Russian armour development.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Bluewings12 6/7/2008 8:02:42 AM

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/7/2008 8:14:56 AM

Ah ?! Ok ... If it 's the case , does Vasily know which numbers are "wrong" and why he left that page on his site ?

Tanknet is huge , do you have the link where he speaks about it please ? That would gain time ...

Herald , I already gave some Britnell numbers for the steels used by the USA , Germany , Russia , Breat Britain and France as well as some good infos on composites (and which were used and why) .
I 've also been through the list of all the World MBTs and I can' t find a Tank called "Lecluck" , sorry .

Your interpretation was absolute CRAP and you know it. Explain how you interpreted the metallurgy so wrongly.

Explain why I know how a modern armor package works and you don't

Explain your error concerning the mounting of M-1 armor modules and how you got the composition of the Lecluck armor package so WRONG.

Explain why you don't know the first thing about what the Russian s are doing in revising their army tactics.

Explain why industrial diamonds are USELESS as a compoisiton element in an armor package.

Explain where you got that fantasy in the first place.

Explain about density zones, sheer channeling, snapoffs, and the purposes of a void inside a composite armor module.

Explain what the disadvantages of a cylinder matrice are as opposed to a polyhedron matrice.

If you think that someone will post on an open forum the very layout of every Tank , you 're in for a long wait ...

Explain why I can post the research and you can't.

Explain yourself. Justify yourself.

Try, just try..

Herald

Quote Reply

Beryoza BW 6/7/2008 9:10:00 AM

I recall brushing over those posts a couple of years ago so, no, I cannot be very specific I'm afraid!

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 6/7/2008 1:01:06 PM

Thanks anyway , I 'll try to find it .
*****
I enjoy SP (bare the anti-french feeling) and I am now following the wise advice of SYSOPS . It is in fact easy , I only need to answer for the goodness of myself , others and the thread .
I will not answer you Herald , I am sorry .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

FJV Don't know 6/7/2008 1:09:12 PM

This is getting to be a weird thread.

In my opinion forum may not be the ideal place for a whole in dept technical discussion of metallurgy and metal hardness and it's role in tank armor. I say this, because in the What does the US Army need in a next generation machine gun? I've once tried to get the discussion to a more technically indepth level by following a standard design process. This was not a succes, people felt it was "overly limiting" the discussion and propably got very bored with it. Needless to say we never even got to agree on the specs.

The same would happen with an indepth discussion on metallurgy. A lot of people would be left out of the discussion, because materials science isn't exactly widespread among the population. And material science with respect to armor would be even less. In my opinion material science is a specialisation and armor related material science is a smaller specialisation within that specialisation. Also the discussion would be severely limited to thos that actually know materials science.

For this forum I would not go much further than making some vage statements about that the hardness of a material (Higher Brinell number) is only part of the story. That materials with a higher hardness also have more of a tendency to be more brittle, that means that a harder material is more sensitive to impact loads. I guess for armor I would look first at how a material performs under impact tests: "http://ocw.kfupm.edu.sa/user/ME21554/impact%20test.pdf"

It would be my guess *1) that the hardness of a material would be beneficial for deflecting of bullets (glancing bullets), but that the ability of the material to withstand impact tests is beneficial for stopping the bullet when it does not glance. (Leaving out consideration about withstanding heat). Maybe for armor something similar to the Japanese sword would be beneficial, a hard , brittle outer layer, backed up with a though resiliant inner core.

*1) My guess, because I only have a little materials knowledge compared to a materials scientist who only has a little material knowledge with respect to armor compared to a material scientist specialized in that area. And, yes these are only very general statements that may very well be wrong.

PS
Try to be gentlemen, by simply making out your points backed up with facts the other will look sufficiently stupid while while keeping your cool and showing you have class makes the other look like an uncultured barbarian on top of that.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 6/7/2008 2:31:05 PM

FJV , that 's a good post .

""Maybe for armor something similar to the Japanese sword would be beneficial, a hard , brittle outer layer, backed up with a though resiliant inner core.""

There are 2 shools :
- be strong first then swallow the remainings
- weaken and slowdown first then deal with it

Is my english good enough for you to understand what I mean ?
If it is , good :-)

Both methods works if you know what you 're doing . There is no winner , no "better" way , both works equally .
To archive the best method or the best compromise , one has to think real hard . You also have to take into consideration the weight , the size , the cost , the feasibility , the maintenance and the will to deploy such expensive material (it has to be).
All of this to say that in my opinion , the French and the German did get it right . When you take a closer look at the Leclerc T-10 and the Leopard 2A5 (as they are now) , they are almost impervious to enemy tank fire , whoever they are .
You can 't penetrate it from the front (or on the side turret for the Leclerc) and the tank can fire back at you twice faster than you can while making 50km/h over terrain . I 'm not bragging here , just telling as is it known already .

The T-90 as it is now (the most exiting possible foe !) is capable to face the European tanks because the bugger is not someone to lecture . It has a very good mobility and a FCS to go with , an excellent protection and active systems and some very good ammo .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

flamingknives 6/7/2008 3:11:44 PM

The benefits of face-hardened armour and the methods of defeating it are fairly well established, initially from armoured battleships and later from conventional velocity weapons and tank armour.

