pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
Interesting article, and very well argued. I will quote two excerpts that will sum it up nicely:
Indian T-90S a sub-standard tank ?
- Thread starter p2prada
- Start date
average american
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
Especially DU composite armor DU is 1.7 times heavier then lead.
Last edited:
average american
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
Subject: Is Russia?s T-95 the Best Tank in the World
Harold C. Hutchison 6/30/2004 9:15:33 PM
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which tank is the baddest of them all? This is a question that will touch off a major debate, particularly when one compares two tanks head-to-head. The latest such matchup is the 50-ton T-95, which is in development in Russia, versus the M1A2 Abrams, the front-line tank of the United States Army.
The T-95 is a new design. It will apparently carry a 152mm gun/missile launcher in a new turret designed to lower the silhouette even more than the current low slung T-72 series of tanks. The main gun will carry more of a punch than the 125mm gun used on current Russian tanks. This is a result of lessons learned from Desert Storm, when 125mm armor-piercing rounds bounced off M1A1 Abrams tanks, even when fired from as close as 400 meters. The other major advance will include systems designed to decoy anti-tank missiles (like the Hellfire, Javelin, and TOW). The goal is to jam the sighting systems and to confuse the aim. This also is intended to work against the sighting system for tank guns. Tanks often spend time fighting each other, and their sights work much like the sights used to target and guide anti-tank missiles. The real question is whether the T-95 will see production beyond a few prototypes. Its main competitor, the T-80UM2 ?Black Eagle,? has the advantage of being cheaper and an upgrade of the T-80, which is currently in service. The T-95 will need time to have all the kinks worked out of its design. Much of that has already been done with the basic design of the T-80, and the ?Black Eagle? will not need as much time to be ready for deployment. The T-95 has improved crew survivability over the T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks that the Russians currently use, but that is really not saying much, given the fact that the T-72 and its successors provided practically nothing in that area.
That said, the Americans have not stood pat with the M1A1. The 69-ton M1A2 is nearing ten years old. Its major changes are not in terms of the weapons (it maintains the same weapons as the M1A1: a 120mm main gun, a 12.7mm gun for the commander, and two 7.62mm machine guns ? one coaxial with the main gun, the other mounted on the loader?s hatch), but instead, the M1A2 is designed to exchange information with other vehicles faster through IVIS (Inter-Vehicle Information System). IVIS would allow a tank crew to find out what other tank crews are seeing, and to tell those other crews what they see, but troops have reportedly found it to be inconvenient. As a result, crews of the M1A2 will have a clearer picture of the battlefield than their opponents in other tanks when IVIS is used. That pays dividends. Having a good gun is nice, but you have to know where to point it. The American crews will know faster than their opponents due to IVIS. That means they are more likely to get in the first shot. The fire-control system remains perhaps the best in the world. When an Abrams fires at a target, it is probably going to hit the target. The results will usually be fatal to its target.
The technical specifications do not tell the whole story. The real difference is made in crew quality ? and American tank crews have the decided edge over their counterparts in other countries. This is due to two factors: Combat experience in two wars since 1990, and much better training, most notably at the National Training Center. The former is arguably the best teacher in the world. It brutally shows what was done right and wrong, and grading is not on a curve. The latter is the toughest training regime in the world ? often American combat veterans have compared fighting in Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom to the NTC, with the caveat that the Iraqis weren?t as good as the OPFOR (the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment). Training at home bases (American tank crews fire about 100 rounds per year, in addition to demonstrations and NTC rotations) and the constant use of simulators add to the American edge in training.
The T-95, should it enter service, might have a better gun and could exceed the M1A2's 429-kilometer range (Russian tanks usually have a range of 550-650 kilometers when equipped with extra fuel tanks), but the M1A2 is superior in most other aspects by which a tank is judged, particularly in fire control, crew survivability, the IVIS system (when used), and since it is already in service. It might cost $4.3 million per tank when compared to the $1.8 million Pakistan paid for each of the 320 T-80UDs Pakistan bought from the Ukraine, but the U.S. Army, in battles like 73 Easting (where the M1A1HA-equipped Eagle Troop of the 2nd ACR under H.R. McMaster, with other units, defeated elements of the Tawakalna Division) during Desert Storm, has proven that the M1 series of tanks can win when badly outnumbered. The M1A2 still rules the battlefield, and will for the foreseeable future.
