Armour Technology Thread

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 06 Dec 2000 05:50

This is a primer from the "Steel Beasts Tank Sim" we developed thats now being purchased for the US ARMY.People asked for a quick survey of modern tank armor , we'll get into the tech later.

T-72A & T-80B
Turret front features 280mm cast and a 130mm insert from for a total of 430mm near the gun to 540mm LOS thickness at the turret corners. While the T-80B maximum armor level of the is reported tobe 500mm KE armor and the front turret thickness is about 440mm with an 130mm insert for a LOS thickness of 530mm in the „weakened zone" and the corners. If the armor arrangement is similar to the T-64 thats. ......STEF [Te of 0.41 ke and 0.7 heat] plus 'Corundum', which is likely a upgraded AD-90% [ Te 0.9 ke and 1.5 heat]. The T-72A Glacis is 215mm thick with 60mm RHA plus 105mm Steltexolite and 50mm RHA. The T-80B glacis is 205mm thick with 4 plates three steel of varying hard ness and one layer Steltexolite [STEF ?], but its reported the T-80B got an additional 30mm plate added to the glacis in 1984
<PRE>
T-72A est armor
Front KE HEAT Flank KE HEAT
Mantel = 27cm 47cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 7-12cm 21 26cm
Weakened Zone = 27cm 45cm Front Side Turret = 18cm 24cm
Front Turret = 39cm 57cm Side Turret = 16cm 20cm
Upper Front Turret=28-29cm 36-37cm Rear Turret = 8-9cm 13-21cm
Glacis = 40cm 48cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21- 26cm
Lower hull = 19cm 19cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
</PRE>
<PRE>
T-80B est armor
Front KE HEAT KE HEAT
Mantel = 47cm 54cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Weakened Zone = 37cm 50cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21- 26cm
Front Turret = 42cm 50cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Upper Front Turret =18cm 24cm Front Side Turret = 41cm 51cm
Glacis = 48cm 54cm Side Turret = 26cm 34cm
Lower hull = 23cm 38cm Rear Turret = 11-14cm 18-27cm
</PRE>
<PRE>

T-80BV est armor with K-1
Front KE HEAT KE HEAT
Lower hull = 23cm 38cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Glacis = 50-54cm 67-91cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Mantel = 49-53cm 66-90cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 9-12cm 30-41cm
Weakened Zone = 39-43cm 62-86cm Front Side Turret = 41cm 51cm
Upper Front Turret = 35-39cm 58-85cm Side Turret = 26cm 34cm
Front Turret = 44-48cm 62-86cm Rear Turret = 11-14cm 18-27cm
</PRE>
T-72B /BV/S
Steve Zalogas reports the turret has 435mm thick 'T-55 type BDD type insert', plus 380mm cast armor utilizing Aluminum instead of mild steel/ rubber combination.The stated resistance of the turret- is 530mm KE armor and 520mm HEAT protection.The insert adds 180mm KE and 150mm HEAT armor, for an 'Te' effectiveness of 0.41 KE and 0.34 HEAT.Similar to the T-55/62 BDD figures. The Glacis is thought to be 30mm SHS plus 60mm RHA and 105mm Steltexolite and 50mm RHA.The BV and S models have K-1 ERA.

<PRE>
T-72B
Front KE HEAT KE HEAT
Lower hull = 21cm 21cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Glacis = 50cm 58cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Mantel = 47cm 54cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 7-12cm 21- 26cm
Weakened Zone = 50cm 52cm Front Side Turret = 41cm 51cm
Front Turret = 47cm 49cm Side Turret = 26cm 34cm
Upper Front Turret =28-29cm 37-41cm Rear Turret =11-14cm 18-27cm
</PRE>
<PRE>
T-72BV & S with K-1 est armor
KE HEAT KE HEAT
Lower hull = 21cm 21cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Glacis = 52-56cm 67-91cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Mantel =48-50cm 60-70cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 9-12cm 30-41cm
Weakened Zone = 51-53cm 58-72cm Front Side Turret = 46cm 56-76cm
Front Turret = 49-53cm 62-88cm Side Turret = 26cm 34cm
Upper Front Turret = 35-39cm 58-85cm Rear Turret = 11-14cm 18--27cm
</PRE>

