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

I am more suprised about how much space is occupied by the mounting brackets for the NERA. There are a number of possible armor layouts that don't need such brackets.

 

Perhaps the standoff space is deliberate; e.g. to give the penetrator/jet more room to yaw or break up.

 

Or perhaps the metal elements move quite a bit during penetration and need that room to flex.

 

I would be surprised if that design were actually inefficient and due to incompetence.  On the early Abrams you could maybe suppose that a sub-par armor package was installed because the early Abrams was supposed to be a cheap tank (cheaper than the MBT-70 anyhow).  But as I recall, pictures of damaged Abrams from Iraq still show those giant mounting brackets, and the armor package has been quite comprehensively re-designed at least on the turret (M1A1 turret cheeks overhang the driver's position noticeably more).

 

So I guess that it's deliberate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that a group as insanely knowledgeable as the posters on this forum are still actively debating said features and the motivation and intent behind them really does say a lot about just how much of a leap forward the Burlington and Burlington derived armor packages truly were.

To my mind that alone goes a long way towards justifying the long time even a document like this stayed classified!

I'm sure several of you god damn technological wizards will bang out FEA and other analysis tricks and pin down the true reasoning behind the brackets by at the latest three weeks from now, but that's just because you guys are a fucking critical mass of super geniuses that regularly remind us normal genius types that compared to all y'all we're window licking helmet wearing short bus riders ROFL

seriously you guys are ... Astounding and I love this place even if it regularly reminds me I'm nowhere near as smart as I think I am LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the standoff space is deliberate; e.g. to give the penetrator/jet more room to yaw or break up.

 

Or perhaps the metal elements move quite a bit during penetration and need that room to flex.

 

I would be surprised if that design were actually inefficient and due to incompetence.  On the early Abrams you could maybe suppose that a sub-par armor package was installed because the early Abrams was supposed to be a cheap tank (cheaper than the MBT-70 anyhow).  But as I recall, pictures of damaged Abrams from Iraq still show those giant mounting brackets, and the armor package has been quite comprehensively re-designed at least on the turret (M1A1 turret cheeks overhang the driver's position noticeably more).

 

So I guess that it's deliberate.

 

 

I guess it could be related to the way the NERA array is mounted, allowing easier replacement (repair) of damaged armor modules. I have been wondering (based on the following photograph) if the Abrams' side armor modules are inserted from the side, rather than cutting of the roof as done on the Leopard 2. This might make sense due to the M1's sight systems and hatches overlapping over the weldline of the armor cavity roof.

 

2lw0s5s.jpg

(M1 Abrams turret structures during a upgrade process - note how the side armor of the crew compartment was cut open at the sides)

 

e2994b49d0b60e35bad77813944a5f77.jpg

 

British Burlington armor designs don't feature a mounting bracket or a large empty space betweem the NERA layers and the base armor. Well, there is a slightly larger air gap in front of the base armor, but it's only ~ 2-3 times as large as the spacing between each NERA layer.

2865253585_f79f4cc7e2_b.jpg

 

The air gap in front of the base armor of the US design is 5-6 times as large as the air gaps between the sandwich plates.

 

I haven't seen any photo of a damaged M1 Abrams with such mounting bracket, do you happen to know a link to one?

 

It could be they were leaving room for a better armour array in future. Adding more on the front of the hull affects mobility, whereas a redesigned with bigger NERA boxes only adds to weight

 

I don't think your theory is correct, based on the M1IP and M1A1 requiring new turrets with thicker frontal armor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't seen the armor layout of the turret cheeks, but we have seen the armor layout at 4 different places. The two places where the armor is integrated (hull front and turret bustle side), there is such a mounting bracket. On the two other places, the armor is fitted into modules can easily be detached.

 

I find it hard to assume that the frontal turret armor suddenly follows a completely different layout - in general it should provide (on the oriignal production model) the same level of protection as the turret along the frontal 60° arc. The fact that the hull armor stayed at the same size, while the turret armor thickness increased is related to how armor upgrades distributed more mass to the turret; that still doesn't mean that the function of the mounting bracket was to provide volume for future armor arrays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frontal hull armor and frontal turret armor inserts being different is sort of normal thing for Soviet MBTs like T-64s, T-72s and T-80s.

 

On the earlier tanks, yes. But on the T-80UD and late T-72B/T-90 hull and turret armor follow the same technology, the shape of the inserts was just adapated to the shape of the hull.

 

Aren't the DU inserts in the later M1s only in the turret cheeks?

 

Some sources suggest so, other sources however disagree. There are at least five M1 Abrams tanks with DU armor in the hulls located in the US Army schools - but it seems possible that DU armored hulls were not adopted in US Army service (yet).

 

x0nmoij.png

 

From a document of the US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command Safety Office to the  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2017 at 4:15 AM, Toxn said:

Something that just occurred to me: how much difference does the quality of steel and rubber used make?

 

Because I will die a bit inside if the super secret sauce turns out to be mild steel plate and vulcanised rubber sheet.

 

I suspect that the metal in the NERA package does make a difference.  The latest M1 variants and IIRC latest T-90s are supposed to use titanium in the fancy tryhard frontal composites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a different guess about the DU in the M1A1HA.  The DU has been described both as a "mesh" and as being placed on top of some sort of preexisting composite array.  Also, materials with very high densities have poor ME against CE threats.

Given the above, I think it is most likely that the DU elements are placed in front of the armor array and are designed to work like perforated armor.  Perforated armor schemes work best with materials that have high density, as the greater inertia means the penetrator decelerates more when it collides with them.

The DU in the M1A1HA is also described as being encased in graphite.  This, I suspect, is to protect it from fast neutrons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

I have a different guess about the DU in the M1A1HA.  The DU has been described both as a "mesh" and as being placed on top of some sort of preexisting composite array.  Also, materials with very high densities have poor ME against CE threats.

Given the above, I think it is most likely that the DU elements are placed in front of the armor array and are designed to work like perforated armor.  Perforated armor schemes work best with materials that have high density, as the greater inertia means the penetrator decelerates more when it collides with them.

The DU in the M1A1HA is also described as being encased in graphite.  This, I suspect, is to protect it from fast neutrons.

That... would suck.

Then again, if your neutron flux is enough to cause your armour to be a fission danger then your day has thoroughly gone to shit already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

I suspect that the metal in the NERA package does make a difference.  The latest M1 variants and IIRC latest T-90s are supposed to use titanium in the fancy tryhard frontal composites.

I wonder what titanium gets you over steel, beyond weight?

Is there any word on how well aluminium alloys work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I wonder what titanium gets you over steel, beyond weight?

Is there any word on how well aluminium alloys work?

AFAIK Titanium alloy used in armor provides some advantages over steel besides weight. Some materials to read.

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.titanium.org/resource/resmgr/2005_2009_papers/Gooch_Final_2007.pdf
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.titanium.org/resource/resmgr/2010_2014_papers/GoochWilliam_2010_MilitaryGr.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I wonder what titanium gets you over steel, beyond weight?

Is there any word on how well aluminium alloys work?

I've heard that aluminum alloys suck vs high velocity threats like shaped charge jets and KEPs, but work quite efficiently against low velocity threats like artillery fragments.

 

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

That... would suck.

Then again, if your neutron flux is enough to cause your armour to be a fission danger then your day has thoroughly gone to shit already.

The whole point of neutron bombs is to bring the joy and happiness of fast neutron radiation to people inside of tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

I've heard that aluminum alloys suck vs high velocity threats like shaped charge jets and KEPs, but work quite efficiently against low velocity threats like artillery fragments.

 

The whole point of neutron bombs is to bring the joy and happiness of fast neutron radiation to people inside of tanks.

Graphite won't help much with that.

Better that you get cooked by your armour turning into a makeshift reactor than live long enough to see your skin fall off your necrotic flesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not?  Graphite is a pretty damn good moderator.

DU only fissions appreciably under fast neutron bombardment.  If you can thermalize the little bastards then at least you don't need to worry about your own tank's armor dosing you with gamma rays.

I would agree that you're still having a bad day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen these rumors about "a DU mesh" acting like perforated armor at other places. However it was always either Wikipedia (without mentioning a source) or another website/forum quoting Wikipedia. There seems to be no reputable source describing the DU armor in the Abrams' turret as mesh or perforated plate.

DU supposedly has a higher ME against shaped charges than steel (old source on tank-net, unfortunately Google blocks access due to phishing claims). I have never seen perforated armor against anything larger than HMG bullets. It works well against bullets, but longrod penetrators should behave quite a bit different than those. Probably the tip might break away when impacting a heavy metal perforated armor system, but the majority of the rod might stay intact. Furthermore I wonder if a perforated DU plate would be a feasible option in terms of protection per weight compared to a NERA-based array.

The Leopard 2 is rumored to incorporate tungsten and titanium in it's armor since the 2A4 variant, while the Leclerc according to some books features a "tungsten-titanium non-explosive reactive armour system".

Link to post
Share on other sites

A perforated armor scheme for use against a long rod penetrator wouldn't work quite the same way as perforated armor screens on APCs work.  Those are mainly to stop 12.7mm and 14.5mm AP projectiles, and the defeat mechanism is often by breaking the penetrator in half.

Against a long rod penetrator the mesh would be designed to take advantage of the fact that LRPs yaw into sloped surfaces:

vbBqIT2.jpg

 

Even a very slight angle of attack of the LRP would enormously reduce its sectional density and make it much easier for the rest of the armor array to stop the penetrator.

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...