Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

This is only Russians point of view. West do not have such extreme weight and sieze limitationf for their tanks, also western tanks armor is thicker (I do not consider here it's inclination).

Besides this Russians do not experiment with advanced materials, I never read in any russian language source that they are experimenting with materials other than steel, ceramics and polymers. There are no heavy metals alloys encased in steel, neither even single attempts on carbon based nano materials.

Also Russiand understanding or active means is quiet funny, as it seems that their composite armors are not reactive, like western terminology sees their own.

But this is probably due to the poor financing of any research and development programs and obsession with ERA development instead of searching alternatives like more energetic NERA. I think that Militarysta had somewhere a document with the NERA effectiveness data, that was preatty much very good, better than some ERA.

I also have article from 1998 about use of new materials that was described on 1998 AUSA, need to find it.

Of course however there are problem with weight issue, the vehicle with both manned turret and hull, will be to heavy. This is why unmanned turret needs to become nececity, so the weight will be better distributed.

Such design is the most desired one, with small unmanned turret/gunmount and a heavy protected hull. It was described that this particular project, had a ~1,300mm thick front hull armor, and weight of ~50-55 tons. So it is possible to have a tank with weight and size within limits, with good composite armor protection and capability to eventually put there ERA if needed.

But ERA have it's limits, it is a one hit armor, it's limitations are obvious right now, both APFSDS and HEAT can defeat ERA, while composite armor have a multi hit capability and it is harder to be defeated.

So the real revolution won't be new types of ERA, neither this revolution will be seen in Russia, but in the west and especially USA, when problems with mass manufacture with completely new materials will be solved, so the only question is when. I assume that in the next 10 to 20 years there might be a breakthrough in US or west in general, just like in the 1940's the first composite armors were designed in UK and US.

 

[militarysta]

So this composite block which makes most of armour consists of composite of semi-reactive type (NERA) with use of relatively thin plates with provided space in between to achieve effect. NERA plate and spaced arrangement makes it lighter (less dense), with increased effectiveness against cumulative jet. But this composition is significantly worse against APFSDS, less than steel, because it is aknowledged that NERA plate performance is limited.

What?!
First: Burlinghton armour works like NERA but it's not NERA it's work in diffrent way.
Second - Burlinghton works due to 3 diffrent but working in the same time mehanism - propably whole armour from front to backplate worke as one and whole armour can be decribe as Burlinghton. Those "special armour" 50cm block is only one component work on most semi-active way.
Details:
NERA efectivness is taken from moving HHS plates -the moving layer is energeting but not explosive polimer or aramid (etc.) layer between two HHS plates whit hight density. Optimum angle is 30-45. degree for that kind of armour
Burlinghton working mehanism is not explosing too but it's work on slightly diffrent principles then NERA:
a) "plate bending" - it's only one simmilar to NERA working mehanism when thin metal plates are moving so in result attackin HEAT jet or penetrator is still attacked by "new" moving meterial (made by HHS plate), and crosses the moving jet/penetrator line.
b) "spall debris"-this mehanism is depend on moving small debrits (which arising from armor attacked armour) into penetrator or jet line - IMHO it's somethng like secondary forced fragmentation used now in PELE rounds:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/wednesday/borngen.pdf
when propably during penetration process HHS steel small parts (made by working APFSDS penetrator) hit in inner layers and those small debrits made by penetrator are caught by nonmetalic layer and push back in to penetrator way (path). It's simmilar in working to PELE munition but reverse.
c) whistle" effect -this is most mysterious part of working mehanism in burlinghton armour -it's not descibe yet in literature. I suppose that this mehanism work on principles referrals energy in a different direction -propably during working a) and b) mehanis.
Those 3 mehanism - "plate bending", "spall debris" "whistle" effect" are decribe in those aricles about Burlinghton. Names are taken from offical Burlinghton files.
If those knowledges and my assumptions? I think Yes. Ironnicly we know layout in M1A1 and Leopard-2A4, and it's armour layout in accordance with those what we known about Burlinghton.
Leopard2A4:

In that Layout for a) mahanism corresponds to a layer B, and mehanism b) corresponds to a layer AA-C-DD when AA is HHS steel, C is nonmetalic white in colour layer (ceramics/kevler-armaid?) and DD are two unkown non metalic layers.
And "whistle effect" will be working during both a) and b) mehanism.
In that scenario thoce 50cm thick "special armour" block is only full respond for one from three woking mehanism in Burlinghton ( "plate bending") adn partial for "whistle effect".
BTW: on test LKEI perforate only to second (after special armour block) A layer. And those round (DM43) had about 600 RHA for 2000m... So in fact three 40mm HHS layers whit hight HB and 50cm special armour block whan enought to stop that round - so by physical thickness around 620mm...

On Open M1A1 side armour we can see simmilar layout:

B is without doubt NERA layers
C is Burlinghton ("sandwich)
So more then 65-70% of physical thickness is taken by two active working layers: B (more active - NERA) and simmilar but works slighlty diffrent "special armour" C layer.
And after that we have very simmilar to leo2A4 layout:
Thick HHS layer (A) and three non metalic layer (D-E-D) and inner backplate (A). It's almoust the same layout like in Leo-2A4. Only one exception is first active layer B (NERA) -in Leopard-2 is thinner armour so those layer is outside main armour (NERA wedges in Leo2A5-A7).. In very thick main M1A1/A2 armour where possible to place NERA inside armour as we can see.

?

You had wrote that is impossible to achive bigger armour protection then physical thickness even using active working mehanism" Burlinghtn, NERA, NxRA, etc. I wrote that is lthe same nonsens like claming that ERA efectivness can't be better then it's cassette physical thickness at 30 degree.

because increased weight efficiency on this case implies bigger volume to achieve equivalent protection value.

weight eficcency can be bigger by using other methods: more active layers, diffrent material, etc.

t is known that NERA efficiency is much more limited against APFSDS

1) NERA is not Burlinghton
2) is limited more then what?
3) one NERA layers - yes, it's true, but 3 NERA layers? Are You sure? And example 20 NERA layers one by one?

nteresting part of article (russian)

Противостоять поражающим элементам современных боеприпасов за счет простого поглощения их кинетической энергии, срабатывания и торможения при имеющихся ограничениях по массе и толщине бронирования далее не представляется возможным. Ð’ любом случае им должен наноситься деструктивный и дестабилизирующий ущерб активным контрвоздействием со стороны брони. По-видимому, дальнейшее совершенствование баллистической защиты от поражающих средств будет идти, с одной стороны, по пути более точного и дозированного деструктивного воздействия на поражающие элементы, с другой — по пути снижения разрушающих нагрузок на несущие конструкции бронирования.

We can see that composite armour does not longer allow to efficiently improve protection due to mass (weight) and volume, thickness limitations. To further increase protection more active means are required, to affect projectile.

Lidsky, those part: "Противостоять поражающим элементам современных боеприпасов за счет простого поглощения их кинетической энергии, срабатывания и торможения при имеющихся ограничениях по массе и толщине бронирования далее не представляется возможным." decribe all kinde of passive armour but not semi-active working Burlinghton style armour, or active NERA. So it's not example of smth.

 

[militarysta]

TI think that Militarysta had somewhere a document with the NERA effectiveness data, that was preatty much very good, better than some ERA.

I have 5 pdfs about NERA and NxRA. And ONE NERA plate is less efective then ERA cassette, but there is no solution* when is only one NERA plate.
Those what we can see inside M1A2(or A1) side armour consist 3 NERA layers one by one. In Leo2A5-A6 wedges are always 2 NERA layers and for most angles they are 3 NERA layers. Frotnt hull -again 2 NERA layers.

And two NERA layers have better countr-HEAT efectivnes then ERA (more then 90-93%), single NERA layer can reduce APFSDS perforation on about 15-25%, double layer NERA module have efecctivnes in non linear way - so it will be not 15+15% but propably mucht more (like in contr-HEAT NERA abilities case). In one documents it's around 40-45%.