M1A3
The Army plans to build prototypes of a tougher, more hightech M1A3 Abrams main battle tank by 2014 and field it by 2017. The variant would incorporate improvements based on lessons from Iraq. It will be able to plug into networks such as that planned for the Future Combat Systems, service officials said.
Army plans to preserve the battle-tested, 70-ton tank through 2050 will take Abrams technology well beyond the most advanced current variant, the M1A2 SEP, with more networking capability, laser designation and improved composite armor protection.
The plans build on interim improvements made to the Abrams during the war in Iraq.
"We want to take lessons learned from Iraq and improve interim fixes such as ballistic shields and underbelly armor protection," said Lt. Col. Jim Schirmer, assistant capabilities manager for Training and Doctrine Command, Heavy Brigade Combat Team.
One analyst said a key factor in planning the M1A3 was that the Abrams' performance in Iraq exceeded expectations.
"The Abrams design has proven to be more durable and versatile than anyone expected when the Cold War ended. The real turning point was the battle of Fallujah, when the presence of the system seemed to have a decisive impact on the outcome of the fight," said Loren Thompson, vice president of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.based think tank.
One aim of the modernization plan will be to ensure the Abrams can accommodate next-generation battle command technologies and be able to beam radio and satellite images, data and video across the force in real time.
Also, the M1A3 will take advantage of technological gains now being made with lighterweight materials.
The Army is developing an experimental power unit to bring exportable power on board the Abrams to handle the additional electronics. The alternator on the Abrams produces 1,000 amps when the engine is running. Officials want to add to that an 8- to 10-kilowatt onboard generator.
Funding for the Abrams mod ernization is included in a supplemental spending request in Congress, which calls for $362 million for the project. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told reporters in May that more money may be added to the Abrams in five to seven years.
The M1A3 Abrams tank will fire a range of munitions, including some planned for the future:
â– An Advanced Kinetic Energy round
â– An Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) tank round combining multiple ammunition types into a single round and designed to fire as a canister, high-explosive or anti-tank round. It will be ready in five to seven years.
â– Mid-Range Munition, a guided 120mm ammunition with built-in infrared cameras and sensors to autonomously direct it toward enemy targets from ranges up to 12 kilometers.
INTERESTING: a 70 ton tank built out of lighter weight materials.
New M1A3 Tank to be fielded, new ammo to be fired
Harold C. Hutchison 6/30/2004 9:15:33 PM
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which tank is the baddest of them all? This is a question that will touch off a major debate, particularly when one compares two tanks head-to-head. The latest such matchup is the 50-ton T-95, which is in development in Russia, versus the M1A2 Abrams, the front-line tank of the United States Army.
The T-95 is a new design. It will apparently carry a 152mm gun/missile launcher in a new turret designed to lower the silhouette even more than the current low slung T-72 series of tanks. The main gun will carry more of a punch than the 125mm gun used on current Russian tanks. This is a result of lessons learned from Desert Storm, when 125mm armor-piercing rounds bounced off M1A1 Abrams tanks, even when fired from as close as 400 meters. The other major advance will include systems designed to decoy anti-tank missiles (like the Hellfire, Javelin, and TOW). The goal is to jam the sighting systems and to confuse the aim. This also is intended to work against the sighting system for tank guns. Tanks often spend time fighting each other, and their sights work much like the sights used to target and guide anti-tank missiles. The real question is whether the T-95 will see production beyond a few prototypes. Its main competitor, the T-80UM2 ?Black Eagle,? has the advantage of being cheaper and an upgrade of the T-80, which is currently in service. The T-95 will need time to have all the kinks worked out of its design. Much of that has already been done with the basic design of the T-80, and the ?Black Eagle? will not need as much time to be ready for deployment. The T-95 has improved crew survivability over the T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks that the Russians currently use, but that is really not saying much, given the fact that the T-72 and its successors provided practically nothing in that area.
That said, the Americans have not stood pat with the M1A1. The 69-ton M1A2 is nearing ten years old. Its major changes are not in terms of the weapons (it maintains the same weapons as the M1A1: a 120mm main gun, a 12.7mm gun for the commander, and two 7.62mm machine guns ? one coaxial with the main gun, the other mounted on the loader?s hatch), but instead, the M1A2 is designed to exchange information with other vehicles faster through IVIS (Inter-Vehicle Information System). IVIS would allow a tank crew to find out what other tank crews are seeing, and to tell those other crews what they see, but troops have reportedly found it to be inconvenient. As a result, crews of the M1A2 will have a clearer picture of the battlefield than their opponents in other tanks when IVIS is used. That pays dividends. Having a good gun is nice, but you have to know where to point it. The American crews will know faster than their opponents due to IVIS. That means they are more likely to get in the first shot. The fire-control system remains perhaps the best in the world. When an Abrams fires at a target, it is probably going to hit the target. The results will usually be fatal to its target.
The technical specifications do not tell the whole story. The real difference is made in crew quality ? and American tank crews have the decided edge over their counterparts in other countries. This is due to two factors: Combat experience in two wars since 1990, and much better training, most notably at the National Training Center. The former is arguably the best teacher in the world. It brutally shows what was done right and wrong, and grading is not on a curve. The latter is the toughest training regime in the world ? often American combat veterans have compared fighting in Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom to the NTC, with the caveat that the Iraqis weren?t as good as the OPFOR (the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment). Training at home bases (American tank crews fire about 100 rounds per year, in addition to demonstrations and NTC rotations) and the constant use of simulators add to the American edge in training.
The T-95, should it enter service, might have a better gun and could exceed the M1A2's 429-kilometer range (Russian tanks usually have a range of 550-650 kilometers when equipped with extra fuel tanks), but the M1A2 is superior in most other aspects by which a tank is judged, particularly in fire control, crew survivability, the IVIS system (when used), and since it is already in service. It might cost $4.3 million per tank when compared to the $1.8 million Pakistan paid for each of the 320 T-80UDs Pakistan bought from the Ukraine, but the U.S. Army, in battles like 73 Easting (where the M1A1HA-equipped Eagle Troop of the 2nd ACR under H.R. McMaster, with other units, defeated elements of the Tawakalna Division) during Desert Storm, has proven that the M1 series of tanks can win when badly outnumbered. The M1A2 still rules the battlefield, and will for the foreseeable future.
M1A3
The Army plans to build prototypes of a tougher, more hightech M1A3 Abrams main battle tank by 2014 and field it by 2017. The variant would incorporate improvements based on lessons from Iraq. It will be able to plug into networks such as that planned for the Future Combat Systems, service officials said.
Army plans to preserve the battle-tested, 70-ton tank through 2050 will take Abrams technology well beyond the most advanced current variant, the M1A2 SEP, with more networking capability, laser designation and improved composite armor protection.
The plans build on interim improvements made to the Abrams during the war in Iraq.
"We want to take lessons learned from Iraq and improve interim fixes such as ballistic shields and underbelly armor protection," said Lt. Col. Jim Schirmer, assistant capabilities manager for Training and Doctrine Command, Heavy Brigade Combat Team.
One analyst said a key factor in planning the M1A3 was that the Abrams' performance in Iraq exceeded expectations.
"The Abrams design has proven to be more durable and versatile than anyone expected when the Cold War ended. The real turning point was the battle of Fallujah, when the presence of the system seemed to have a decisive impact on the outcome of the fight," said Loren Thompson, vice president of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.based think tank.
One aim of the modernization plan will be to ensure the Abrams can accommodate next-generation battle command technologies and be able to beam radio and satellite images, data and video across the force in real time.
Also, the M1A3 will take advantage of technological gains now being made with lighterweight materials.
The Army is developing an experimental power unit to bring exportable power on board the Abrams to handle the additional electronics. The alternator on the Abrams produces 1,000 amps when the engine is running. Officials want to add to that an 8- to 10-kilowatt onboard generator.
Funding for the Abrams mod ernization is included in a supplemental spending request in Congress, which calls for $362 million for the project. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told reporters in May that more money may be added to the Abrams in five to seven years.
The M1A3 Abrams tank will fire a range of munitions, including some planned for the future:
â– An Advanced Kinetic Energy round
â– An Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) tank round combining multiple ammunition types into a single round and designed to fire as a canister, high-explosive or anti-tank round. It will be ready in five to seven years.
â– Mid-Range Munition, a guided 120mm ammunition with built-in infrared cameras and sensors to autonomously direct it toward enemy targets from ranges up to 12 kilometers.
INTERESTING: a 70 ton tank built out of lighter weight materials.
New M1A3 Tank to be fielded, new ammo to be fired
average american
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
Dont get the idea that self guiding shells is some kiind of sciencefiction.
XM982 Excalibur
Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile
The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is a fire and forget, smart munition. It is intended to provide the Army with a capability to attack all three key target sets, soft and armored vehicles, and reinforced bunkers, out to ranges exceeding current 155mm family of artillery munitions. With its accuracy and increased effectiveness, the Excalibur was designed to reduce the logistical burden for deployed ground forces. It would also provide lower risks of collateral damage through its concentrated fragmentation pattern, increased precision and near-vertical descent.
Excalibur is a family of precision-guided, extended-range modular projectiles incorporating three unique payload capabilities divided into Block configurations. As designed, Block I consists of high-explosive, fragmenting, or ting unitary munitions to enhance traditional fire support operations with increased range, improved accuracy, and reduced collateral damage against personnel, light materiel, and structure targets. Block II consists of smart munitions to search, detect, acquire, and engage fleeting and short-dwell targets common to open-terrain battlefields. Block III consists of discriminating munitions to selectively identify and engage individual vehicular targets in urban environments by distinguishing specific target characteristics. It was also expected that Excalibur's precision capabilities would be used by Future Combat System (FCS) Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannon units to provide close support to maneuver units in urban or complex terrain. Digitized lightweight 155mm howitzer systems would be used to develop and test Excalibur's capabilities before FCS NLOS Cannon is fielded.
The Excalibur development team combined US guidance expertise with Swedish airframe experience. The projectile would employ Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided inertial guidance and navigation, free spinning base fins, four-axis canard airframe control, base bleed technology, and a trajectory glide to achieve increased accuracy and extended ranges beyond 30 km. The FCS NLOS Cannon would incorporate an inductive fuze setter to transfer target and fuze data to the integral fuze.
Teamed with Raytheon Systems Company, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems was tasked with developing the Army's new 155mm guided projectile. The XM982 utilized a modular concept to provide a multiple warhead payload capability. In addition to submunitions, the projectile can carry two SADARM sensor fused submunitions or a single Unitary warhead. The XM982 as designed was expected to provide 40% greater range and increased effectiveness over the existing M864.
The XM982 projectile began development at the US Armament Research, Engineering and Development Center's (ARDEC) Artillery and Mortar Division of the Fire Support Armaments Center. The government's projectile design combined the technologies of base burn and rocket assist to achieve significant increases in range capability and would, potentially, be the longest range artillery projectile in the US Army inventory. It was designed to contain 85 dual purpose XM80 grenades with XM234 Self Destruction Fuzing providing both anti-materiel and anti-personnel effects while virtually eliminating hazardous duds.
The XM982 Extended Range Projectile was initially developed jointly by Raytheon TI Systems' [RTIS] (Guidance and navigation systems), Primex (Projectile design and manufacturing), and KDI (Fuzing) to deliver a state-of-the-art, high performance, extended range weapon which will result in substantial savings to the U.S. Army. Weapons to be equipped included the towed M198 and XM777 (Joint Light Weight), and the M109A6 Paladin and XM2001 Crusader self-propelled howitzers (SPHs).
