Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

VertigoEx

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    VertigoEx got a reaction from Lord_James in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    Almost certainly this is the case.
     
    There are no official sources that I can find. There are some who suggest that the IPM1 is BRL-1 but more of it, and the M1A1 is BRL-2.  There are many pictures of M1E1 with what appears to be different weight simulators. Perhaps this is evidence of this.
     
    Not evidence of anything but interesting take.
     
    https://www.quora.com/Does-an-M1-IP-have-the-same-armor-as-a-baseline-M1A1
     
    "No, the Armor on the M1 IP is an advancement of the BRL-1 Burlington Armor on the M1. (mostly just more of it) It was optimized to protect against HEAT warheads.
    The Early M1A1 had a reformulation called BRL-2 which put alot more emphasis on KE protection..."
    From a poster named Glen Girona. A man who claims to be a former Abrams crew member and was a non technical member of the Foreign Technology Assessment Support team FTAS.
    I don't have the complete paper unfortunately. I would assume that the time period referring to  the X-m1 and not M1 is the late 1970s or very early 1980s.  The options available would be M774 or XM833. A M833 fired at a MV of 1600ms (guess of 115mm MV) would pen 390-400mm of RHA at 0-10 degree from vertical  at 1200m this falls to around 360-370mm. It seems reasonable that estimates for the M1 putting the armor around 350-370mm across the frontal arc are accurate and use early monoblock apfsds ammunition as the standard.
     
     
    Not by that much. At APFSDS velocities Titanium alloys are 1.45-1.6 times as effective for a  given mass of RHA. For CE it has a TE of 0.9 at a density 0.6 the weight.
     
    Tankograd also states the material between the titanium allows is comprised of Kevlar or something similar.
     
    There are disadvantages to Ti mostly associated with cost and difficulty manufacturing and welding thick armor plates. Thinner plates fail due to adiabatic shearing unless a ductile backing is used (aluminum for example). 
     
    Perhaps the M1 (BRL-1) use a mixture of HHS and Ti based NERA elements.
  2. Tank You
    VertigoEx got a reaction from Scav in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    I found this and reposted this on the SB forum.
     
    Interested in what others here think..
     
    More insight into assumed threats to early 1980s armor. If it is a threat to a IFV it is a threat to tanks that fight with them.
     
    So the USA experimented with armor arrays similar to the Xm-1 that could defeat 115mm DU ammo across the frontal arc. So at some point the USA was testing BRL-1 or BRL-1 like armor arrays against not use W, but DU ammo. 
     
    Perhaps this is what evolved into BRL-2, or a reformulated version of BRL-1.
     
    IIRC Tankograd has evidence that suggests that  BRL-1 on the M1 uses titanium alloys with or in place of steel in the NERA array.  That would increase the ME, but not the TE against KE rounds no?
     
  3. Tank You
    VertigoEx got a reaction from Clan_Ghost_Bear in Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!   
    I found this and reposted this on the SB forum.
     
    Interested in what others here think..
     
    More insight into assumed threats to early 1980s armor. If it is a threat to a IFV it is a threat to tanks that fight with them.
     
    So the USA experimented with armor arrays similar to the Xm-1 that could defeat 115mm DU ammo across the frontal arc. So at some point the USA was testing BRL-1 or BRL-1 like armor arrays against not use W, but DU ammo. 
     
    Perhaps this is what evolved into BRL-2, or a reformulated version of BRL-1.
     
    IIRC Tankograd has evidence that suggests that  BRL-1 on the M1 uses titanium alloys with or in place of steel in the NERA array.  That would increase the ME, but not the TE against KE rounds no?
     
×
×
  • Create New...