In Leopard-2 famili active working NERA is in modules outside main armour but in very easy and guick to replace modules/ cassettes and whit optimum angle smaller then 45 degree.
In M1A2 NERA layers are inside main armour - for turret sides they are not slopped due to fact that for +/-30. for longitiudal axis even not slopped NERA will be have some angle against projectile. If somthing hit turret at 90. degree - well shit happens. Thise inner NERA layers have not sucht optimum angle like in Leo-2A5-A7 case, but it's protected against small firerms due to front armour plate. But three NERA layers for turret sides (for normal angle smaller then 35 degree)should give impresive protection.







*exept upper glastic plate

 

[methos]

I think what Lidsky is saying is the following:
A X cm block of NERA plates is less effecitve than a X cm steel block vs KE. The CIA worte in a report about the Iraqi tanks (inlcuding the Enigma) that multiple steel-rubber-steel in a spaced configuration are as effective as a steel block of the same weight vs KE. Similarily the T-72B's special turret armour (when attacked from the front 4 to 6 plates have to be penetrated) is less effective than a steel block of the same thickness.

 

[militarysta]

I think what Lidsky is saying is the following:
A X cm block of NERA plates is less effecitve than a X cm steel block vs KE. The CIA worte in a report about the Iraqi tanks (inlcuding the Enigma) that multiple steel-rubber-steel in a spaced configuration are as effective as a steel block of the same weight vs KE. Similarily the T-72B's special turret armour (when attacked from the front 4 to 6 plates have to be penetrated) is less effective than a steel block of the same thickness.

Ok, but innsert in T-72B and in Enigma is not NERA, and is not Burlinghton style armour.
In T-72B and Enigma those armour works on idea bulging plates or rather reflecting plates - when first is thick HHS (21mm) plate then next is rubber (6mm) and after that hight plasticy RHA plate (3mm). Energy given by penetrator/jet during perforation first thick plate (whit hight HB) is transfered into rubber and refleckting from last layer -thin RHA plate whit hight plasticy and given back into first plate so this first plate start to move - all is during perforation proccess and it can bent penetrator. And the most important part T-72B insert is plate after that modules - ordinary 45mm thick HHS plate.

It's not even close to NERA or Burlinghton...

 

[Akim]

Ok, but innsert in T-72B and in Enigma is not NERA, and is not Burlinghton style armour.
In T-72B and Enigma those armour works on idea bulging plates or rather reflecting plates - when first is thick HHS (21mm) plate then next is rubber (6mm) and after that hight plasticy RHA plate (3mm). Energy given by penetrator/jet during perforation first thick plate (whit hight HB) is transfered into rubber and refleckting from last layer -thin RHA plate whit hight plasticy and given back into first plate so this first plate start to move - all is during perforation proccess and it can bent penetrator. And the most important part T-72B insert is plate after that modules - ordinary 45mm thick HHS plate.

It's not even close to NERA or Burlinghton...

Described correctly, but take into account, the to the similar chart 20 years and she was used only on Т-72B. Certainly, she does not can compared to modern. But principle the same - the use of energy of the most cumulative stream on counteraction.

 

[hest]

What?!
First: Burlinghton armour works like NERA but it's not NERA it's work in diffrent way.
Second - Burlinghton works due to 3 diffrent but working in the same time mehanism - propably whole armour from front to backplate worke as one and whole armour can be decribe as Burlinghton. Those "special armour" 50cm block is only one component work on most semi-active way.
Details:
NERA efectivness is taken from moving HHS plates -the moving layer is energeting but not explosive polimer or aramid (etc.) layer between two HHS plates whit hight density. Optimum angle is 30-45. degree for that kind of armour
Burlinghton working mehanism is not explosing too but it's work on slightly diffrent principles then NERA:
a) "plate bending" - it's only one simmilar to NERA working mehanism when thin metal plates are moving so in result attackin HEAT jet or penetrator is still attacked by "new" moving meterial (made by HHS plate), and crosses the moving jet/penetrator line.
b) "spall debris"-this mehanism is depend on moving small debrits (which arising from armor attacked armour) into penetrator or jet line - IMHO it's somethng like secondary forced fragmentation used now in PELE rounds:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/wednesday/borngen.pdf
when propably during penetration process HHS steel small parts (made by working APFSDS penetrator) hit in inner layers and those small debrits made by penetrator are caught by nonmetalic layer and push back in to penetrator way (path). It's simmilar in working to PELE munition but reverse.
c) whistle" effect -this is most mysterious part of working mehanism in burlinghton armour -it's not descibe yet in literature. I suppose that this mehanism work on principles referrals energy in a different direction -propably during working a) and b) mehanis.
Those 3 mehanism - "plate bending", "spall debris" "whistle" effect" are decribe in those aricles about Burlinghton. Names are taken from offical Burlinghton files.
If those knowledges and my assumptions? I think Yes. Ironnicly we know layout in M1A1 and Leopard-2A4, and it's armour layout in accordance with those what we known about Burlinghton.

Such armour is denominated semi-active, which works on known principle, useing energy of projectile to counter it.

- To exploit semi-active effect, elements must be placed with space between them (this is characteristic of every such armour, including Burlington), this makes armour structure less dense, lighter overall, while effect achieved overmatches homogeneous steel of same volume against cumulative jet.

- As main protection of semi-reactive structure in general is provided by destabilising effect, given that it is much more difficult to achieve with limited energy against modern APFSDS, it is not a point in favour. Since structure of such armour, with spaced elements is less dense, passive protection would be significantly weaker, less than steel in volume, thickness, while semi-active effect does not compensate.

In your article (from late 70s) are described several effects and values against APFSDS rounds. Now that can no longer be achieved. Semi-active effect could have been enought, but to destabilise, bend a projectile from 70s, and a modern one, are two very different things.

Same as Kontakt-5, destroying an older projectile to pieces reducing performance to neglible value, and destabilising a modern APFSDS which are different situations.

BTW: on test LKEI perforate only to second (after special armour block) A layer. And those round (DM43) had about 600 RHA for 2000m... So in fact three 40mm HHS layers whit hight HB and 50cm special armour block whan enought to stop that round - so by physical thickness around 620mm...

What were the conditions ?

On Open M1A1 side armour we can see simmilar layout:

B is without doubt NERA layers
C is Burlinghton ("sandwich)
So more then 65-70% of physical thickness is taken by two active working layers: B (more active - NERA) and simmilar but works slighlty diffrent "special armour" C layer.
And after that we have very simmilar to leo2A4 layout:
Thick HHS layer (A) and three non metalic layer (D-E-D) and inner backplate (A). It's almoust the same layout like in Leo-2A4. Only one exception is first active layer B (NERA) -in Leopard-2 is thinner armour so those layer is outside main armour (NERA wedges in Leo2A5-A7).. In very thick main M1A1/A2 armour where possible to place NERA inside armour as we can see.

It is known that side armour is of semi-active structure, but this is only guess based on the assumption that it is same as turret or hull module, which is not likely. Photos do not show what deal of visible volume is composed by armour.

Given some known facts, it is not equivalent. Modern Leopard 2 incorporates additional armour on turret side to meet modern protection requirement of about 40-45 degrees from turret front.

Abrams, whatever the actual armour thickness (effective, not visual), its equivalence is well under 500 mm against cumulative jet for modern version, now incorporating ERA, being against APFSDS about 200 mm.

You had wrote that is impossible to achive bigger armour protection then physical thickness even using active working mehanism" Burlinghtn, NERA, NxRA, etc. I wrote that is lthe same nonsens like claming that ERA efectivness can't be better then it's cassette physical thickness at 30 degree.

OK, but if you base your idea about Burlington protection on effectiveness against 70s projectiles, I can base ERA effect against old APFSDS which are destroyed in pieces, but it does not apply to modern projectiles.

weight eficcency can be bigger by using other methods: more active layers, diffrent material, etc.

As long as it is semi-reactive effect, you'll need working space. Any such armour is inherently less dense than same volume of steel.

Lidsky, those part: "Противостоять поражающим элементам современных боеприпасов за счет простого поглощения их кинетической энергии, срабатывания и торможения при имеющихся ограничениях по массе и толщине бронирования далее не представляется возможным." decribe all kinde of passive armour but not semi-active working Burlinghton style armour, or active NERA. So it's not example of smth.

It does refer to multi-layered composite armour, which is based on semi-active working principle.

Active methods used to defeat projectile, essential to achieve sufficient protection, mentioned in article, do not apply to composite armour, it is not possible to provide such performance just using energy of projectile.

 

[Damian]

Such armour is denominated semi-active, which works on known principle, useing energy of projectile to counter it.

- To exploit semi-active effect, elements must be placed with space between them (this is characteristic of every such armour, including Burlington), this makes armour structure less dense, lighter overall, while effect achieved overmatches homogeneous steel of same volume against cumulative jet.

- As main protection of semi-reactive structure in general is provided by destabilising effect, given that it is much more difficult to achieve with limited energy against modern APFSDS, it is not a point in favour. Since structure of such armour, with spaced elements is less dense, passive protection would be significantly weaker, less than steel in volume, thickness, while semi-active effect does not compensate.

In your article (from late 70s) are described several effects and values against APFSDS rounds. Now that can no longer be achieved. Semi-active effect could have been enought, but to destabilise, bend a projectile from 70s, and a modern one, are two very different things.

Same as Kontakt-5, destroying an older projectile to pieces reducing performance to neglible value, and destabilising a modern APFSDS which are different situations.

There are many western sources saying that even modern projectiles like these with ~700mm+ penetration level was defeated by modern western composite armors without any support from addon armors.

Be it known example of Challgner 2 hit by American M1A1. It is not known what type of APFSDS was fired at Challenger 2, be it M829A1 or M829A2 (M829A2 is more probable as a main APFSDS ammunition used by US forces in 2003), projectile did not perforate Challenger 2 armor. It means that western armor even without ERA is more efficent against KE ammunition than obsolete soviet or Russian solutions.

This is a fact, You want to deny reality beacuse of only Your love to these obsolete T-xx series tanks?

What were the conditions ?

Maybe You should learn to read? It is clearly said, western composite armor, stopped more efficent modern western APFSDS penetrator without help of any addon armor, simple as that.

It is known that side armour is of semi-active structure, but this is only guess based on the assumption that it is same as turret or hull module, which is not likely. Photos do not show what deal of visible volume is composed by armour.

Given some known facts, it is not equivalent. Modern Leopard 2 incorporates additional armour on turret side to meet modern protection requirement of about 40-45 degrees from turret front.
Abrams, whatever the actual armour thickness (effective, not visual), its equivalence is well under 500 mm against cumulative jet for modern version, now incorporating ERA, being against APFSDS about 200 mm.

Leopard 2 have additional protection on turret, because it's side turret armor is thinner than in M1 series, and second is that front wedge armor was not designed to improve protection against Your pityfull 125mm projectiles, but mainly against percived threats from bigger callibers like 152mm.

As for M1 series side armor, I seen M1's hit in the turret side with RPG-7 granades with ~500mm penetration levels, without armor being perforated, only a mark on armor where granade hit.

ERA is placed there to increase protection against tandem warheads.

OK, but if you base your idea about Burlington protection on effectiveness against 70s projectiles, I can base ERA effect against old APFSDS which are destroyed in pieces, but it does not apply to modern projectiles.

And do You think fool that Burlington was not evolving, in fact in the second half of 1980's Americans abandoned Burlington as obsolete and started to use their new, and own design, but based on experience gained with Burlington. In 1990's Americans start production fot the 2nd generation of that new armor, Germans also change their armor, as well as British replace Burlington with newer Dorchester.

