Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone,

 

I was wondering, does anyone know of this mystery steel system called "triple hardness steel" ? I was trying to find information on it like layout and hardness (BHN or VHN) but i could not find anything concrete on it anywhere. Although it gets mentioned in the AFV community fairly regularly, I can not find it anywhere. If anyone knows, please share it. Thanks in advance !

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Triple hardness steel and dual hardness steel is created by rolling multiple steel plates with different properties together in multiple stages.

 

OsghI1Z.png

This requires more stages of rolling (IIRC triple hardness steel requires four), hence it takes much more time to make.

 

I'm not sure why you'd bother rolling it - it would severely limit the amount of hardness you could give the high-hardness plate at the centre of the whole mess. That or you'd be very limited in terms of how thick your overall plate could be in order to achieve proper through-hardness by quenching. Something like 50mm max.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your feedback ! I have talked to three other people familiar with armor and they have never heard of it. I will try  to get to the bottom of this "mystery" steel (system).  I am getting the impression that this might be another case of "AMX-56"  !

Link to post
Share on other sites

One does have to ask the question, what is such a steel sandwich supposed to achieve that a steel-rubber-steel or steel-explodium-steel sandwich won't do better and lighter?

I suspect it was one of many alternative armor technologies that fell by the wayside owing to the absolute performance dominance of reactive armors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DHA and THA was developed in the 1970s/1980s in order to improved TE against KE rounds. Reactive armor is not a suitable alternative in that role.

 

Given that there are standards (e.g. MIL-A-46099C for DHA) for such steel, it is very likely that it has been adopted in some shape or form in certain applications.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

One does have to ask the question, what is such a steel sandwich supposed to achieve that a steel-rubber-steel or steel-explodium-steel sandwich won't do better and lighter?

I suspect it was one of many alternative armor technologies that fell by the wayside owing to the absolute performance dominance of reactive armors.

Yet another victim of the "everything is NERA/ERA issue" :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite likely, yes.

I buy that THS more thickness- efficient, but tanks don't seem to have dimensional constraints as much as they do weight ones. The very wide array of very wide skirt options for tanks seems to suggest that weight efficiency is the more pressing concern.

 

As time goes on we see more and more that pretty much everything is a reactive sandwich of some sort, with the exception of armor solely optimized for dealing with rigid KE penetrators, where ceramics shine in the role of shattering them.

 

Unless the design optimization has very extreme constraints in some places and not others, there's no good reason to not bring your A-game design practices in terms of using the most efficient solution to every part of it, and unless you possess some magic secret sauce nobody else does, chances are the optimizations converge on a local maximum in the design space.

And indeed we see pretty much everyone doing more or less the same thing, with individual flavors varying based on externally set requirements (like extremely low collateral damage ERA for the German Puma).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 1:13 PM, Toxn said:

I'm not sure why you'd bother rolling it - it would severely limit the amount of hardness you could give the high-hardness plate at the centre of the whole mess. That or you'd be very limited in terms of how thick your overall plate could be in order to achieve proper through-hardness by quenching. Something like 50mm max.

 

Rolled metal laminates are less limited in thickness than explosively bonded ones.  On the other hand, explosive bonding (at least if you do it right) has a stronger bond between the layers, and allows the bonding of highly dissimilar metals (like steel and aluminum).

One thing that the designer must be very careful with when making double or triple hardness steel laminates is that the different sorts of steel laminated together have the same martensite start temperature even if they do not have the same final hardness.  The martensitic phase transformation has a small, but extremely rapid volume change (and actually this is why katanas are curved back like that; when the edge transforms into martensite it actually gets slightly more voluminous and bends the entire blade backwards).  If the two plates don't transform simultaneously they can shear apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Quite likely, yes.

I buy that THS more thickness- efficient, but tanks don't seem to have dimensional constraints as much as they do weight ones.


Perhaps they are used in conjunction; DHA/THA and (N)ERA to get the most resistance to all threats at a reasonable volume? Is/would it be cheaper to make these steels than some fancy ceramics? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 9:13 PM, Toxn said:

I'm not sure why you'd bother rolling it - it would severely limit the amount of hardness you could give the high-hardness plate at the centre of the whole mess. That or you'd be very limited in terms of how thick your overall plate could be in order to achieve proper through-hardness by quenching. Something like 50mm max.

 

MIL-A-46099C limits the thickness of DHS to 14mm, meanwhile MIL-DTL-32332A limits it to 16mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lord_James said:


Perhaps they are used in conjunction; DHA/THA and (N)ERA to get the most resistance to all threats at a reasonable volume? Is/would it be cheaper to make these steels than some fancy ceramics? 

 

 

Depending on exactly what grade of steel it is, it may be weldable, or at the very least it could be riveted and used to carry loads.  Even extremely high hardness steel is a much better structural material than any ceramic, which is purely dead weight from a structural standpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know for sure how much better Triple Hardness armor was supposed to be over Dual-Hardness Armor or RHAr?  Janes' Technology of Tanks and Hazell's book put DHA as being equal to 1.7-1.8 it's own thickness in RHA, but aside from uncited numbers posted on various forums I haven't seen anything definite.

 

Also this company apparently has been working with Dual-hardness steel:  https://diamondage.org/advanced-alloys/

 

Not sure they've put anything out (or how much faith to put in their claims) but it at least seems interesting. 

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

Does anyone know for sure how much better Triple Hardness armor was supposed to be over Dual-Hardness Armor or RHAr?  Janes' Technology of Tanks and Hazell's book put DHA as being equal to 1.7-1.8 it's own thickness in RHA, but aside from uncited numbers posted on various forums I haven't seen anything definite.

 

Also this company apparently has been working with Dual-hardness steel:  https://diamondage.org/advanced-alloys/

 

Not sure they've put anything out (or how much faith to put in their claims) but it at least seems interesting. 



I suspect that it's gotten better over the years.  The numbers I've seen in older sources are lower, and the number I've seen in more recent sources are considerably higher.

A while back there was a link to a monolithic high hardness steel that was 2x effectiveness over RHA.  I suspect that anything that hard can't be made in particularly thick sections, and is likely impossible to weld, but it does seem that there has been significant improvement in steel armor technology.

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 Kal
      https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=eispapers1
       
      CE(IIW) 0.745
      versus 12.7 mm APM2, Em of 1.23-1.62
       
       
    • 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 Militarysta
      http://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2020/151/97.pdf
       
      The reduction of the armour system mass was estimated to 32-37%due to the use of the innovative grade of steel.
       

    • 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
×
×
  • Create New...