In addition to overall E&MD program management responsibility, RTIS would design, develop, and manufacture the guidance and control for the XM982 round. PRIMEX Technologies, Inc., in St. Petersburg, Florida (formerly Olin Ordnance), and KDI in Cincinnati, Ohio, were major subcontractors to RTIS for the XM982. PRIMEX would supply the projectile structure and payload. KDI would be supply the XM982 projectile safe and arm device and DPICM fuzing.
XM982 Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile
Sources that I know say the Russians have pretty well given up on building tanks that can compete with American tanks. Any time you hear lighter weight, maneuverability, thats just the Russians polishing a turd to sell tanks to third world countries.
XM982 Excalibur
Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile
The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is a fire and forget, smart munition. It is intended to provide the Army with a capability to attack all three key target sets, soft and armored vehicles, and reinforced bunkers, out to ranges exceeding current 155mm family of artillery munitions. With its accuracy and increased effectiveness, the Excalibur was designed to reduce the logistical burden for deployed ground forces. It would also provide lower risks of collateral damage through its concentrated fragmentation pattern, increased precision and near-vertical descent.
Excalibur is a family of precision-guided, extended-range modular projectiles incorporating three unique payload capabilities divided into Block configurations. As designed, Block I consists of high-explosive, fragmenting, or ting unitary munitions to enhance traditional fire support operations with increased range, improved accuracy, and reduced collateral damage against personnel, light materiel, and structure targets. Block II consists of smart munitions to search, detect, acquire, and engage fleeting and short-dwell targets common to open-terrain battlefields. Block III consists of discriminating munitions to selectively identify and engage individual vehicular targets in urban environments by distinguishing specific target characteristics. It was also expected that Excalibur's precision capabilities would be used by Future Combat System (FCS) Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannon units to provide close support to maneuver units in urban or complex terrain. Digitized lightweight 155mm howitzer systems would be used to develop and test Excalibur's capabilities before FCS NLOS Cannon is fielded.
The Excalibur development team combined US guidance expertise with Swedish airframe experience. The projectile would employ Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided inertial guidance and navigation, free spinning base fins, four-axis canard airframe control, base bleed technology, and a trajectory glide to achieve increased accuracy and extended ranges beyond 30 km. The FCS NLOS Cannon would incorporate an inductive fuze setter to transfer target and fuze data to the integral fuze.
Teamed with Raytheon Systems Company, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems was tasked with developing the Army's new 155mm guided projectile. The XM982 utilized a modular concept to provide a multiple warhead payload capability. In addition to submunitions, the projectile can carry two SADARM sensor fused submunitions or a single Unitary warhead. The XM982 as designed was expected to provide 40% greater range and increased effectiveness over the existing M864.
The XM982 projectile began development at the US Armament Research, Engineering and Development Center's (ARDEC) Artillery and Mortar Division of the Fire Support Armaments Center. The government's projectile design combined the technologies of base burn and rocket assist to achieve significant increases in range capability and would, potentially, be the longest range artillery projectile in the US Army inventory. It was designed to contain 85 dual purpose XM80 grenades with XM234 Self Destruction Fuzing providing both anti-materiel and anti-personnel effects while virtually eliminating hazardous duds.
The XM982 Extended Range Projectile was initially developed jointly by Raytheon TI Systems' [RTIS] (Guidance and navigation systems), Primex (Projectile design and manufacturing), and KDI (Fuzing) to deliver a state-of-the-art, high performance, extended range weapon which will result in substantial savings to the U.S. Army. Weapons to be equipped included the towed M198 and XM777 (Joint Light Weight), and the M109A6 Paladin and XM2001 Crusader self-propelled howitzers (SPHs).
In addition to overall E&MD program management responsibility, RTIS would design, develop, and manufacture the guidance and control for the XM982 round. PRIMEX Technologies, Inc., in St. Petersburg, Florida (formerly Olin Ordnance), and KDI in Cincinnati, Ohio, were major subcontractors to RTIS for the XM982. PRIMEX would supply the projectile structure and payload. KDI would be supply the XM982 projectile safe and arm device and DPICM fuzing.