T-90
Steve Zalogas reports the turret has 'improved' 435mm 'T-72B BDD type insert',plus 380mm cast armor, maybe Titanium bulging plates. In Chetchenya the T-72 B with out Kontatk couldn't resist Konkurs ATGM but the T-90 without Kontatk did [konkurs has a ~600mm penetration]. This means the T-72B must be much less than 600mm protection while the T-90 must be much more. The K-5 glacis effectiveness should be 7.1-7.5 cm ÷ 0.38 =190-200mm KE armor The T-72BM turret is flat at the front and sloped like the T-90 turret so the K-5 benifit here should be~ 170-200mm,but the flat front should add just 170- 180mm KE protection. The Glacis armor should be the same thickness as T-72 B however one RHA plate may be replaced by SHS plate.T-90S appears with a welded turret which may be narrower with thicker frontal armor [ 93cm as opposed to 81.5cm with the T-90 cast turret. In addition the welded turret should increase resistance over cast turret
<PRE>
T-90
Front KE HEAT KE HEAT
Lower hull = 24cm 38cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Glacis = 67-71cm 99-107cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Mantel =56-58cm 94-106cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 9-14cm 51-56cm
WeakenedZone =70-74cm 104-112cm Front Side Turret=42-64cm 68-85cm
Front Turret =65-71cm 100-110cm Side Turret = 28cm 34cm
Upper Front Turret =35-39cm 56-94cm Rear Turret = 11-14cm 18-27cm
K-5 coverage is about 60%, the T-90 without K-5 looks a lot like the T-72BVwith K-1
</PRE>

T-80U
The maximum front turret armor is reported to be 815mm thick and the insert similar to the T-90 with ~ 380mm thickness suggested, while the thickness may reach ~920mm in the „weakened zone".. The mass increase is 8% but the thickness goes from 530-815mm thus the density goes from ~ 5.3 g/cm³ down to ~ 3.76 g/cm³. If the insert thickness resembles T-90 the insert density can't be much more than ~2 g/cm³. Assuming Corundum reinforced with 5 parts STEF this should fit and offer a 'Te' of ~ 0.71 ke & 0.9 heat. The glacis may be reinforced by substituting one of the RHA plates for SHS, boosting the resistance by 3-4cm
<PRE>
T-80U
Front KE HEAT KE HEAT
Lower hull = 21cm 21cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Glacis = 52cm 57cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Mantel = 47cm 73cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Weakened Zone = 49cm 52cm Front Side Turret = 40cm 51cm
Front Turret = 48cm 64cm Side Turret = 26cm 34cm
Upper Front Turret = 28-29cm 37-41cm Rear Turret =11-14cm 18-27cm
</PRE>
<PRE>
T-80UM-1 with K-5
KE HEAT KE HEAT
Lower hull = 24cm 38cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Glacis = 68-72cm 96-104cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Mantel = 56-58cm 94-106cm Front 1/3 Side Hull=9-14cm 51-56cm
Weakened Zone=64-66cm 108-112cm Front Side Turret=42-64cm 68-85cm
Front Turret =66-68cm 110-114cm Side Turret = 28cm 34cm
Upper Front Turret =35-39cm 59-94cm Rear Turret =11-14cm 18-27cm
K-5 coverage is about 60%, while the T-80 without K-5 looks a lot like the T-72BVwith K-1
</PRE>

T-84
uses the same hull as the T-80U but uses a new welded turret. The maximum armor thickness of this turret is probably similar to the T-80U front turret armor, which is reported to be 815mm thick and the insert is probably similar to the T-90 with ~380mm LOS insert thickness suggested. The turret is welded and probably similar to the T-80UM with insert Te of 0.71 & 0.9, if we assume the welded RHA plates, then we get 380mm [1.0 Te ] + 435mm insert [ x 0.71 Te ] ÷ 815mm = 0.85 ke & 0.95 heat. The angles on the T-84 seems close to the T-80 and therefore the 'T-80UM' K-5 numbers apply.
T-84 estimation

<PRE>
KE HEAT KE HEAT
Lower hull = 24cm 38cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Glacis = 68-72cm 96-104cm Side Hull =7-12cm 21-26cm
Mantel = 62-64cm 94-106cm Front 1/3 Side Hull= 9-14cm 51-56cm
Weakened Zone =74-76cm 108-112cm Front Side Turret=42cm 68cm
Front Turret =72-74cm 104-108cm Side Turret = 28cm 34cm
Upper Front Turret=50-67cm 74-116cm Rear Turret=11-13cm 27-35cm
</PRE>

T-95/Black Eagle speculation.
The glacis looked sharper than the T-80/90 . If the thickness and layout is like T-90, then.the armor could be 235mm @ 70° with 4 plates, three steel of varing hard ness and one layer Steltexolite[STEF]. or 680mmKE & 710 mm HEAT.With K-5 that should be 830-880mm KE & 1110-1210mm HEAT.. Just a 10% increase in the turret weight combined with nearly 100% coverage of K-5 type ERA the front turret armor might reach ~580-630mm KE and 760-810mm with K-5; and 800-900mm HEAT & 1200-1400mm with K-5 type ERA. The continuous delays in the T-95 program may mean the IOD is around 2010 at which time the 'next tank' design could have changed dramatically.
T-95/Black Eagle speculation

<PRE>
KE HEAT KE HEAT
Lower hull = 36cm 48cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
Glacis = 83-88cm 111-121cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21-26cm
Mantel = 70-74cm 106-120cm Front 1/3 Side Hull=9-14cm 51- 56cm
Weakened Zone=79-81cm 130-140cm Front Side Turret=42-64cm 68-85cm
Front Turret =76-78cm 120-128cm Side Turret = 28cm 34cm
Upper Front Turret= 35-39cm 56-94cm Rear Turret =11-13cm 27-35cm
</PRE>

K-5 coverage seems to be nearly 100%.Note these estimates assume quantitative not qualitative increases, the figures should be higher especially if the turret structure is welded as opposed to cast.

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 05-12-2000).]

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 06 Dec 2000 05:57

BRITISH TANKS Challenger-1 This tank was designed with cast turret plus Chobham armor and hard steel outer covers plates. The front turret thickness of the Challenger seems to range from 920 mm along side the gun, narrowing to 880mm and ~800 mm at the turret corner. Assuming the same volume as the Chieftain, then the weight increase to Challenger suggests a 13% armor increase overall [should be 54/92; 48/88 & 44/80] suggesting an average density of 4.3-4.6 g/cm³. This sounds like 1.5 part steel, 2 part Alumina [97%?] and 2 part GRP[ average 4.4g/cm³], similar to an armor tested in a RARDE paper [See; Int. J. Impact Engng 1995 Vol-17 pp 263-274]. That's 0.82 KE and 1.22 HEAT. A 1991 IDR article reports the Challengers armor was ~1000mm HEAT and a 1985 engineering estimate put the front turret @ > 620mm KE armor. See Int Defence Review 4/91 pp 349-352; Challenger-1<PRE> KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull = 52cm 71cm*** Rear Hull = 10cm 50cm Glacis = 55cm 80cm Side Hull = 8cm 47-49cm** Mantel = 59cm 112cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 8cm 47-49cm** Weakened Zone = 61cm 107cm Front Side Turret =55cm 83-107cm Front Turret = 62cm 97cm Side Turret = 22cm 33-38cm Upper Front Turret= N/A Rear Turret = 15cm 50cm </PRE>***Lower Hull Mk 1/3 version had ERA =52cm Ke & 80-100cm Heat **Side Hull Mk 1/3 version had ERA = 13cm Ke & 82-84cm HeatChallenger-2 The front turret thickness of the Challenger-2 seems 870mm along side the gun, narrowing to ~740mm at the turret corner. Since the Challenger 1 & 2 have the same weight there's no change in the armor mass all round, except for the „Dorchester" armor. Its been reported 'Dorchester' is 'dU nuggets' probably suspended in a elastic medium, and 12 inches of this armor stopped the M-829. The new mass figures should be ~ 5.6g/cm³, if we transfer mass from rear turret to front turret that's 5.25 g/cm³ and since the Challenger 2 turret has a smaller surface area than Challenger 1 [ by about 1.06 times], the density goes up to 5.6g/cm³. If we assume 1 part steel, 1.5 parts UO² 'dU ceramic' [11g/cm³] and 2.5 parts Kevlar [ 1.44 g/cm³]/5, that's 5.59 g/cm³, close enough!. Based on UO² that's = 1.17 KE & 1.96 HEAT. Finally 'Dorchester' elastic effect should be similar to the advantage NERA offers, so the 'Te' value should be 1.17 x 1.17= 1.36 KE. Challenger-2<PRE> KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull = 59cm 86cm Rear Hull = 10cm 50cm Glacis = 66cm 100cm Side Hull = 10cm 47-49cm Mantel = 92cm 170cm Front 1/3 Side Hull =10cm 47 - 49cm Weakened Zone = 95cm 160cm Front Side Turret =55cm 83-107cm Front Turret = 96cm 145cm Side Turret = 34cm 52cm Upper Front Turret = N/A Rear Turret = 14cm 500mm </PRE> [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 05-12-2000).]

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 06 Dec 2000 06:00

AMERICAN TANKSM-1A1 weight went up 4 tones over M-1 and the front turret was redesigned increasing the armor thickness to 750-860mm thickness. That's a 11% mass increase, the HY-120 plate thickness remained the same at 101mm back plate and 62mm cover plate,just the cavity increased leading to an increase in filler density ~ 2.25 g/cm³.A change to AD-92 and 2 parts rubber should fit the density[ 2.22g/cm³]. The new Te values should be =0.61 KE and 1.07 HEAT x 1.08[backing] = 0.66KE & 1.15 HEAT. The variation in the glacis armor, is the rating with the fuel cell full & empty. From a ± 30° angle the turret armor is 390-400mm KE & 720-880. The maximum published values for ± 30° are 400mm KE & 800mm HEAT, so the estimates are close <PRE> M-1A1 KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull =43-47cm 57-79cm** Rear Hull = 10cm 50cm Glacis = 35-49cm 51-80cm ** Side Hull = 9cm 68cm Mantel = 44cm 99cm Front 1/3 Side Hull =10-16cm 70-90cm** Weakened Zone = 45cm 92cm Front Side Turret = 24cm 44cm Front Turret = 44cm 80cm Side Turret = 24cm 44cm Upper Front Turret= N/A Rear Turret = 9cm 41cm </PRE>** The higher value is with 'full' fuel tank & the lower value is with 'empty' fuel tank.M-1A1(HA) The weight went up 6 tones over the M-1A1 representing a 20% armor mass increase while the thickness stayed at 750-860 mm. The big boost came from ~ 4 inches of dU armor added to the front turret. If we assume the 4 inches of dU/steel replaces the 4 inch back plate then the weight works out. Tests on changing the backing material show the resistance goes up 1.38 times for the whole structure and if its ½ steel and ½ dU, the multiple should be x 1.19. If we further assume the armor is AD-92 + 2 x Kevlar that's should be 0.77 x 1.08 [Hard Backing] = 0.84 x 1.19 [dU multiple] = 1.0 KE. The values for HEAT armor should be 1.54 HEAT. The turret armor value for ±30° is 590-610 mm KE and 960-1180 mm HEAT, when the published value is 600mm KE.M-1A1(HA) <PRE> Front KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull = 58-63cm 80-90cm ** Rear Hull = 10cm 50cm Glacis = 56-59cm 51-80cm ** Side Hull = 9cm 68cm Mantel =67cm 132cm Front 1/3 Side Hull= 10-16cm 70-90cm** Weakened Zone = 68cm 123cm Front Side Turret = 30cm 48cm Front Turret = 66cm 108cm Side Turret = 30cm 48cm Upper Front Turret= N/A Rear Turret = 9cm 41cm </PRE>** The higher value is with 'full' fuel tank & the lower value is with 'empty' fuel tank.M-1A1HC/M-1A2. The weight and the front armor thickness remained the same, however 2nd Generation dU armor is included. If the dU/steel backing plate includes hard steel backing, the overall Ceramic-Steel resistance should lead to a increase in the backing plate to 55% the base values, which in turn has probably been upgraded to AD-95 + 2 x Kevlar plus 4 inches dU /SHS . This equals 0.85 x 1.55, for a TE of 1.32 KE. & 1.88 HEAT. The ± 30° turret armor case is 790-800 KE and 1180- 1450 HEAT, when the published maximum values is 800 mm KE. <PRE> M-1A1HC/M-1A2 KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull = 58-65cm 80-97cm ** Rear Hull = 10cm 50cm Glacis = 56-59cm 51-105cm ** Side Hull = 9cm 68cm Mantel =88cm 162cm Front 1/3 Side Hull=10-16cm 70-90cm** Weakened Zone = 90cm 150cm Front Side Turret = 30cm 48cm Front Turret = 88cm 131cm Side Turret = 30cm 48cm Upper Front Turret= N/A Rear Turret = 9cm 41cm </PRE>** The higher value is with 'full' fuel tank & the lower value is with 'empty' fuel tank. M-1A2 /SEP The weight and the front armor thickness remained the same, however density increase is achieved by substituting Titanium for some structures and armor in the rest of the tank. In addition 3rd generation dU armor is included. With dU/SHS backing plate the target resistance is up 55%, and adding a thin Graphite confining layer, acts like a seal and increases the confining effect on the armor over 5%. The M-1A2 is rumored to have 'Dorchester armor'.If we assume this is the case and weight saving from the Titanium, then an insert density of 2.3g/cm might be possible leading to a 1x UO² 100 / 6x rubber = 2.3 g/cm³. This would also be BDD type NERA arrangement leading to the third generation dU armor. The values should be 0.47 x 49 + 29 x 1.63[dU/Back+ Graphite] x 1.17[BDD] ÷70= Te of 1.41 KE & 1.97 HEAT <PRE> M-1A2/SEP KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull =58-65cm 80-97cm ** Rear Hull = 10m 50cm Glacis = 56-59cm 51-105cm ** Side Hull = 9cm 68cm Mantel = 95cm 162cm Front 1/3 Side Hull=10-16cm 70-90cm** Weakened Zone = 96cm 151cm Front Side Turret= 35cm 54cm Front Turret = 94cm 132cm Side Turret =35cm 54cm Upper Front Turret= N/A Rear Turret= 9cm 41cm </PRE>** The higher value is with 'full' fuel tank & the lower value is with 'empty' fuel tank. [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 05-12-2000).]

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 06 Dec 2000 06:01

GERMAN TANKSLeopard 2A1-A3 The turret thickness ranges from 800mm near the corners and 900mm in the middle 700mm along the mantle, composed of a 50mm cover plate + 600mm cavity + ? thickness back plate [120-350mm?]. The conversion from LEO-1A3 turret to LEO-2 turret yeilds 230=>450mm armor mass change, suggesting the solid thickness is not all steel. RM Ogorkiewzc reported a Geramn armor in the mid 70s as SHS + Aluminum + Ceramic. See If we assume 2/3 aluminum + SHS + AD-85 + Rubber we get a insert density of 2.4 g/cm ³ when the mass suggests a 2.35 g/cm ³, close enough. The hull is reported to be spaced armor construction. Going from LEO-1 to LEO-2 a hull armor mass increases 50% leading to a hull armor mass of only ~ 210mm RHA.. The LEO-1 A3 featured 250-430 & 515BHN plates welded together to form triple hardness steel. The turret armor should be SHS [Te x 1.2] + 0.41/0.61 Al-7xxx 0.82/1.4 (Te AD-85)+ 0.1/0.34(Te rubber) ÷5 ; equals a 'Te' of 0.59 KE and the HEAT values should be 0.83 <PRE> Leopard 2A1-A3 KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull = 35cm 52cm Rear Hull =7cm 40cm Glacis = 35cm 52cm Side Hull =6-7cm 37cm Mantel = 59cm 81cm Front 1/3 Side Hull =9-10cm 50cm Weakened Zone = 63cm 110cm * Front Side Turret= 21cm 29cm Front Turret = 57cm 83cm Side Turret = 21cm 29cm Upper Front Turret= N/A Rear Turret =7-9cm 40cm </PRE>* gun sight area is 610mm Ke. & 890mm HEAT Leopard 2A4 features second generation Chobham armor, while the weight & turret thickness look the same as the LEO-2.If we assume 2nd generation composite -AD-92/5-and keep the weight and rubber the same, this should be sufficient. Re doing the above calculations that's 1.2[SHS]+ 0.41/0.61 [Te Al-7xxx] + 0.95/2.0 [AD-92] + 0.2/0.4 [ Dyneema]÷4. This equals a 'Te' of 0.69 KE and 1.05 HEAT. In addition the hull may have composite armor instead of spaced.<PRE> Leopard 2A4 KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull = 60cm 71cm Rear Hull = 7cm 40cm Glacis = 60cm 71cm Side Hull = 6-7cm 37cm Mantel = 59cm 81cm Front 1/3 Side Hull = 13cm 67cm Weakened Zone = 69cm 129cm * Front Side Turret = 27cm 42cm Front Turret = 65cm 105cm Side Turret =27cm 42cm Upper Front Turret= N/A Rear Turret = 7-9cm 40cm </PRE> * gun sight area is 71cm Ke. & 95cm HEAT Leopard 2A5 The 'Wedge Armor' is reportedly ~32mm thick steel plates @ ~ 70° compounded angle, that's about 90mm LOS value. If it's a series of hard steel plates in a spaced plate configuration its 'Triple Harness Steel'. This should offer 1.6['THS']x 1.3[yaw] x 90mm or ~190mm KE armor. The 'free edge effect' will modify this by 0.95; and the 'T/d' by 0.88 to ~ 160-180mm KE. The HEAT values are 90mm x 1.6[hardness] x 3 plus 4-8cd standoff = ~ 500 mm HEAT. The tank uses 3rd Generation Chobham armor which is atleast AD-99 and Aramid 'Dyneema'. This makes the values 1.2 [SHS] + 0.45/0.7 [Te Al-2xxx] + 1.05/2.6[AD-99] + 0.2 /4 ÷4. Which equals a 'Te' of 0.72 KE & 1.22.HEAT. The Interior turret and front hull is reinforced with a Dyneema liner, adding another 20mm KE and 40mm HEAT. <PRE> Leopard 2A5 KE HEAT KE HEAT Lower hull = 62cm 75cm Rear Hull = 7cm 40cm Glacis = 62cm 75cm Side Hull =17cm 52cm Mantel =91-93cm 173cm Front 1/3 Side Hull =19cm 67cm Weakened Zone =91-93cm 196cm * Front Side Turret =37cm 66cm Front Turret = 85-87cm 182cm Side Turret =29cm 46cm Upper Front Turret = N/A Rear Turret =7-9cm 40cm * gun sight area is 90-92cm Ke. & 188cm HEAT </PRE> [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 05-12-2000).]

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 06 Dec 2000 09:04

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Guru Dronacharya: does a number like "A mm HEAT" mean it has that equivalent RHA protection against HEAT projectile ?for eg. "90cm HEAT" means it will be able to withstand any HEAT projectile that has a rated penetration of < 900mm ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes thats right. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The western tanks seem to have between 2 - 2.5 times the KE and HEAT protection than the Russian ones

ok..Now I understand what happened in Iraq.Imagine if the Pak army had got 300 M1A1s as planned, they would have run roughshod all over us.On the subject is there *any* ATGM that can penetrate 800mm+ of protection to punch the M1A2s front ? (I am assuming ATGMs all have HEAT warheads)Thanks Paul, for the trouble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting question, based on the current research the following is apparent ...These penetration figures are average penetrations , theres usually always a ± range thats ~ 0.5 CD so they should look as follows.... 1st gen "non precision charge"[Sagger/Swatter/Swingfire/SS-10&11 /LAW & RPG-2&7] 3 ± 0.5 cone diameter [CD] penetration @ 1 CD Standoff 4.3 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 2 CD Standoff 2nd Gen " Precision charge" [ Hellfire/TOW /HOT /Milan/Dragon /AT-4,5 &6 aswell as most LAWs and MAW of the 70s & 80s] 5 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 2 CD standoff 5.5 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 4 CD standoff 6 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 6 CD standoff 3rd Gen "Semi particulated jet" [HOT-2/TOW-2/Milan 2 /Dragon2/AT5m as well as any LAW MAW and AT weapon produced in the 90s] 5 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 2 CD standoff 6 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 4 CD standoff 7 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 6-24CD standoff So a TOW-2 with 4 CD standoff gets 152 x 6 .5 or 988mm Vs RHAe and 1087 Vs 240BHN RHA 4th Gen "Fully Particulated Jet [Estimated performance All future warheads ] 7 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 4 CD standoff 8 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 7 CD standoff [proximity fuze] 9.5 ± 0.5 cone diameters penetration @ 9-24CD standoff [proximity fuze] So if your TOW-2 is able to achieve almost complete particulation ,then with 4 CD standoff gets ~ 152 x 7.5 or 1140mm Vs RHAe and 1250 Vs 240BHN RHA. [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 05-12-2000).][This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 05-12-2000).]

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 06 Dec 2000 16:22

Guru, the only "ATGM" I can think of that could probably blast through M1A2s armour is the Maverick, with the shaped charge warhead, but then again how likely is it that missiles like that would be fired against an Abrams in war. <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-65.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-65.htm</A> ------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 06 Dec 2000 21:08

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Guru Dronacharya: What does "X CD standoff" mean ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>x CD Standoff means 'times Cone Diameter Standoff.' Cone Diameter = diameter of the warhead.Standoff means the distance from the start of the HEAT warhead and the tip of the missile/warhead. To determine this requires a sectioned drawing /pic that can be measured from [ using the above cone diameters as a yardstick].So the TOW-2 missile is 152mm wide so thats its CD while sectioned drawings show that with the standoff probe fully extended it provides 3.5 CD standoff...so its performance would be just below '4CD values'.As a rough guide all warheads have a 1.5 CD standoff unless the tip looks sharper then its 2CD standoff .If theres a probe involved or the warhead is in the rear of the missile, then this ahouls be 3 CD standoff. With TOW-2/HOT-2/Milan-2 'extendable probes were included that allowed 3.5 to 4 CD standoff.To get higher you need 'proximity fuse', and give the flatness of the curve of modern jets the CD penetration is the same whether its 6CD or 24CD standoff...which is great if you've got a proximity fuze cause there not that precise

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 07 Dec 2000 01:53

I dont think the russians have got anything that can penetrate the front of the M1A2s turret, if there were such a system then I think that the US Army would adopt some sort of ERA system, but since they havent done that they must be pretty sure that their tanks are more or less invulnerable to current ATGMs.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Avram S · Post by **Avram S** » 07 Dec 2000 02:38

Nandai, FYI a few months after the Gulf War the Aviation Week magazine had an interesting article on the Maverick. According to that writer a Maverick need not penetrate nor explode on a M1A1 Abram to destroy it. Because of its weight and its method of delivery a mere fall on the Abrams would criple it. AS

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 07 Dec 2000 03:29

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Guru Dronacharya: what is the physics behind the "counter-intuitive" situation of getting a greater penetration by having the warhead explode further from the armour ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With every type of HEAT warhead you have a optimum penetration Vs standoff curve. This means that the initial penetration is quite poor [ 3-5CD] at 1 CD standoff but this increases to the optimum which is 2CD for "Non Precision charges" , 6-7 CD for "Precision Charges" and 6-24 CD for "particulated and semi particulated jets".Any hit out side of these 'optimum standoff' will result in less penetration...this was the idea behind 'spacedarmor'..with 50s and 60s 'non precision charges' a standoff of 4 - 6 CD would bring the penetration down by 1-2 CD .The side skirts of most AFVs offer 500-700mm space so thats ~3-5CD for a 6 inch warhead. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> looks like even 3rd gen ATGMs at max standoff cannot penetrate a M1A2/SEP front turrent and lower hull but they maybe able nail a L2A5 on the hull but not turret.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What the above figures don't include is tandum charges..this is a trick one which I'll deal with when I get home from work.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 08 Dec 2000 22:37

Paul, THANKS!!!I was away from br for a coupla days..and wow

This thread should get us some real hard knowledge! nitin

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 09 Dec 2000 18:55

Hi, I will be going off on a tangent here so bear with me

A heat projectile literally burns its way through armour,a jet from the tip of the projectile is focused on the armour...and the tank is toast,right?so,the xcd standoff basically refers to a "optimum penetration Vs standoff curve" which varies for diff. charges and jets...standoff is expressed in terms of xcd and even the penetration would occur at a prticular cd...WRT dia. we then have different cd's which are in turn related to different charges/jets..in other words the optimum penetration for any projectile(heat..) occurs at a certain dia(expressed in cds) specific to the type of jet.spaced armour ---a bit confused.. Still got to go through the armour part,but it appears to me the mi has everything but the kitchen sink in its armour

and it works well...too well ! No russian tank with/without k5 could stand upto the m1.Even the black eagle has an inferior level of protection..by a wide margin.. The 152mm idea makes a lot of sense now!cheers, nitin[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 09-12-2000).]

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 10 Dec 2000 00:16

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by nitin: Hi, I will be going off on a tangent here so bear with me

A heat projectile literally burns its way through armour,a jet from the tip of the projectile is focused on the armour...and the tank is toast,right?so,the xcd standoff basically refers to a "optimum penetration Vs standoff curve" which varies for diff. charges and jets...standoff is expressed in terms of xcd and even the penetration would occur at a prticular cd...WRT dia. we then have different cd's which are in turn related to different charges/jets..in other words the optimum penetration for any projectile(heat..) occurs at a certain dia(expressed in cds) specific to the type of jet.spaced armour ---a bit confused.. Still got to go through the armour part,but it appears to me the mi has everything but the kitchen sink in its armour

and it works well...too well ! No russian tank with/without k5 could stand upto the m1.Even the black eagle has an inferior level of protection..by a wide margin.. The 152mm idea makes a lot of sense now!cheers, nitin[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 09-12-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It may be that the T-90 M [Vladimir] has a welded turret thats narrower than previous designes , combined with new tech [ aquired from the west a couple of years ago ] I suspect the T-90M may have front turret upto ~ 90cm KE with K-5.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 10 Dec 2000 00:36

Hi Paul, The vlad has 90 cm ke?the t90s has65-71cm including k5,right?This is for the front turret? ..methinks, i am way off the figures here.. nitin [This message has been edited by nitin (edited 09-12-2000).]

