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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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 Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor?  
       
      I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? 
       
      Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. 
       
      Here are some of the upgrades I read about: 
       
      https://youtu.be/NG89Zh9qQrQ
       
      http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1907.html
    • By Kal
      So it looks flimsy, slightly inclined,  Is this some type of nera?
       
      Using a mesh/slats would've been cheaper just for standoff, so its more than that?
    • By Militarysta
      Well known APC Rosomak in Afgan. version armour:
       

       
      Orginally it was israeli but after that it was produced by polish company "Mikanit":
      http://www.mikanit.com.pl/produkty/oslony-balistyczne.html
       
      Now, we know patent draws and description:
       

       

       
       
      Composition:
      2 mm HHS + air + 6,7 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap + 3,5 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap  + 20 mm aluminium + 5 mm aluminium.
      There is possibility that layout could be 4+3 (composite) and single composite layer can have up to 6mm thick and single HHS layer can have  4mm thickness. Layers can be separate up to 45mm.
       
      Accoding to manufacurer this armour can protect against ATGM and RPG's up to 500mm RHA penetration.
       
      Whole armour is combat proven in Afganistan - there are known some "Rosomak" whit 3x RPG's hits diretly in to this armour - no penetration at all, no engine damage. 
       
       
       
       
       
    • 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?
×
×
  • Create New...