XM982 Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile
Sources that I know say the Russians have pretty well given up on building tanks that can compete with American tanks. Any time you hear lighter weight, maneuverability, thats just the Russians polishing a turd to sell tanks to third world countries.
luckily, not every american is a ----ing idiot like you, or we'd all be ----ed.
no it's not science fiction. russians have had guided missiles fired from their gun tubes since 1980. they were also the first to develop the man-portable guided missile.
average american
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
Dont think so, USSR was never very good with electronics. SS.10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dont argue with me argue with the articles. Guide missiles of Russian tanks have to be guided, fire and forget shells dont and any missle fired from the guns of a T95 are not going to pentrate the new DU Chobham Armor of M1A3 tanks. Indirect fire from the M1A3 has longer range then the Russian tanks.
If the Russians had guilded missles from gun tubes since 1980 can you show me where they ever hit anything with them. You would have thought if they were going to sell billions of dollars worth of military equipment to countries like Iraq, India, they would throw in a few tank guided missles if they were any goodl
Last edited:
average american
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
So you think the people that write for GlobalSecurity.org are idiots, wonder who the real idiot is??????
militarysta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
Looking at sometimes therible mistakes posted there...
GlobalSeciurity is far far from credible sources.
militarysta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
152mm artilery Kotwilow (Kotvilov) and 120mm motar Gran where used during both Chechenia battles. Both are developed and ended mucht faster then Excalibur 155mm and STIX 120mm (motar) or other western rounds.
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
I wonder how many times I would need to reply you, so you would understand, that there is no such thing as Chobham armor, neither DU Chobham armor. The armor developed in UK was designed under program codenamed Burlington, and it's US version was developed under program codenamed Starflower. Non of these armors actually got any "special" name or codename, and they are called for simplicity after codenames of their R&D programs.
Aslo who said you that M1A3 (if this will be designation code for the next M1 variant, because it can be also designated as M1A2SEP v3) will have DU in it's armor? You know what people in Army Research Laboratory invented?
As for XM1111 MRM-KE/CE it is also guided missiles, it is not 100% fire and forgot.
Also T-95 (not T95 because T95 is American design from World War II) or more properly Object 195 because tank was not standarized and inducted in to service, is a IVth generation MBT, which means that only MBT's capable to have protection adequate to it's firepower, are other IVth generation designs. Not to mention that new Russian MBT will be based on modular, unified combat platform codenamed "Armata".
I said it some time ago, and I will repeat, not only you don't have even smallest knowledge about non American weapon systems, you have also absolutely no knowledge about weapon systems developed in your own country! .
They developed guided missiles fired from different guns way before 1980's.
You obviously never was in US Armed Forces, especially during Cold War, pity, they would teach you some respect to adversary.
Only ignorants underestimate their potential enemies.
Yes, people at GlobalSecurity are mostly lacking knowledge, as well as 90% of these so called military analysts not working for government but for such silly internet sites or TV "documentaries" like these participating in Discovery Channel shows.
But nothing strange here, people with real knowledge preffer to dig out more knowledge from all available and credible sources instead of showing their faces in TV or wasting time for such internet sites.
On GlobalSecurity you can read a lot of BS about different weapon systems.
Last edited:
average american
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
Perhaps you should tell Wikipedia there is no such thing as Chobham armour. Chobham armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chobham armour is the name informally given to a composite armour developed in the 1960s at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey, England. The name has since become the common generic term for ceramic vehicle armour. Other names informally given to Chobham Armour include "Burlington" and "Dorchester."
Although the construction details of the Chobham Common armour remain a secret, it has been described as being composed of ceramic tiles encased within a metal matrix and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers. Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators. Only the M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, and Challenger 2 tanks have been disclosed as being thus armoured. The armour was first tested in the context of the development of a British prototype vehicle, the FV4211.[1] Despite being a British invention, the armour type was first implemented on the American Abrams tank.
HowStuffWorks "M1 Tank Armor"
Updated M1 tanks have extra layers of steel and depleted uranium that supplement the Chobham-style armor. This combination will hold up to any tank round and most missiles
But of course there is not such thing as Chobham armor so they dont really exist.