Most simply, the hardened surface blunts the penetrator, so it has to punch a hole in a cruder fashion rather than penetrating (think needle compared to paperclip). Under conventional velocities, the counter is to use a blunt soft metal cap to set the shell tip against the armour so it penetrates without blunting. Since the cap is blunt and not very aerodynamic there is often a lightweight windscreen over the top to help with this while not interfering with the armour defeat mechanism.

*the tip of the jet travels at up to 8km/s, which is in excess of the sound speed of most metals.

Quote Reply

FJV 6/7/2008 4:04:50 PM

However, when penetrator technologies advanced to long-rod penetrators and shaped charges*, the problem is then one of hypervelocity impact and material strength and quasi-static properties don't really have any bearing anymore. What matters are the equations of state of the material, which are a trifle more complex.

And because I don't know what these equations look like, I cannot make a sensible remark about maximizing the benefits of a material for armor a minimum of costs. There are only a few people in the world doing this kind of stuff. I would have to seriously read a lot of the relevant materials science texts and brush up on my maths to get some basic competence in this matter.

There are 2 schools :
- Be strong first then swallow the remainings
- Weaken and slowdown first then deal with it

I'm not sure how some metal matrix composite materials fall into this, if I'm using the correct term here. A metal matrix is a material similar like for instance glass fibre, only the fibre material is one metal and the "resin" would be another metal. Which also means that you can give the material different properties in different directions (anisotropic materials) If I'm not mistaken the turret armor of 1 Russian tank type is such a mixture (titanium rods in cast steel if I remember correctly).

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_matrix_composite"

You see how fast it can get really complicated and how fast I get out of my league discussing this. And then I haven't even thrown heat anti armor rounds into the mix.

As for the Leclerc, I don't see the Leclerc having an advantage in armor over the M1 or the Leopard. Lower weight means less armor. The main advantages have to do with advanced sensors and lower weight on paper. (the Leclerc has not seen battle). It might be possible to make a good case for combining the Leclerc with the M1 or the Leopard, but I would have to look closer into that. The fact that the US M1 tank "replacement" is going to have a much lower weight must say something after all. I say "replacement", because the tank might also be a complement for the M1.

"http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20080410.aspx?comments=Y"

Quote Reply

flamingknives 6/7/2008 4:37:26 PM

A few people relative to the total population, but then the same is true for many professions.

A metal matrix is pretty much what you've said, a relatively low melting point metal used to bind other materials together, in the same way that the commonly seen "glass fibre" is in fact a polymer matrix composite with glass fibre reinforcements. That said, the reinforcement doesn't have to be continuous, like a fibre or rod, but can be particulate as well. What makes a metal matrix composite different to a more conventional laminate is that the matrix is more cohesive and will typically run the full thickness of the plate, while the laminate will be distinct layers.

The purpose of these hetrogenous and discontinuous materials is to disrupt the projectile, which tends to be long, thin and somewhat unstable. If successive segments can be induced to follow different paths through the armour, they will have much less penetration. Since the various materials have different equations of state, they will tend to deflect the penetrator by varying amounts as they are eroded.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Ignorance. 6/7/2008 5:04:39 PM

In simple English, you want your shatter zone as your face plate and your elastic zone as your final backer. The middle is where you want to provide maximum heat transfer as well as transverse sheer forces to the projectile of the liquid metal jet..It is also where you put in the shock absorber to handle the shock waves that slam into the armor upon impact. Armor ripples. If you design the package properly, it ripples without flaking [spall] and it doesn't allow a complete pass through of the jet or the projectile that strikes it.

Now you TAILOR your materials to that scheme. The wider the armor zone from face plate to backer-the more room you have for the sheering zones and heat transfer.

You can't use diamonds for that [too brittle, poor heat transfer qualities] , You only create plate hard enough to shatter like glass under impact as your face plate as a desperate design measure to cause skip off or snap off; if your transverse sheer zone isn't capable of using an effective disruptor scheme that will succeed against a kinetic bolt. You use elastomer materials to allow the armor middle zone to VIBRATE as the projectile splashes into it. If you design a kinetic reflector layer into the scheme it will SNAP the bolt as the sheer zone skews it sideways. You use void offsets [Leopard II] to accomplish the same; [if you are of a nautical mind think similar TORPEDO DEFENSE (void spaces) against shaped charge warheads.]
You use a low density metal as part o0f that filler to transmit HEAT as the projectile or heat SPLASHES into the armor.

Now then you can get as technical as you want about this, but you match the hard, soft hard, soft layering of your armors and run your armor "grains" [cleave planes] horizontal, vertical, or at an [herringbone angle] to load resistance forces upon the bolt or liquid metal jet in such a way as to cause pitch/yaw sheer forces in the trajectory that will defeat the digging action of the projectile. You can do that if your armor module is THICK enough.

That isn't the case in the Lecluck.

None of this science is NEW. The US useed Class A, B, and C steels to produce these EXACT effects in their battleships when they built the Standards and the WW II series of fast battleships. Rolled homogenous armor stopped being the naval practice after Jutland. It just took a while to catch on in TANKS-the Russiansd being the first to apply it in the early 1960s, though as I pointed out; the US experimented with GRFP matrices with silicates [glass] and hardened steel marbles as early as the M-27 tanks. IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE AND WEIGHED TOO MUCH.for tanks then.

Here endeth the lesson.

Herald .

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT