Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

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

Yes, but which generation? I am well out of the loop nowadays, but I know of at least four generations of armour modules that I have climbed over. Remember, with fully modular armour arrays on the Merkava, they are changed at much more frequent intervals than most other modern MBTs. Given the IDF's somewhat limited resources, the modules are changed in small batches, but the technology of the modules is cutting edge; ahead of most to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

I suspect that NERA is used in those "composite" modules

 DGCb6ex.jpg

 

Super%2B60%2Barmor%2Bresized.jpg

 

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1234&p=5#p631978

I wish I knew more about the armor modules on the Super 60.  I asked my Dad about it once since he worked at Teledyne in that period.  All he said was that the armor was done by a subcontractor and he didn't know any specifics about it.  This makes sense since Teledyne Continental was an engine company, not an armor maker.  

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

Generally in older NERA armour packed "the main defender" is moving thiner back plate in eacht one NERA packed - in case T-72B it is those 3mm thick steel plate. During hit energy is transfering by rubber layer form front plate (21mm thick) to those 3mm thin metal plate. Ant this plate bulging and move is disturbing SC jet or bent "long rod". In mucht modern NxRA system the armour packed layout is diffrent - ussaly two thin (3-8mm) plates and thicker interlayer whit some "energetic" material. In sucht armour BOTH thin metal plates are moving - first backplate and as second - prontplate. So tehre is 2x more "moving and bulging  plates" then in older NERA armour.

 

Older one's type exmaple:

 

T-72B (Ob.184) armour:

https://zapodaj.net/images/386cbcc588bf1.bmp

 

jvAoVeX.png

 

T-55 Haji armour (on T-55 ENIGMA)

https://zapodaj.net/images/5f06c3f7eadd7.png

HtWP9Ak.jpg

 

 

 

And mucht more modern solution on Merkawa Mk.3D Dor Dalet - typical NxRA (both metal layer are moving):

https://zapodaj.net/images/6cda17836100e.jpg

 

i7fS3iH.jpg

 

 

 

EDIT - why I can't ad some photos? o.O

EDIT2 - hosting on imigur help a lot

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has probably been asked and answered before, but what is the approximate density of a NERA array?

 

I'm trying to use the tank design excel that Sturgeon provided, and it improbably gives a density of 8.74g/cm

 

I would split the difference between rubber and steel for a start, so about 4.5 g/cm^3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at militarysta's post, it seems like a better estimate for NERA is something like 24mm steel + 6mm rubber + 22mm air. This gives a density of something like 3.75g/cm^3 if we use a rubber density of 1.1g/cm^3. So the total armour box probably clocks in just under 4g/cm^3.

 

Edit: the tank design spreadsheet is also very weird about NERA efficiency (0.44 vs KE and 0.34 vs HEAT). This means that, according to the calculator, you'd have to be a complete piker to actually use NERA for anything. Seeing as this is manifestly not the case, my guess is that the efficiencies quoted are bullshit.

 

Do we have any idea as to the real values?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at militarysta's post, it seems like a better estimate for NERA is something like 24mm steel + 6mm rubber + 22mm air. This gives a density of something like 3.75g/cm^3 if we use a rubber density of 1.1g/cm^3. So the total armour box probably clocks in just under 4g/cm^3.

 

Edit: the tank design spreadsheet is also very weird about NERA efficiency (0.44 vs KE and 0.34 vs HEAT). This means that, according to the calculator, you'd have to be a complete piker to actually use NERA for anything. Seeing as this is manifestly not the case, my guess is that the efficiencies quoted are bullshit.

 

Do we have any idea as to the real values?

 

That is bizarre.  Even dividing by the density relative to steel it still sucks on a mass basis.  Could the number be expressed as a reciprocal or something?  Most armor arrays are better vs HEAT than KE.

 

This site gives Burlington a mass efficiency of 3 vs shaped charges and 1.5 against KE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is bizarre.  Even dividing by the density relative to steel it still sucks on a mass basis.  Could the number be expressed as a reciprocal or something?  Most armor arrays are better vs HEAT than KE.

