Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Molota_477

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Molota_477

  1. 1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

    Nice family drawing (same as one of our member's signature, but with names over them this time). Lacking Nota, though.

    581919_original.jpg

    Of course dude, it's drawn by me, I post it about years ago in this thread, I still remember someone informed me that the spelling of its text are wrong :D

  2. 3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

    KE PROTECTION IS OVER ONE THOUSAND!!!

    No idea if it is ture or fake.

     

    BUT, until now this claim by Jia Yuanyou in CCTV is the only opened official source related to 99A's protection.

     

    There is little information about 99's real protection level because its top secret.

     

    When I first heard such info, I also keep skeptic, but now IMO it is possible, according to other information implied by some official publishments (mainly China Ordnance Society), there might be some type of integrated ERA under the face plate of 99's modular composite armor(So there are 2 layers of heavy ERA if taking account the hinged ERA tiles), which can drastically increase the KE protection level..

  3. 59 minutes ago, Liberator said:

    540 mm Hull and turret or only turret? And what CE protection MBT-80?

     

    Both hull(full protection, including front arc of 50°) and turret at 69 metric tonnes.

    While combat weight at 64 tonnes——fully protected turret + hull protection without enough side armor(only front glacis).

     

    The number of 540mm actually meams a specific KE threat which could penetrate up to 540mm RHA at 1km range(It was assumed as Soviet DU APFSDS M1980). MBT-80's Chobham armour was desired to defeat such threat after some meetings in 1978.

     

    Besides these two heaviest schemes, there are also 2 correspondly intermedial schemes have 480mm protection level, but still too heavy, the full protection scheme weight 65 t, and the "only front protection on hull" version weight 62 t.

     

    Note that all of these schemes are only on paper discussion.

     

    And the level of 430mm RHA actually is the original requirement for MBT-80 before 1978. They thought it can be achieved within MLC60 which the turret is fully protected while the hull only has upper glacis.

     

    As for CE threat, they specified the need of againsting 130mm caliber shape charge(also is front ±25° in azimuth).

     

    That's all I have seen.

  4. On 11/29/2018 at 12:59 AM, SH_MM said:

     

    I don't think that it refers to mass of the special armor. Note that the following document seems to list the MBT-80 with "430 mm+" protection, while also listing the effective hull armor thickness of Centurion and Leopard 1 (implying that the figures for the other tanks might also be hull armor).

     

    pasted%20image%200%20(4)_a0ca159c91df075

     

    In documents from 1969 and 1970, it is already mentioned that Chobham armor has a mass efficiency of above 1.0, so 430 mm steel-equivalent mass should provide a noteworthy larger amount of armor protection. It also would be odd to mix figures in milimeters with tons (for the applique armor) without even specifying that the milimeters is meant to be steel-equivalent mass.

    Finally I found the document of GSR3572, the data of 480 and 430 only refer to the KE protection, but not the mass equivalent thickness, and there is a heaviest protection level up to 540mm.(But it is so heavy and very hard to offer full protection on hull under MLC70, while MLC60 or 55 tonnes only is a basic model without full protection on hull, note "full protection" means including side protecion within a limited angle. 

  5. 14 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

    steel-equivalent mass

    Yes, I misread it before, so it makes sense that the ''up armour'' Challenger 1's turret can obtain up to 500mm protection against some specific KE rounds while the thickness of steel-equivalent mass only 430mm.I think the same theory also is appropriate for the glacis.

  6. 3 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

     

    I don't know, this is what I have read in another discussion on another website. As I said I don't own the book yet. I might have mistaken the values from a random discussion with a footnote from the book, which says that the Challenger 1 mounted armor providing "equivalent amounts" to 430 mm for the turret and 315 mm for the hull.

    1187995418_Page1.thumb.jpg.8a19c7d83cb87

    "Equivalent amount" might refer to the mass of special armor which mounted on MBT-80 and provide 480mm protection for turret and 430mm for front hull:

    14662_2000.jpg

    Note the endnote"6"

  7. Hi,

    005ZTVhpgy1fx3eoq4d8cj30go0cegmb.jpg

    Do you guys who know what's this equipment mounted on the MSC's turret?

    There is someone claims that it was a surveillance radar and likely the same device also had been mounted on a Leclerc prototype ,  I would like to ask that if it is ture and is there any material related to such devices? 

  8. 11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

    The Brits designed a type of DU armor, where thin depleted uranium plates were used in combation with an interlayer material and probably would have acted as a form of NERA.

    Hi, Yes, I know this patent, and it makes sense that DU material is very likely used in NERA as sandwich's back plate, because its high flow strength.

  9. 1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

     

    These are some very nice illustrations of possible armor arrays, but they certainly do not reflect the actual products. It is interesting that the author supposed that glass is one of the go-to solutions against shaped charges; even in NERA plate arrays (example 5). While glass has proven to be a possible interlayer material for NERA, it isn't particularly effective; so maybe this is deliberate misinformation or did the original Leclerc use glass as part of its armor?

     

    As you can read in the article, these are only illustrations of different armor technologies and concepts, not actual armor arrays. Example 3 is showcasing the T-80U's turret ERA, but at the same time shows a modular construction (ERA and ceramic armor are a detachable module bolted ontop of the steel-titanium armor). Example 4 shows the external wedge-module of the Leopard 2A5 (simplified with just one NERA layer and incorrect mounting mechanism) in combination with base armor optimized for protectiton against KEPs. Example 5 shows a fully modular armor array (a concept used on the Leclerc and Merkava 3 & 4), but at the same time is used to showcase DU armor, which both of these tanks seem to lack, while the Abrams doesn't have fully modular armor. These are interesting illustrations, but rather show concepts of armor design, they certainly do not reflect actual tank armor.

    Yes, I do know these diagrams just simply illustrate some concepts, each color block just stands for an armor type which may have more complex details in real design.

    I am very curious about the sequence of these armor material inserts, especailly the DU package in example 5 was place in the front as a face plate which I suppose it won't offer so much protection from shape charge or KE round in such small oblique, but there is little open research related to the ballistic performance of DU plates, so maybe it is a possible solution.

×
×
  • Create New...