Chobham armour is the name informally given to a composite armour developed in the 1960s at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey, England. The name has since become the common generic term for ceramic vehicle armour. Other names informally given to Chobham Armour include "Burlington" and "Dorchester."
Although the construction details of the Chobham Common armour remain a secret, it has been described as being composed of ceramic tiles encased within a metal matrix and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers. Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators. Only the M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, and Challenger 2 tanks have been disclosed as being thus armoured. The armour was first tested in the context of the development of a British prototype vehicle, the FV4211.[1] Despite being a British invention, the armour type was first implemented on the American Abrams tank.
HowStuffWorks "M1 Tank Armor"
Updated M1 tanks have extra layers of steel and depleted uranium that supplement the Chobham-style armor. This combination will hold up to any tank round and most missiles
But of course there is not such thing as Chobham armor so they dont really exist.
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
Of course, you are not even capable to read with understanding what other person says.
So I will repeat to you.
"Chobham armor" is term developed by moronic journalists, nothing more.
The UK/USA special armor was developed under program codenamed "Burlington", this was official codename you can find in British archieves.
Americanized version of one of armor design, developed under "Burlington" program, was developed under program codenamed "Starflower".
Overall design was then adopted by several NATO countries, technology was most likely shared with their allies like Israel, Japan, South Korea.
Now, in 1987-1988 USA resigns from armor developed under program "Burlington", and developes it's own armor with Depleted Uranium alloy, called "Heavy Armor Package", in the same times other countries follows with Germans evolving their own solutions, British developing improved armor under codename "Dorchester" etc.
So yes, Wikipedia is wrong like in most cases... and please "HowStuffWorks" is your source? Damn I feel right now so above you, knowing that my education was worth it, and seeing lesser being like you, trying to even discuss with me.
Don't even expect you will find above informations in "sources" like Wikipedia, you would need to make some hard work, go to some archieves and seek for unclassified documents, and then dig out through them.
Of course I have an article, written by person that is historian and do all this work, but I doubt you know any language besides english... however even not knowing other languages, any intelligent form of life, would just rewrite bibliography and then seek sources on it's own.
Last edited:
Decklander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,654
- Likes
- 4,111
@Damian, M1A3 will have 120mm rifled gun. So much for your self styled outstanding knowldge of tank guns. remember how we debated it a few months ago?
Do you also remember my quote that Arjun Mk-3 will be a turretless tank with three men crew and much better protected than even Mk-2.
Do you also remember my quote that Arjun Mk-3 will be a turretless tank with three men crew and much better protected than even Mk-2.
Last edited by a moderator:
militarysta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
@UP
NOPE
smoothbore gun will be.
NOPE
smoothbore gun will be.
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
The word came from the place where it was first manufactured in UK, Officially it has nothing to do with projects..
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
And where did you read that it will have rifled gun, and what rifled gun?
The only 120mm tank guns currently developed in USA, are smoothbore XM360 for lightweight platforms and XM360E1 for heavyweight platforms like MBT's.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayReunionDavidSmith.pdf
PDF from USA archieves DTIC, PDF original source is RDECOM ---> RDECOM | The United States Army
Last edited by a moderator:
militarysta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
Btw - here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition.html
is whole topic about tank gun and amunition.
It's good idea to reasd those topic - Methos, Damian, Kunal, Lindsky, myself are posting there many sources, pdfs, part of the books, and others.
It's worth to know this what is posted there -it will explain a lot for many users, espacialy if they where not interested previous in modern tank gun and amunition.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition.html
is whole topic about tank gun and amunition.
It's good idea to reasd those topic - Methos, Damian, Kunal, Lindsky, myself are posting there many sources, pdfs, part of the books, and others.
It's worth to know this what is posted there -it will explain a lot for many users, espacialy if they where not interested previous in modern tank gun and amunition.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
Which post have I edited? Don't post BS.
Are you referring to the deleted posts? Do you know the contents of those deleted posts? They are all visible to the staff. PM anyone in the staff and prove your allegation.
You better have a case in your hand.
average american
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,540
- Likes
- 441
Would you like to point out their mistakes.
