Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

You should pay attention to T-80U armor (at least turret armor) that have "pockets" full of quasi-liquid material. It is one of not many MBTs that have non-NERA armor (at least in turret).

I'm imagining an armour array with what look like chonky water bottles suspended inside it.

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 surmise then that filling spaced armor cavities with fluids (fuel or otherwise) is not worth the trouble, compared with just leaving air between the plates, since it'd cause a rather consequent increase in weight?

I remember (from AW's forum, some time ago) some Soviet tanks having those turret cavities filled with some sand/concrete-like matter. Does it merely absorb shockwaves or slow down KE projectiles, or does it have some sort of abrasive effect on penetrators (whittling it down or simply deforming it) and such?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in many NATO/Western designs, fuel tanks acts as addon armor.

As for T tanks, there were many different armor types, sometimes even used within a single tank production batch.

T-64's had at least 3 or 4 different types of turret armor. Early T-72's use so called "Sand Rods" but this name is a bit misleading. Simply empty cavities in turret front are filled with Kvartz or something similiar.

T72M1opis.png

AFAIK T-80B/BV had similia turret armor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

Are there any known stats about the performance of fluids (either liquids or gasses) against CE/KE? I know the Israelis did some testing a while ago and determined that fuel could actually disrupt HEAT jets somewhat, but I'm curious as to how well it mitigates threats.

There's a Chinese (?) report on fuel armour out there somewhere, lemme see if I can find it again.

 

Edit: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.201500137/full

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

Are there any known stats about the performance of fluids (either liquids or gasses) against CE/KE? I know the Israelis did some testing a while ago and determined that fuel could actually disrupt HEAT jets somewhat, but I'm curious as to how well it mitigates threats.

There are multiple different sources. Nii Stali used to host a general description of armor technology on their old website (before they redesigned it), afaik the T-80U's armor array was claimed to provide 30 to 40% better protection against shaped charges than conventional steel armor. This is the whole (composite) armor array, including the steel parts. It is not sure if this also includes the cast turret structure or only the inserts. The same value was used to describe the effectiveness the bulging plates armor of the T-72B turret.

According to unconfirmed forum posts, there was a study after the Cold War in Germany, which showed that such armor (ploymer filled cells) might be able to reach a mass efficiency of up to 5 vs shaped charges. However I was not able to find any source for these posts.

A Chinese study on composite armor using a sinlge liquid-filled cell was published in the 28th International Symposium on Ballistics (2014). This study tested different liquids (water and five different types of polyether polyol) as part of a five layer armor array (steel - aluminium - liquid - aluminium - steel) against a 56 mm shaped charge. The results show a mass efficiency of up to 2.25 against shaped charges. A multi-layered array using specially developed liquids might reach the mass efficiency of 5 mentioned earlier.

wrzuta1.jpg

B.jpgC.jpg

https://books.google.de/books?id=Gm-6BAAAQBAJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

I surmise then that filling spaced armor cavities with fluids (fuel or otherwise) is not worth the trouble, compared with just leaving air between the plates, since it'd cause a rather consequent increase in weight?

I remember (from AW's forum, some time ago) some Soviet tanks having those turret cavities filled with some sand/concrete-like matter. Does it merely absorb shockwaves or slow down KE projectiles, or does it have some sort of abrasive effect on penetrators (whittling it down or simply deforming it) and such?

Fluids are also incompressible, so they can (with suitable confinement) act as the middle layer of a NERA array.

 

Go look at footage of people shooting sealed containers of water to get an idea of how this might work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Merkava's belly is made up of two rather thick plates in a shallow V configuration with a space in-between. (It can also be fitted with an applique belly plate when the tactical situation determines it).  The space used to hold fuel cells. On the Merkava 3 onwards, the fuel cells were replaced with a simple air-gap. Apparently, although the fuel cells in the belly did offer useful protection against penetration, there was a problem. In the case of an explosion under the tank, the liquid transmitted the shock wave to the crew compartment to a greater extent than was optimum.

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

The hull of the Abrams has gigantic fuel cells surrounding the driver:

Qzbh1hu.png

I have read that in combat the frontal fuel tanks are supposed to be depleted last.

Yep, they act as addon armor, these fuel tanks are placed in their own isolated compartments.

Also I heard that M1A2SEPv3/v4 will receive new type of improved fuel tanks with better protection characteristics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toxn said:

Fluids are also incompressible, so they can (with suitable confinement) act as the middle layer of a NERA array.

 

Go look at footage of people shooting sealed containers of water to get an idea of how this might work.

I suppose the said fluid would work better if it had its own, fully isolated compartement, rather than being used to fill the space armor cavity? (where the angled plate array is) Combining the two types compartments wouldn't necessarily result in higher protection against CE.

 

P.S. Goddamnit, for some reason these days I keep forgetting to type half of my pronouns and definite articles. It's really starting to bug me.

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

Also, you can see from that image that the hull protection on the Abrams, even accounting for the fuel cells, is not spectacular.

This is a flaw shared by many Western MBTs, sadly.

 

edit:  and most Soviet ones, come to think of it.

This drawing is simply inaccurate.

caEgEmo.jpg

Now you can see that protection is actually substantial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Collimatrix said:

Not on the upper glacis it isn't.

It is, it's 50mm at 82-85 degrees (thickness for certain is 50mm however the angle is still disputable, but it's something in between 82 to 85 degrees), so it's effective thickness 359-573mm. It's rather substantial protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your problem, first I never seen a hit in the M1's upper glacis, because it's so small target, second thing is, there is still big chance of a bounce due to angle. You don't like it, well, find a better design... oh wait, there isn't a better 3rd generation designs. So yeah, this is a pointless discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Damian said:

That's your problem, first I never seen a hit in the M1's upper glacis, because it's so small target, second thing is, there is still big chance of a bounce due to angle. You don't like it, well, find a better design... oh wait, there isn't a better 3rd generation designs. So yeah, this is a pointless discussion.

Dear lord, do you have a Creighton Abrams anime body pillow or something?

Get a grip, mate. Discussing armor is literally what this thread is for. Just because your Chobham-waifu's protection isn't as good as the propaganda says doesn't mean you get to take pigeon shits all over threads on my forum.

Suck it up, or get out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

Dear lord, do you have a Creighton Abrams anime body pillow or something?

Get a grip, mate. Discussing armor is literally what this thread is for. Just because your Chobham-waifu's protection isn't as good as the propaganda says doesn't mean you get to take pigeon shits all over threads on my forum.

Suck it up, or get out.

So if it works, I need to get out because it works, and this forum is anti American, or anti West or something right?

Because I didn't said anything offensive, but in the same time I said it works, it actually protects soldiers inside. So, what the point?

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

Object 187 says "hi"

J2W9d4E.jpg

 

The Abrams glacis design was a good idea against early Soviet steel APFSDS that had low sectional density and limited L/D.  But it is not an effective design against high L/D penetrators made of dense materials, which have very little propensity to ricochet:

 

upaC2x8.jpg

Object 187 upper glacis is the same RHA below 100mm thickness... so again what is the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Damian said:

So if it works, I need to get out because it works, and this forum is anti American, or anti West or something right?

Because I didn't said anything offensive, but in the same time I said it works, it actually protects soldiers inside. So, what the point?

Oh no, you did offend us. See, here we don't get offended by nazi memes or unpopular political opinions, we get offended by retard non-contributors coming in here swinging their dicks around and acting like their opinions are all that needs to be said.

Referte aut morimini, bitch. Opinions don't trade. Ya ken?

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...