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 10 Dec 2000 01:12

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by nitin: Hi Paul, The vlad has 90 cm ke?the t90s has65-71cm including k5,right?This is for the front turret? ..methinks, i am way off the figures here.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> nitin the original T-90 has a cast armor turret , this reduces the effectiveness compared to RHA to ~ 90% while using a layered rolled plates allows plates as high as 500-600BHn to be used. This is how they must have upgraded the glacis as its wildly reported that hard steel is included in the glacis.Zaloga reports that this shoul increase the armor effectiveness by any where from 1.1 to 1.5 times.I find that the latter value is more realistic as this includes the layering effect and improved ceramic effect due to stronger backing material.BTW did you get the other PDF file and is it worth continuing one a day?

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 10 Dec 2000 02:07

Hi, thx for the pdf file!I downloaded it just a coupla minutes back..sure,its great.I just hope to sit down with them once i get a bit of time."nitin the original T-90 has a cast armor turret , this reduces the effectiveness compared to RHA to ~ 90% while using a layered rolled plates allows plates as high as 500-600BHn to be used. This is how they must have upgraded the glacis as its wildly reported that hard steel is included in the glacis."so,layered rolled plates are welded to give a turret with a narrower more angled front.The cast turret would be limited in design as composite elements would have to be integral..not sure how they would cast that..anyhow,take all the basic components and it would be easier to "weld" them rather than go for a die and cast them..ps:What improved technology did the russians exactly acquire?Even Vasiliy's site refers to improved acquired western tech improving the 2a46m.cheers, nitin

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 10 Dec 2000 04:37

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by nitin: ps:What improved technology did the russians exactly acquire?Even Vasiliy's site refers to improved acquired western tech improving the 2a46m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unknown , but We were discussing Russian composite armor and it looks like they had ceramic nuggets in the turrets like the 'sandbar' on the T-72, but may be a lot larger [~ 2 inches? ].The west looks like they use ceramic tiles press into large size, maybe as much as 12 inches across[?]. The difference is in the ease [cost effectiveness ] of manufacturing and this is probably where they got help.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 14 Dec 2000 06:16

up!Guru,Nandai where are u chaps?

cheers, nitin [This message has been edited by nitin (edited 13-12-2000).]

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 14 Dec 2000 16:04

We are just admiring the facts brought into the light by Paul. I have a question for him, might not be the easiest question in the world to answer, but hey, thats what he is here for. Which is the best tank in the world, regarding armour, firepower, manouverability and overall survivability, is it the mighty M1A2, the sleek LeClerc, the rugged Challenger 2E or the very nice Leopard 2S, with the new longer barrel of the Leo 2A6. Is the T-90 able to go up against the big boys, or is it not quite up to the challenge, and what about that awesome Merkava mark 3, probably 1 of the most feared MBTs in the world.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 14 Dec 2000 21:54

Guru, The al khalid unfortunately for us,is not a *paper* tank!It has a significant component opf ukrainian stuff..plus tsp(!?)+ chinese..' Anyway,so as not to hijack this thread

....i am still "going through"...the earlier posts.. wow,this much stuff could take a lifetime to assimilate

cheers, nitin

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 15 Dec 2000 00:24

Guys I try to avoid rating tanks overall. Most of the armor and penetration figures are classified so I just use the best engineering figures I can lay my hands on to estimate. When your looking at a tank its more than armor and penetration, theres FCS, night sights smoothness of tracing while moving and user egranomics. I can comment on these but in no way do I feel like I'm an expert in those areas, so my opinion won't be any more important than yours.

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 15 Dec 2000 07:00

muzzle reference systems tell the computer where exactly the gun is pointing [ is it warped etc] and allows to correct for that.Theres no 'lock on' the computer calculates the speed and direction at which the turret is traversing Vs a moving target and predicts where the shot should be fired to hit the target...provided the target continues in that speed and direction for the second or two it takes the projectile to reach the target.

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 25 Dec 2000 09:31

I have a question, JANES Ammunition handbook 1999/2000 apparently lists a IOF 105mm APFSDS-T round and we were wondering if 'IOF' could stand for 'Indian Ordnance Factor'? Does any one know the designations of Indian 105mm APFSDS-T rounds ?Thanks and have a happy & healthy holiday [ if it applies

]

Bharat Rakshak

Armour Technology Thread

Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread

Re: Armour Technology Thread