 

This site gives Burlington a mass efficiency of 3 vs shaped charges and 1.5 against KE.

No, I checked out the values and the only thing better than plain old steel, according to the calculator, is triple-hardness steel. I think whoever made it either fucked something up or has a massive boner for the return of the King Tiger.

 

I'll plug in the proper values manually (thanks btw!) and run on that basis. 

 

Edit: having gone through the lookup table a bit, my best guess is that the author hates NERA for some reason. Some representative values for comparison (KE/HEAT):

  • 97% alumina (0.97/1.5)
  • 5083 Aluminium (0.43/0.7)
  • Chobham (0.71/1.17)
  • DU (1.5/1.5)
  • Konkat-5 (4.29/8.57)
  • plexiglass (0.4/0.7)
  • Steltextolite (0.41/0.7)
  • plain rubber (0.1/0.34)
  • Titanium-6Al-4V (0.86/0.61)
  • water 0.15/0.45)

So according to this thing it would be better to use anything, including raw rubber, than NERA in an armour array. Guess the tank designers of the world must be on crack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I grabbed the values from the worksheet after making a new set for NERA and compared the results in terms of average effectiveness/density. Here are the results after sorting:

  • air
  • Konkat-5
  • Relickt
  • NERA (new values)
  • Plexiglass
  • Fused silica
  • Chobham
  • Ceramics-alumina
  • various flavours of alumina
  • Steltexolite
  • Water
  • 85% alumina
  • Aluminum 2519-T87
  • Triple hardness steel
  • various flavours of steel, aluminium alloy or titanium alloy
  • mild steel
  • rubber
  • WHA
  • Depleted uranium
  • lead
  • NERA (original values)

Edit: the author just has a hate-boner for NERA and DU, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the only thing that's showing as better than RHA is triple hardness then those are probably thickness efficiency figures, not mass efficiency figures.

 

They're still wrong, but that's at least part of what's going on.

Ah, you are correct!

 

The values are labelled TE (KE/HEAT)...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No values

averaging it out and dividing by density just produces a relative scale, so no values are really needed unless you're looking for order-of-magnitude differences.

 

In any case:

 

 

Armor Type density (Ave TE/density)

Air - 100

 

Konkat-5 4S22 ERA - 1.05

Relikt 4S23 ERA - 0.96

NERA-Rubber (new values) - 0.60

Plexiglass - 0.49

Fused Sicila - 0.45

Chobham - 0.42

Ceramics-Alumina - 0.41

AD-90 (90% Alumina) - 0.33

AD-97 (97% Alumina) - 0.33

AD-92 (92% Alumina) - 0.32

Steltexolite - 0.32

Water - 0.3

AD-85 (85% Alumina) - 0.27

Aluminum 2519-T87 (MIL-DTL-46192 (MR)) - 0.20

RHA - Triple Hardness - 0.20

Aluminum AL-7039 (MIL-DTL-46063H) - 0.19

RHA - Russian-hardened - 0.17

RHA - High Hardness - 0.17

Aluminum 5083 (MIL-A-46026) Perforated - 0.17

Titanium-6Al-4V (MIL-A-46077) - 0.16

Titanium-6Al-4V (MIL-A-46077) - 0.15

RHA - Semi-Hardened - 0.15

RHA - Thin - 0.14

Aluminum 5083 (MIL-A-46026) Honeycombed - 0.14

RHA - American - 0.14

RHA - Russian-welded (WW2) - 0.13

RHA-Rolled - 0.13

Aluminum 5083 (MIL-A-46026) - 0.12

RHA-Perforated - 0.12

RHA - Cast - 0.12

Mild Steel - 0.11

Rubber (Some kind) - 0.10

 

WHA (HM1100) - 0.08

WHA (90% W) - 0.08

Depleted Uranium - 0.08

Lead - 0.07

NERA-Rubber (original values) - 0.04

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the triple, here are the values scaled to RHA:

 

 

Armor Type Average relative to RHA

Air 785.00

Konkat-5 4S22 ERA 8.25

Relikt 4S23 ERA 7.53

NERA-Rubber (new values) 4.71

Plexiglass 3.85

Fused Sicila 3.56

Chobham 3.32

Ceramics-Alumina 3.18

AD-90 (90% Alumina) 2.62

AD-97 (97% Alumina) 2.55

AD-92 (92% Alumina) 2.49

Steltexolite 2.48

Water 2.36

AD-85 (85% Alumina) 2.12

Aluminum 2519-T87 (MIL-DTL-46192 (MR)) 1.59

RHA - Triple Hardness 1.56

Aluminum AL-7039 (MIL-DTL-46063H) 1.48

RHA - Russian-hardened 1.32

RHA - High Hardness 1.32

Aluminum 5083 (MIL-A-46026) Perforated 1.31

Titanium-6Al-4V (MIL-A-46077) 1.28

Titanium-6Al-4V (MIL-A-46077) Perforated 1.21

RHA - Semi-Hardened 1.17

RHA - Thin 1.12

Aluminum 5083 (MIL-A-46026) Honeycombed 1.12

RHA - American 1.10

RHA - Russian-welded (WW2) 1.02

RHA-Rolled 1.00

Aluminum 5083 (MIL-A-46026) 0.97

RHA-Perforated 0.92

RHA - Cast 0.91

Mild Steel 0.90

Rubber (Some kind) 0.75

WHA (HM1100) 0.66

WHA (90% W) 0.66

Depleted Uranium 0.63

Lead 0.52

NERA-Rubber (original values) 0.35

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edit: the tank design spreadsheet is also very weird about NERA efficiency (0.44 vs KE and 0.34 vs HEAT). This means that, according to the calculator, you'd have to be a complete piker to actually use NERA for anything. Seeing as this is manifestly not the case, my guess is that the efficiencies quoted are bullshit.

 

Do we have any idea as to the real values?

 

Yes, I have a some "hard data" :-)

 

Polish very very primitive NERA for BRDM-2 upgrade, it was study project:

 

yd73zzX.jpg

bs2gMXR.jpg

XO2isod.jpg

ORCBucE.jpg

 

Offcial statment after tests:

 

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.

 

 

And second:

NERA layout effectivnes for diffrent energetic material in "bulging plates":

 

ynX0A19.jpg

 

303KOiv.png

 

 

 

if You want I can post more resercht like this above.

More or less - typicle SINGLE NERA layer vs typical (copper cone, RDX melt) SC warhed will give circa 22% penetration reduction.  In case other then rubber material - wy have circa 27% reduction for rather NxRA material then pure NERA. Not very impressive?

Vell, in modern tank we have a lot NERA layers:

 

IZwhWjn.jpg

 

6vMIZdo.jpg

 

(my model of known M1A1HA side armour...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, as exmaples german NXRA and NERA tests and...NxRA armour on Leo-2A5/A6(famous "wedges" on Leo-2A5)

 

X3VlqOm.jpg

 

qdc1SCw.png

btw: You can find those PFD by using title in google :-) Enjoy!

 

 

Soviet ERA and German double NERA:

nrcWF43.jpg

 

ps. and check this:

https://zapodaj.net/images/47b609390faa3.bmp

and find pfd via google - agin - Enjoy, it very good pdf :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has probably been asked and answered before, but what is the approximate density of a NERA array?

 

I'm trying to use the tank design excel that Sturgeon provided, and it improbably gives a density of 8.74g/cm

His values for ERA are fucked as well. He has 6.12 g/cm³ for Kontakt-5.

 

It's actually ~3.05 g/cm³.

 

 

...it looks like he just multiplied the weight of a single Kontakt-5 sandwich by two, because you know, 2 sandwiches per block. ...THAT'S NOT HOW THAT WORKS, THAT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS.

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...