Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Well known APC Rosomak in Afgan. version armour:

 

aLMMPEK.png

 

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:

 

Iy506vz.jpg

 

2AexCpl.jpg

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

not sure about LAV25 having 36 deg(only about angle)   this is basic armour structure, without any addons

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/os

Most NATO-member-made AFVs, especially for marketing, are made to meet a certain protection level described in STANAG 4569. It basically saves the vehicle manufacturers some of the time and money it t

Serial (not uparmoured Rosomak) after RPG hit in hull side:

XD5Cb77.png

No KIA, suprise but no WIA too...

 

And serial APC Rosomak side hull armour:

 

OyzgmCO.png

 

slopped at 9@

Armour compositon from external side: 10mm Armox 500T plate+ air gap 75mm + 10mm Armox 500T plate + 8mm Armox 500T plate

 

Later in Afganistan almoust all Rosomak was uparmoured whit Mikanit armour for front hull and turret sides and whit RPG-net for hull sides. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

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. 

 

 

What is the theory of how this armor is supposed to protect?

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

What is the theory of how this armor is supposed to protect?

 

It's probably simply NERA/NxRA. The composite might be something like Dyneema or another elastic liner material, which offfers better performance than rubber in one or the other way (lower density, higher bulging, doesn't get hard and losses its elasticity over the years). At the first moment 15 mm interlayer might look thick, but Dr. Manfred Held tested 20 mm thick Dyneema panels sandwiched between two 5 mm steel plates.

 

The high protection level is achieved by the slope. I don't know what this impact angle exactly is, but the frontal slope of the Patria AMV's upper front plate is less than 20° from the horizontal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@UP

Yep, propably You have right.

 

Old Cenrex page:

http://cenrex.home.pl/polska/index.php/oslony-balistyczne/52-dopancerzenie

 

Give us a little details:

 

HhyGGQY.png

 

 

 

 

Osłona przedziału kierowcy (Aditiona Driver comparment armor)

  • 130 mm grubości (thickens)
  • 1.3 m² (area)
  • śr. waga 340 kg (1,3m²) (weight)
  • osłona: protection
    • level IV STANAG
    • RPG (głowica PG-7V)
  • odpowiednik 330mm RHA (only for armour module not hull included)
  • brak penetracji kadłuba właściwego (no penetration main armour)
  • pozwala zrezygnować z osłony siatkowej (could be RPGnet  withdrawn)
  • nie przesłania widoku kierowcy (good driver field of view)
  • odporna na zniszczenia
  • łatwa wymiana w warunkach polowych
  • kompozytowa – nie ceramiczna composite - NOT ceramics
  • odporna na  wiele trafień (multihit capabilities)

 

1evHYdI.png

 

 

RbU2kx4.png

 

PvGhtD9.png

 

 

 

Turret armour/ hull sides armour:

  • 40mm grubości (thickness)
  • 82 kg/m²
  • osłona: Level IV STANAG (14,5mm API)      
  • dodatkowa osłona montowana na pancerzu wieżyczki LEVEL II
  • przeciwdziała zniszczeniu wieżyczki
  • odporna na zniszczenia
  • łatwa wymiana w warunkach polowych
  • kompozytowa – ceramika, szkło, aluminium, aramid composite - cermics, glass, aluminium, aramid
  • odporna na  wiele trafień (multihit capabilities)
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

It's probably simply NERA/NxRA. The composite might be something like Dyneema or another elastic liner material, which offfers better performance than rubber in one or the other way (lower density, higher bulging, doesn't get hard and losses its elasticity over the years). At the first moment 15 mm interlayer might look thick, but Dr. Manfred Held tested 20 mm thick Dyneema panels sandwiched between two 5 mm steel plates.

  

The high protection level is achieved by the slope. I don't know what this impact angle exactly is, but the frontal slope of the Patria AMV's upper front plate is less than 20° from the horizontal.

 

 

I could understand the concept behind the outer two layers.  Ricochet angle is partially a function of armor hardness, so having 2mm of HHS, an air gap and then another 7mm of HHS is probably an extremely effective configuration against HMG fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of completeness, here are some details about the CV90's armor:

 

Basic steel structure, armor of UDES 09 and Strf 90 armor:

 

 

 


BL7jFBA.jpgNyvUQM3.jpg

fyEi0wF.jpg
 

 

 

xalTTaZ.jpg

 

 

 


vT7kh14.jpgBewygal.png

txnSnr2.jpg

kT5PgPe.jpg

Df8a2hO.jpg

That's a Mk III hull IIRC
 

 

Never purchased MEXAS kit for the Strf 90 (a similiar kit was bought by Finland, Norway and Switzerland):

QLgk0Ln.jpg

 

On the Swiss Schützenpanzer 2000 (CV9030 Mk II), the MEXAS armor panels have a maximum thickness of 70 mm.

