Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

OK, idiot question time.  What is the distinction between NERA and NxRA?

My idiot guess is that NxRA includes other elements (eg: the aramid capsule for the rubber) which pulls the operating principle away from pure NERA a bit.

 

But that is, as I said, an idiot guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, idiot question time.  What is the distinction between NERA and NxRA?

 

Simple answer:

 

NERA - Non Energetic Reactive Armour (1)

NxRA - Non Explosive Rective Armour (2)

 

In (1) case you have layer which "transfer" energy from front plate to backplate -and this backplate is moving and damage SC jet or penetrator rod. Exmaple of sucht layer is rubber in T-72B armour or in Haji armour (T-55 ENIGMA). In NERA armour this layer is passive, not active - it only transfer energy between metal layers. 

In (2) case you have layer whit is non explosive but reactive - for example GAP mixed whit rubber or GAP+CACo. This layer is not explosive but it change its volume during transfering energy from first to second metal layer of whole "NxRA armour packed" -so BOTH thin metal paltes start to move and both metal plates are damaging SC jet or  penetrator. And whole moving of this metal plates is mucht faster then in NERA armour - couse this "booster" form changing layer volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you upload to imgur?  File upload system on this forum does not work, and we need to disable it at some point.

 

Expanded in size by 50% for clarity.

 

198EVoU.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1 hull front armor?

 

No, it's part of germant patent of the "special armour" for Leopard-2AV hull armour. It's slighty diffrent then Burlington armour themself, but it's NERA indeed. If You look close you will see that layout is exatly teh same as in polish smiple NERA from previous pages:

 

yd73zzX.jpg4

 

198EVoU.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time lurker, just wanted to thank you guys for this thread. Working on a self-designed MBT, and this was probably the easiest-to-find source for 'composite' armor construction. I honestly thought for a time that these tanks were just covered in these thick sandwiches of ceramics and metal. >_>

 

Thanks a ton for the reference material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to SH :)

 

Glad you found the thread to be useful. There's whole loads of other useful and interesting stuff stashed around here, be sure to check it out (the "greatest hits" threads are a good place to start).

Oh yeah, I very quickly discovered the Soviet Tanks thread. Information on suspension and drivetrain pretty closely matched what I already had from Jane's ToT, with a few alterations once I took more modern systems into account.

 

It was mostly the armor that wasn't making sense, though. The kg/m² of the arrays I had was way too high, and it showed with a projected weight of 80 tons. NERA makes much more sense given RL tank weights, also brings my design down to under 65 tons (haven't modeled and calculated all the replacement modules yet, so no exact numbers).

 

On the subject of NERA, though, is there any real reason why the arrays are so different in design? Is one arrangement more capable of resisting certain types of penetrators than another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I very quickly discovered the Soviet Tanks thread. Information on suspension and drivetrain pretty closely matched what I already had from Jane's ToT, with a few alterations once I took more modern systems into account.

 

It was mostly the armor that wasn't making sense, though. The kg/m² of the arrays I had was way too high, and it showed with a projected weight of 80 tons. NERA makes much more sense given RL tank weights, also brings my design down to under 65 tons (haven't modeled and calculated all the replacement modules yet, so no exact numbers).

 

On the subject of NERA, though, is there any real reason why the arrays are so different in design? Is one arrangement more capable of resisting certain types of penetrators than another?

Welcome to SH!

 

You've probably already seen this, but these topics might be interesting to read:

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1085-design-contest-supplement-typical-weights-in-a-modern-tank/

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1080-competition-a-modern-medium-afv/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, thanks! I'm a little disappointed that I lurked so long I missed a design comp, but there's no way I could have gotten a full statblock + model done in that period.

My MBT model's going on a year old, and I'm just now getting to detailing major parts. >_>

(Is there a preferred thread for more off-topic/casual conversation like this? Feels spammy to be posting this stuff here.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese or Pakistani composite armor, image made by Militarysta

MxRTU3H.png

 

Based on this image from brochure made by Heavy Industry Taxila (HIT):

 

slide_8.jpg

 

HIT produces the Al Khalid (VT1(A) tank) for Pakistan, but the CAD model at the left seems to be a Type 96A/B, Type 99G or MBT-3000 tank. HIT is trying to produced the MBT-3000 for the Pakistani Army as Al Hyder MBT... so maybe it's based on the MBT-3000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here older version, from Type.85-II and 85-III and very very erly Type-96:

 

i1kwEQh.png

 

From here:

 

NwW4S44.jpg

 

And Type 85 erly armour:

 

Vkinlhi.jpg

 

y6Fi5gy.jpg

 

XUoXB2e.jpg

 

 

To be honest - I would like sitting in old T-72B (Ob.184) then in those chineese tanks above - those armour modules have huge weak zones couse it's NERA placment inside...

As I understend - this was relesed to public in china so in Type-96A and newest tanks there must be completly diffrent armour configuration.

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 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:
       

    • By Collimatrix
      Too often technology is portrayed a steady, linear series of more or less inevitable improvements.  This is an easier illusion to maintain if you don't know anything about the subject.  In fact, the history of technology is littered with insane, unworkable garbage.  Things that didn't work, barely worked, might-have-beens, things that would perhaps be worth revisiting, things fit only for ridicule, and some things that make no sense whatsoever:
       

       
      Yes!  Terrify your enemies with your new gunspoon!  Note the direction of the trigger and the direction of the muzzle.  What the hell were these even for?
       

       
      Attaching solid fuel rockets to a bicycle!  We totes verified this idea in Kerbal Space Program, it'll be fine.


       
      An external combustion motor that uses ether instead of steam!  Nothing could possibly go wrong with this!
       

       
      A turbine powered by boiling mercury!  There is definitely nothing at all that could go horribly wrong with this!
       
      Douglas Self's Museum of Retrotechnology Site has all of these wondrous devices and more.  Feast your mind on the retardation of the engineers and inventors of yesteryear, and be amazed that anyone is left alive on this planet.  "Steampunk" ain't got shit.
    • By Collimatrix
      This is wonderful.
       
      I learned:
       
      1)  The leo 1 had poor hull armor, but excellent turret armor!
       
      2)  Chieftain's armor was 16 inches thick!
       
      4)  The T-64 was the Soviet's own version of the leopard(?!)
       
       
      Actually, the materials science stuff seems solid, and jives with what I've heard before (but how much of that is people repeating this article?).
×