It looks to be like Burlington-esque NERA rather than the bulging NxRA (like on T-72B).

EDIT; NVM I forgot that it's just plates surrounded by a resin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about it suggests that it's NERA?  If there's some clue I am missing it.

 

The majority of "special" armor does seem to be NERA though.  So many authoritative sources said that special armor was ceramic-based in the 1970s and 1980s, while polymer/steel composite structures have proven to be the most common.  I strongly suspect it was a deliberate misinformation campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that a lot of NERA composites have the 'stereotypical' layered armour towards the rear. I suspect Burlington was just misindentified until it was shown to be NERA.

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 Kal
      So it looks flimsy, slightly inclined,  Is this some type of nera?
       
      Using a mesh/slats would've been cheaper just for standoff, so its more than that?
    • By Militarysta
      Well known APC Rosomak in Afgan. version armour:
       

       
      Orginally it was israeli but after that it was produced by polish company "Mikanit":
      http://www.mikanit.com.pl/produkty/oslony-balistyczne.html
       
      Now, we know patent draws and description:
       

       

       
       
      Composition:
      2 mm HHS + air + 6,7 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap + 3,5 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap  + 20 mm aluminium + 5 mm aluminium.
      There is possibility that layout could be 4+3 (composite) and single composite layer can have up to 6mm thick and single HHS layer can have  4mm thickness. Layers can be separate up to 45mm.
       
      Accoding to manufacurer this armour can protect against ATGM and RPG's up to 500mm RHA penetration.
       
      Whole armour is combat proven in Afganistan - there are known some "Rosomak" whit 3x RPG's hits diretly in to this armour - no penetration at all, no engine damage. 
       
       
       
       
       
    • By eggs benedict
      hello everyone!
      so i read that the T-90 shares the T-72B turret , thus BDD armor , however this documentary (?) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKGv5JQBTI8 says "aluminums and plastics".
      is this any legit? did they like , keep the t72b cavity design and change the fill?
       
      also , did the combination on new welded towers change?
    • By Collimatrix
      Most historical arms and armor were made of metal, leather and stone.  This is the thread for historical weapons and armor made of weird shit.
       

       
      This is an example of armor made from the Gilbert islands made of thick, woven coconut fiber.  The helmet is made from a pufferfish.
       
      I've seen a set similar to this in another museum.  The woven fiber body armor looked like it would be reasonably effective.  Coconut husk is pretty tough and the vest was very thick.  I wasn't so sure about the helmet.
       
      The Gilbertese were also the foremost users of shark's tooth weapons, although other Polynesians used them as well:
       

       
      Several historical examples I've seen are these strange, branching designs:
       

       

       
       
      Polynesians were not the only ones to use teeth in their arms.  The Mycenian Greeks made helmets out of boars teeth.  One such helmet is described in the Iliad, and there are a few archeological discoveries of such:
       

       

       
      And finally, a club used by Inuits made from the penis-bone of a walrus:
       

×