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 5:54:42 PM

I really wish that my english would be good enough (better than it is now) to explain what I have in mind and to respond to the last 2-3 posts .

I said (sorry to bring it up again) :
There are 2 shools :
- be strong first then swallow the remainings
- weaken and slowdown first then deal with it

The first school is the ERA and the Chobham schools . They are two schools trying to archive the same goal in 2 different manners , but it is still the first school . They both try to defeat the round during the first micro seconds of the impact by or shattering it or by stopping it dead .
The second school is to slowdown and to weaken the round with appropriate materials , shock resistant , shock absorbant , rather "elastic" and light while strong . Then a very hard matrice of HHS steel and composite stop the round .

Both works equally (if done well) against APFSDSs . I myself believe that the 2nd school is the best way , but it is my opinion .
Now , take that same armor (from the 1st and the 2nd school) and fire a good ATGM at the two !
The obvious result is that the 1st school is divided , the one with ERA is saved when the Chobham one is pierced .
The 2nd school is OK , the armor reacts better against shaped charges .

Abrams and Challengers have been defeated in the front and in the side turret by portable ATGMs and they both use Chobham . There is a problem ...
Du is of no use against shaped charges , it is also heavy and it is dangerous (if penetrated) . Du is good to use for penetrators but not for armor making .
One day the USA and the UK will discard it as an armor component but they need to acknoledge the fact first .

Against shaped charges , only 2 things work : Explosive Reactive Armor and Carbone based composites . Fiberglass and kevlar kind materials work ok too but are not as good .

FJV :
""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""

Not at all .
The Leclerc and the Leopard have a better protection than the Abrams , have no doubt about it .
The weight/size ratio has nothing to do with it ! I mean nothing !
The Leclerc has the thickest turret of any tank but it also one of the lightest so how do you explain it ?
There is no magic here , latest composites are up to 3 times lighter than Du (being in Matrix , Plate or Nuggets = in order : Dorchester 2nd gen , Burlington 1st gen and Dorchester 1st gen) .

Have a look at that picture :
h*tp://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3227/lecler17nl9.jpg

That 's the right side of Leclerc 's turret , at the back . Look at the module . You can see that the module comes in 3 layers (from the outside) :
1) the 1st NERA which is a spaced armor with some composite .
2) the main block which is a mix HHS with ... (classified composite) with some ...(classified) crytaline foam .
3) the back plating (where the handle is) , pure triple hardened french steel .

Behind that , you have the cast/rolled turret of the Leclerc which is rated itself at 400mm RHA (not bad for a 125mm thick steel/composite hull) .
The Leopard 2A5 is very similar in its design while probably weaker on the sides , but that 's only me :-)

Just have a close look at the Abrams or at the Challenger 's turret and you 'll see the difference !
It is also why I say that the Russian design is better than the US/UK one .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/7/2008 6:51:42 PM

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/7/2008 6:58:17 PM

"Abrams
and Challengers have been defeated in the front and in the side turret
by portable ATGMs and they both use Chobham . There is a problem ..."

PROVE this assertion that the frontal arc armor package failed with specific citation or retract that statement forthwith.

I also point out you don't understand at all why the DU liner was installed.

Depleted uranium. READ and LE...

I want you to understand, BW, plainly why you don't know what you address. Pay particlular attention to HEAT loading and transfer.

Herald

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 6/7/2008 7:00:26 PM

Herald :
""PROVE this assertion that the frontal arc armor package faile with specific citation or retract that statement forthwith.""

I retract that statement and I apologize , I spoke my mind too quickly .
The hits were on the sides of the turrets .

The funny thing is that it doesn 't change anything because the Abrams M1A1HA and the Challenger II (which are the tanks we' re talking about) have both Chobham armor on the side turret as well as on the front !

Cheers .

Quote Reply

flamingknives 6/7/2008 7:01:59 PM

Bluewings,

You're going to have to explain why carbon composites are the only thing that work against shaped charges. My understanding of the technology is that carbon composites are inherently poor armour materials as they have very poor strain to failure and limited through-thickness properties to compensate.

What exactly makes DU poor for armour?

As for the Challenger 2 defeat by ATGM, that was not an ATGM, but an RPG-29, and it wasn't a turret hit, it was a lower hull front hit. Of the other known CR2 losses, one was a large EFP to the underside and the other a HESH round hitting an open turret hatch.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 6/7/2008 7:04:51 PM

Thank you for that good link Herald , I will read it carefully as it looks interesting but it might be beyond my knowledge .
I 'll see ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 6/7/2008 7:35:24 PM

FK :
""My understanding of the technology is that carbon composites are inherently poor armour materials as they have very poor strain to failure and limited through-thickness properties to compensate.""

You 're confusing between APFSDS hits and shaped charged hits . Against "low" incoming hard projectile (APFSDS) , slow it down first then deal with it , against "fast" incoming hard (but fluid) projectile ~shaped charges~, use the strongest material first before your steel . A HEAT jet is coming at you many times faster than a APFSDS and the HEAT jet has almost no schock wave (it 's just too fast) . Its main power relies on sheer speed , pushing everything it hits sideways .
When that HEAT jet encounters something harder than it is (carbon composites and hard ceramics like fuzed Quartz) , the jet goes pear shape . It looses all momentum and doesn 't have the strenght anymore to carry on digging into the following HHS steel . That's physics and it works ;-)
I highlighted fuzed Quartz because it is where the secret lies . This is what the classified foam used on the Leclerc is made of , mixed with some elastomere layers , plus some fiberglass based composites plates backed by triple hardened steel .

That new materail is rated as 2.24 times RHA @3:1 ratio . (check that and you 'll be gobsmacked)

""As for the Challenger 2 defeat by ATGM, that was not an ATGM, but an RPG-29, and it wasn't a turret hit, it was a lower hull front hit. Of the other known CR2 losses, one was a large EFP to the underside and the other a HESH round hitting an open turret hatch.""

True , sorry :-(
I just forgot about it and pulled it out of my ... bad memory .
It is true that the lower hull of the Chally is rather weak too .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

00_Chem_AJB Prototypes 6/7/2008 7:41:24 PM

Does any one have information on that X-1 protopype which had an unmanned turret?

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 6/7/2008 7:47:23 PM

Herald :
""And that is the POINT.""

So , your only purpose is to give me links I might not understand ?
Well ... so ... what 's the point ?

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 6/7/2008 7:49:21 PM

I just responded why in the 7:35:24 PM post .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

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