Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

NERA & ERA from South-Africa     Ingwe ATGM being tested against armor

Polish simple NERA armour= better cut-viev:     the same descibe here:        

Made in iraq, IIRC with external support. It's NERA all right, here's a better look at the cutaway section:

Posted Images

On 6/17/2017 at 9:54 PM, LoooSeR said:

In case of Soviet T-72Bs - no. There is not much of "spacing" and "just steel plates" inside of the armor package IDK if Iranian T-72s retain Soviet T-72s UFP layout.

 

Well, it depends on the modification, but the two b&w photos given by Militarysta definitely show nothing but steel plates.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 0:20 AM, Militarysta said:

 

No, there are sevral NERA layers:

 

ognwCZG.jpg

 

 

In case Ob.184 before 1984 (and propably some late T-72A) we have simple steel plates:

 

pBUysxW.jpg

 

NihpEZb.jpg

 

It's weird that they could incorporate NERA into the turret but not the hull until much later in the production run. Any idea why?

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

 

It's weird that they could incorporate NERA into the turret but not the hull until much later in the production run. Any idea why?

 

Maybe the turrets and hulls weren't assembled in the same place?  The earliest T-72 versions had composite hull armor and all steel turrets, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The effectiveness of additional protection of military vehicles

 

Quote

   Below you can find the translation of this article: "Эффективность дополнительной защиты военной техники" ("The effectiveness of additional protection of military vehicles").

   Date of publication: 15.02.2017 (Authors: Evgeny Chistyakov, Dmitry Kupryunin, Mikhail Alexeev, Alexey Kimayev)
   Date of translation: 01.07.2017-02.07.2017


   Note: I want to thank for the help in translating @Urich_jr, and also @warsmonitoring for the idea of this translation. Thank you once more, guys!

 

   The effectiveness of additional protection of military vehicles

   Armed conflicts in recent years convincingly show that military hardware used in them constantly needs to strengthen protection, while other important parameters - firepower and mobility - are often superfluous. For example, a tank in the city does not need a gluttonous engine with a capacity of 1500-1800 h.p., and the armor-piercing capabilities of the gun required in very rare cases. The problem with the deficit of protection increases many times, when modern weapons and obsolete armored vehicles with a low level of protection are involved in the conflict. These scenarios are mainly happens now.
.........(read futher in the link, article is pretty long)

14784_900.jpg

 

14879_900.jpg

 

16598_900.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Polish simple NERA armour= better cut-viev:

 

4YB7wQa.jpg

 

the same descibe here:

 

 

bs2gMXR.jpg

 

yd73zzX.jpg

 



W ramach sfinansowanego przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego pro-jektu rozwojowego nr 0019/T00/2008/06 zrealizowano w WITPiS program badań ekspe-rymentalnych z użyciem granatów PG-7M, o przebijalności stali RHA 300330 mm.

Przeprowadzono badania modelowych rozwiązań ekranów prętowych (rys. 1) i kaset typu NERA. Uzyskano rezultaty, dla których nie następuje przebicie pancerza

(...)

Kasety typu NERA mogą być obecnie stosowane dla cięższych pojazdów lub tylko fragmentami dla lżejszych (np. tylko do ochrony przestrzeni załogowej). Ze względu na ich budowę gęstość powierzchniowa tych rozwiązań wynosiła w trakcie badań od 220 do 390 kg/m2. Skuteczność kaset NERA jest znacznie wyższa od skutecz-ności ochronnej ekranów prętowych.

Porównując gęstości powierzchniowe opracowanych konstrukcji, uzyskano roz-wiązania o dużej efektywności masowej w stosunku do stali RHA. Przebijalność tej sta-li dla granatu PG-7M wynosi 300÷330 mm tj. 2340÷2570 kg/m2. Dla kaset typu NERA, licząc gęstość powierzchniową osłony razem z pancerzem kompozytowym i spall-linerem, można uzyskać ochronę o efektywności masowej ok. 4÷4,5. Zastosowane wy-kładziny wewnętrzne (spall-linery) skutecznie redukują kąt rozlotu odłamków, zmniej-szając tym samym poziom zagrożenia zranieniem dla większej liczby osób znajdują-cych się wewnątrz pojazdu.

TRANSLATE:
As part financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education pro-development project No. 0019 / T00 / 2008/06 was carried out in WITPiS research program experimental with grenade PG-7M whit steel penetration - 300-330mm RHA.

Conducted studies of model solutions screens pannels (Fig. 1) and the armour type NERA. The results obtained, for which there is no armor penetration

(...)

NERA cassette type can now be used for heavier vehicles or just for lighter fragments (eg. Only to protect the crew). Due to the construction of the density of the solution during the tests was between 220 and 390 kg / m2. The effectiveness of cassettes NERA is much higher than the effective-ness of the protective screens rod.

Comparing the density of developed surface structures obtained spread-linked with high efficiency mass relative to the RHA steel. Penetration of fixed-li for the grenade PG-7M is 300 ÷ 330 mm, ie. 2340 ÷ 2570 kg / m2. For cartridge type NERA, counting the density of the surface cover with composite armor and Spallliner, you can get the protection of the effectiveness of mass approx. 4 ÷ 4.5. O-used interior of the veil (Spall-liners) effectively reduce the angle rozlotu debris, reduce-stirring the same level of risk of injury to more people-smokers are inside the vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

If you can significantly turn the projectile, and have a decent thickness of steel behind the NERA, it could work well. Get the hardened pointy bit away from the armour, and to projectile ought to break up when encountering significant resistance - kind of like sloped armour, only sloping the projectile instead. HVAP should also come apart against NERA for similar reasons

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

This is my first post, but I've been lurking for quite a while. I was just wondering what the best materials are for making NERA out of, disregarding the costs? It seems to me that for the middle, reactive layer, you need to consider both how quickly it expands when struck, and also how much it expands (i.e. maximise the expanded volume:unexpanded volume ratio). I have no idea what the best material for this is, I assume the fact that's its usually rubber is simply to keep the costs down.

 

Because the purpose of NERA is to both force more of the expanding metal plates into the path of the KEP/HEAT jet, and to snap it in half, it stands to reason the best material for said plates would be something hard and dense; staballoy for example. It increases the weight, but due to the way NERA increases the protection for a given thickness of metal, and because the armor is mostly air anyway, surely it would be more efficient overall to use fewer layers of staballoy than more layers of steel NERA. Again, presumably the main everyone uses steel is simply to keep the costs down. Or am I just completely wrong?

 

Also, another question; there was another post showing how some NERA systems have kevlar embedded in them, between the rubber and steel layers, with claims of up to 60% increased protection compared to regular NERA. How exactly does kevlar increase the efficiency of NERA so dramatically?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shakie said:

Hi everyone,

 

This is my first post, but I've been lurking for quite a while. I was just wondering what the best materials are for making NERA out of, disregarding the costs? It seems to me that for the middle, reactive layer, you need to consider both how quickly it expands when struck, and also how much it expands (i.e. maximise the expanded volume:unexpanded volume ratio). I have no idea what the best material for this is, I assume the fact that's its usually rubber is simply to keep the costs down.

 

Because the purpose of NERA is to both force more of the expanding metal plates into the path of the KEP/HEAT jet, and to snap it in half, it stands to reason the best material for said plates would be something hard and dense; staballoy for example. It increases the weight, but due to the way NERA increases the protection for a given thickness of metal, and because the armor is mostly air anyway, surely it would be more efficient overall to use fewer layers of staballoy than more layers of steel NERA. Again, presumably the main everyone uses steel is simply to keep the costs down. Or am I just completely wrong?

 

Also, another question; there was another post showing how some NERA systems have kevlar embedded in them, between the rubber and steel layers, with claims of up to 60% increased protection compared to regular NERA. How exactly does kevlar increase the efficiency of NERA so dramatically?

 

Welcome to SH Shakie!

1)  I think @Bronezhilet had some papers on testing different materials in NERA arrays.  It looked like most of the materials were organic polymers, so rubber is probably not far off the mark ever if it isn't 100% ideal.  To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what's going on when the interlayers in NERA vaporize.  I'm not sure if it's just dissociating under the energy, or whether it's actually undergoing some sort of exothermic reaction like the fluorocarbon/metal mixtures in reactive shaped charge liners are.  I know that there have been experiments with doping the rubber layers in NERA with a bit of high explosive to give it some more kick.  In the experiment I saw, it didn't work particularly well.

 

2)  I believe that the heavy ERA designed specifically to counter KEPs is designed to snap the projectile.  Other reactive armors don't necessarily work the same way.  I've seen papers on ERA with low-density ceramic and polymer flyer plates, and it apparently works as well as steel on a weight basis.  Look up "The Defeat of Shaped Charge Jets by Explosively Driven Ceramic and Glass Plates" by Paul Hazell if you have access to journals and you're curious.  That said, there may be some use of heavier materials in reactive armor arrays.  @SH_MM is of the opinion that the depleted uranium in the Abrams' armor is incorporated into some sort of NERA, although I personally suspect otherwise.

3)  I was actually under the impression that the kevlar was providing energy for the movement of the metal plates, but I would have to double-check because I am not sure.  Aramids have very strong chemical bonds, and if those bonds were to come apart under the energy provided by an incoming penetrator, they should provide lots of energy for the plates.

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

 

Welcome to SH Shakie!

1)  I think @Bronezhilet had some papers on testing different materials in NERA arrays.  It looked like most of the materials were organic polymers, so rubber is probably not far off the mark ever if it isn't 100% ideal.  To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what's going on when the interlayers in NERA vaporize.  I'm not sure if it's just dissociating under the energy, or whether it's actually undergoing some sort of exothermic reaction like the fluorocarbon/metal mixtures in reactive shaped charge liners are.  I know that there have been experiments with doping the rubber layers in NERA with a bit of high explosive to give it some more kick.  In the experiment I saw, it didn't work particularly well.

 

2)  I believe that the heavy ERA designed specifically to counter KEPs is designed to snap the projectile.  Other reactive armors don't necessarily work the same way.  I've seen papers on ERA with low-density ceramic and polymer flyer plates, and it apparently works as well as steel on a weight basis.  Look up "The Defeat of Shaped Charge Jets by Explosively Driven Ceramic and Glass Plates" by Paul Hazell if you have access to journals and you're curious.  That said, there may be some use of heavier materials in reactive armor arrays.  @SH_MM is of the opinion that the depleted uranium in the Abrams' armor is incorporated into some sort of NERA, although I personally suspect otherwise.

3)  I was actually under the impression that the kevlar was providing energy for the movement of the metal plates, but I would have to double-check because I am not sure.  Aramids have very strong chemical bonds, and if those bonds were to come apart under the energy provided by an incoming penetrator, they should provide lots of energy for the plates.

 

I see. I was under the impression that NERA worked basically the same way as ERA; just with less energy and multi-hit capability. I thought that was why there had to be air gaps between NERA sandwiches, so that the metal plates have something to expand into, rather than getting squashed against each other.

 

Also, I'm not sure if there's a separate thread for this, but here's my first (not to scale) attempt at armour design, I would appreciate it if someone would critique it. First, you have ceramic tiles encased in staballoy (the green/black layer) to break up the incoming projectile. Next there's the NERA (dark grey/brown layers), with rubber sandwiched between HHS plates and kevlar layers. Note that some of them are parallel to the first layer, while others are perpendicular; this is to put any incoming projectiles under as much stress/strain as possible. Then at the very back there's an air gap followed by a slab of Ti-6Al-4V to catch any remaining fragments. Finally, this whole arrangement, which is 400mm thick total, would be arranged in multiple layers to defeat multi-segment KEPs. For example, 3 identical such armour arrays could be arranged back-to-back, for 1200mm thick armour in total, and can defeat 3-segment KEPs. This would also keep production costs down since each layer is identical. Something similar could be used for the turret as well, though you'd have to arrange it carefully to manage the sheer bulkiness. I also haven't worked out how heavy it is.

 

3FfRjyD.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 10:16 AM, Shakie said:

 

I see. I was under the impression that NERA worked basically the same way as ERA; just with less energy and multi-hit capability. I thought that was why there had to be air gaps between NERA sandwiches, so that the metal plates have something to expand into, rather than getting squashed against each other.

 

My understanding is also that NERA basically works like a LOW ENERGY AND SAD version of ERA, only the energy is provided from the vaporization of the rubber interlayers caused by the incoming projectile rather than the detonation of an explosive.  Like I said, I'm fuzzy on whether the vaporization of the interlayer is exothermic or not.

That said, most ERA does not appear to work by damaging the incoming threat.  My understanding is that only heavy K5 style ERA works that way.  Most ERA works by feeding steel into the path of the threat.  A shaped charge jet erodes, and gets shorter as it penetrates a target, so by feeding metal obliquely into a jet the ERA essentially "uses up" the jet.

 

There's (a lot) more to it than that, but I think that's an accurate Cliff Notes version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Since this thread is more or less our general armor thread:

 

http://www.opex360.com/2017/12/17/pme-francaise-a-mis-point-blindage-plus-resistant-et-deux-plus-leger/

 

B4C ceramic claimed to have 20% more hardness than the typical B4C while being twice as light.

 

To achieve that they start with a nano powder of B4C and to keep the grain at a nano scale they use a flash sintering process (Pulsed current in a high pressure environment) claimed to be 20 times faster than usual process (so the grain don't have time to grow I guess).

 

No idea about the maximum size and the shape of the finished product.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Since this thread is more or less our general armor thread:

 

http://www.opex360.com/2017/12/17/pme-francaise-a-mis-point-blindage-plus-resistant-et-deux-plus-leger/

 

B4C ceramic claimed to have 20% more hardness than the typical B4C while being twice as light.

 

To achieve that they start with a nano powder of B4C and to keep the grain at a nano scale they use a flash sintering process (Pulsed current in a high pressure environment) claimed to be 20 times faster than usual process (so the grain don't have time to grow I guess).

 

No idea about the maximum size and the shape of the finished product.

 

I didn't think anyone actually used B4C in tank armour due to its cost? I thought they only used it to absorb neutrons in the event of a nuclear detonation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shakie said:

 

I didn't think anyone actually used B4C in tank armour due to its cost? I thought they only used it to absorb neutrons in the event of a nuclear detonation.

I don't have any example on top of my head, but I think that it is used in both body armor and armored vehicles.

It's true that Boron is great neutron absorber too and that B4C is one of the material we think we'll use in gen IV fast reactors.

But still it's amongst the hardest material known to man so it's use for armor plating is obvious.

The only problem is that it is quite brittle so it has to be encased in small compartment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Hey guys,
I could use a little reminder after my memory let me down in a chat yesterday. I think that I`ve see a document...or a post here, which stated, that the difference between DU and WC longrods on actual armor is smaller than a RHA comparission might suggest because of the difference between penetration a semi-infinite block of RHA and NERA...adiabatic shear and such. And since my google-fu let`s me down I`m not shure if my memory plays tricks on me.

thank you in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently they've been looking into composite metal foam (CMF), which is a spongy form of metal that offers increased resistance to heat and fragments, at a mere fraction of the weight of its RHA equivalent. Which would be a boon for IFVs and other lightweight vehicles in search of protection.

 

 

How well does it hold up against an APFSDS, I wonder.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a20601/metal-foam-stops-bullets/

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the books I have on armor composition, metal foams are very attractive for blast protection, artillery fragments/low velocity impacts, and not so much other things.