 

Armor measurements on the CV9035NL without add-on armor done by @Bronezhilet

 

 


abnQDIZ.jpggphbItf.jpg2NkMFtg.jpg3yyDFsu.jpgyJYBFIZ.jpg
 

 

 

CV9035 turret during production:

fv57MRj.jpg

(this seems to be just 20-30 mm thick steel, but it is often fitted with composite armor on top of that)

 

CV9035NL engine bay:

N5dhTot.jpg

 

CV9035NL add-on armor (SidePRO, RoofPRO and MinePRO from RUAG):

 

 


c5bAXd3.jpg

0rSTTxE.jpg

5pWqq58.jpg

qNmF82Q.jpg

 

BGtwAJM.jpg7VHPVMq.jpg

6p2w5SC.jpg
 

 

 

RoofPRO composition (thickness might be different depending on application):

ZJ1SMQf.jpg

 

Might post something regarding ASCOD, Boxer, Puma, BMP, etc. over the next days...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pictures of BMP-2FIN hull add-on armor: https://imgur.com/a/28O2hBE

And some pictures of CV9030FIN side-skirt: https://imgur.com/a/O5dvZhU

 

By the way, given the armor of modern IFV´s are guns like 35mm oerlikon capable of engaging them from the front or are they limited to side engagements? Same for engaging tanks, are Autocannons usefull for  engaging tanks from the side?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Some pictures of BMP-2FIN hull add-on armor: https://imgur.com/a/28O2hBE

And some pictures of CV9030FIN side-skirt: https://imgur.com/a/O5dvZhU

 

By the way, given the armor of modern IFV´s are guns like 35mm oerlikon capable of engaging them from the front or are they limited to side engagements? Same for engaging tanks, are Autocannons usefull for  engaging tanks from the side?

 

Most NATO-member-made AFVs, especially for marketing, are made to meet a certain protection level described in STANAG 4569. It basically saves the vehicle manufacturers some of the time and money it takes to determine how much protection is required and where. 

So you will usually see designs that are made strictly to meet certain levels. The norm is level 6 on the front and level 4 on sides, plus level 4a/b vs mines as armor technology allows more weight savings. 

But some vehicles do deviate from these standards if the manufacturers are tasked with a requirement above NATO's. The Puma is one example of a vehicle that, as I understand, is marketed with a level 6 protection but can actually go somewhat higher, perhaps even 35mm at short range. Lynx KF41 almost definitely surpasses the STANAG 4569 levels in some areas, in its 50+ ton version.

 

Many MBTs are capable of shrugging off 35mm shells. I believe all can do so on the turret, while on the hull it would take for most tanks an applique if the tank isn't angled.

Leclercs and Leopards were built and sold with passive or the so-called semi-reactive armor that can both take such hits and survive consecutive strikes. Merkava tanks are built since early versions with high protection to the sides, and Abrams tanks pack multi-layered ERA on the sides that is capable of defeating such shells, at the cost of survivability of the armor.

Ariete is an odd one. On one hand, I remember reading it uses large chunks of RAFAEL's ERA, but I don't know how much of the applique is ERA, or whether I read it wrong and it's passive/semi-reactive armor and not ERA. Either way, count it in as a tank that can at least take a couple shots of 35mm.

T-14 seems to be packing a lot of passive and ERA on the sides, so the chances may not be all too great even after you pass the ERA, as the side skirts may have some passive armor behind the ERA plates.

 

So overall, you wouldn't gain much from shooting volleys of 35mm at the sides of modern MBTs.

But what is 99% sure is that no IFV will ever engage an MBT with such a cannon unless it was caught off guard and managed to spot the MBT first but knowing it cannot retreat.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Some pictures of BMP-2FIN hull add-on armor: https://imgur.com/a/28O2hBE

 

Sorry but polish manufacurer this armour is fucken angry about those photo in net. Can You erase it before polish Lubawa SA will contackt your local gestapo? :)

Regards,

J.

 

ps. anyway the problem is about your MoD not polish manufacurer, but still - this photos made some peoples mad

 

 

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

Well, as they are on imgur i cannot remove them, the offended party should contact imgur staff to remove the image gallery.

Ok, it's not my problem to be honest.  As  I know finish MoD want's to not public armor photos before whole delivery will be ended but somebody on finish exibition day just make photos ant put it in to net. And now is hot phone between factory and MoD who put this in public. Even funny, but for example in Poland posting this photos can be very problemfull, despite fact that they are "somwehere" on the net.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

looks stange. if aramid/fiberglass for upper engine deck - heat(IR signature) and antispall protection it's ok, but lower hull front is it same plate or steel ? and if so why hull side(lower part) doesn't get any addon armour ?

 

No idea, on polish side (factory) it's totall ban for photos and talks about this armour. What is again nonsense couse there are open public reserchees papers whit simmilar solutions for light APC But OK, no talk at all :D

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...