 

That said, there are laminates that consist of extremely thin layers of aluminum alternated with high-strength epoxies that improve the resistance of the aluminum to plugging failure (adiabatic shear), which would have some relevance against rifle and HMG type threats.  Conceivably the foam might have similar benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Must Be Spoon Fed
      Hello,
       
      I'm interested in Soviet armor production and deployment. Especially of T-55 tank and its variants. Sadly, most sources touch this subject very generally while I would want to get a more detailed view. How much tanks were produced in which country and at what year. Were Soviets producing armor for themselves or for export. Any source which would go into bit more detail about it is appreciated. I would appreciate if someone could help me find information required about those tanks as so far I can rely only on quite general information. 
    • By SirFlamenco
      I want to calculate the weight required to make an armor that can resist 7.62 RUAG SWISS AP, also known as VPAM level 12. I needed a baseline so I took NIJ Level IV and then tried to find the difference of weight so I could get a percentage. The only plate that's still made for this threat is the TenCate CX-950 IC. This plate is 8.93 lbs for a sapi medium and is alumina in-conjonction with soft armor. I then needed to find a Level IV alumina IC, which I found on UARM's website. It's 7.6 lbs, so if we do 8.93/7.6 we get around 1.175, but I put 1.25 considering UARM's plates are often quite heavy. Now that we have 1.25, we can start applying it to silicon carbide and boron carbide. Denmark's group has a level IV silicon carbide plate at 5.95 lbs, so times 1.25 it gives 7.4375. Hesco's boron carbide IV plate is 5.1 lbs, so times 1.25 we get 6.375.
       
      Now, I wanted to know what was the weight for hardened steel. I took MARS 600, which is one of the best armor steel you can get. Using this page, I can easily calculate that you would need about 19mm to stop it. Using a calculator, we know that a full inch sapi medium plate would weight 33.9 lbs. 19mm/25.4mm = 0.748 inch so if we do 0.748*33.9 we get 25.3572 lbs. 
       
      The problem is obvious : How is boron carbide 4 times as light as steel? Silicon carbide is 3.4 times as light too? It doesn't make any sense, giving that they are both around 2.2 ME and hardened steel is 1.3 ME, so it should be around 1.7 times heavier for steel. What did I get wrong? 
    • By Gripen287
      Do you like pontificating on the infantryman's load? Want to see how different gear choices affect said load?  If so, check out this spreadsheet including an itemized list of "best of breed" (IMHO) gear! Download it and customize to suit your own preferred equipment.  The "Configured Totals" section should auto-calculate weights and ammunition totals for your selected items, and you can copy and paste "Configured Totals" values into the light and heavy load sections for comparison. 
       
      I've tried to provide a fairly comprehensive list of gear for the rifle squad and machine gun teams.  A few items are notional, and those should be noted as such. I've also tried to balance both lightness and capability.  I, however, mostly intend this spreadsheet to serve as an outline and handy way to calculate total values for any items you choose to add or change.
       
      While I'm sure there are a more than a few errors, this spreadsheet is merely intended as a starting point for your own explorations, and I am NOT likely to maintain this particular version. Enjoy!
       
      Infantry Packlist Spreadsheet
    • By Indigo
      Hey y'all, long time no see. I Thought I understood the premise of perforated armor, but earlier today I realized I probably don't. I thought perforated armor was just supposed to damage/decelerate a projectile as it passed through, but then I realized that I thought that's what spaced armor is for, so what's the difference. I also realized I may not really know what perforated armor is at all. I realized that I simultaneously associate two fairly different images with perforated armor.

       
      I imagine this as just breaking small projectiles as they hit it. But then there's this

      which appears to have slots all throughout it, which is more of what I think of when I think of something being perforated, but this doesn't look like it really serves the same purpose, nor do I have any idea what purpose this does serve now that I think about it. So what am I missing about perforated armor(and whatever one of these things is if not perforated armor)?

×
×
  • Create New...