Do You really belive that west just sopped on 1970's technology? You play naive or stupid right now?

As long as it is semi-reactive effect, you'll need working space. Any such armour is inherently less dense than same volume of steel.

Even if so, does not mean less effective. As I said, only because people in NII Stali are incapable to design such armor as effective, it does not mean as in west designers are not capable to do so.

For example Your argument that DU was used mainly as shaped charge protection, I have American Sources from APG that says that DU was used mainly as increase in protection against APFSDS ammunition. So what You will say, that Americans, and especially source from APG do not know for what they designed new armor?

It does refer to multi-layered composite armour, which is based on semi-active working principle.

Active methods used to defeat projectile, essential to achieve sufficient protection, mentioned in article, do not apply to composite armour, it is not possible to provide such performance just using energy of projectile.

As I said, only because You Russians are not capable, does not mean others are not capable. Good example is that You Russians still work on obsolete protection like ERA, while west is moving towards new materials, stronger, lighter and more efficent than steel.

Nobody really needs to use Your obsolete protection. If You wish to use it, be it, but do not say that others use obsolete protection as You all do not know anything about this, neither are capable to design similiar solutions.

 

[pmaitra]

Interesting part of article (russian)

Противостоять поражающим элементам современных боеприпасов за счет простого поглощения их кинетической энергии, срабатывания и торможения при имеющихся ограничениях по массе и толщине бронирования далее не представляется возможным. Ð’ любом случае им должен наноситься деструктивный и дестабилизирующий ущерб активным контрвоздействием со стороны брони. По-видимому, дальнейшее совершенствование баллистической защиты от поражающих средств будет идти, с одной стороны, по пути более точного и дозированного деструктивного воздействия на поражающие элементы, с другой — по пути снижения разрушающих нагрузок на несущие конструкции бронирования.

We can see that composite armour does not longer allow to efficiently improve protection due to mass (weight) and volume, thickness limitations. To further increase protection more active means are required, to affect projectile.

Resist striking elements of modern weapons by simply absorb the kinetic energy during braking operation and the existing restrictions on weight and thickness on reservation is not possible. In any case, they should be applied destructive and destabilizing damage active rear impact by armor. Apparently, further improvement of the ballistic attack weapons will go, on the one hand, towards a more accurate and destructive impact on the dose submunitions, on the other - on ways to reduce the breaking loads on structures booking.

Courtesy: Google Translate

 

[Damian]

Still this is not taking in to account different types of materials than these used in Russian tanks (steel, rubber, polymers), neither there is visible any pursuit after any alternatives.

It is obvious that currently used materials and other types of protection (ERA) have their limits in size and weight. But there are materials that have potential to at least be used as a part of composite armor matrix, and greatly increase their protection values without or at least not significantly increasing their weight and size.

After reading about some of these materials like fullerene or ADNRs, there is huge potential in them. In fact the only problem is to make manufacturing them fast, in form of plates and cheap, because as for now, these are ready to be used as armor materials.

 

[methos]

Ok, but innsert in T-72B and in Enigma is not NERA, and is not Burlinghton style armour.
In T-72B and Enigma those armour works on idea bulging plates or rather reflecting plates - when first is thick HHS (21mm) plate then next is rubber (6mm) and after that hight plasticy RHA plate (3mm). Energy given by penetrator/jet during perforation first thick plate (whit hight HB) is transfered into rubber and refleckting from last layer -thin RHA plate whit hight plasticy and given back into first plate so this first plate start to move - all is during perforation proccess and it can bent penetrator. And the most important part T-72B insert is plate after that modules - ordinary 45mm thick HHS plate.

It's not even close to NERA or Burlinghton...

It is NERA. You just use the term NERA exclusively for one specialized type of NERA. The T-72B bulging-plates armour uses a similar mechanism like what you call NERA, just with one moving plate less. In the German language both the sandwich plates with two moving plates and the sandwich plates with just a single moving plate are called with the same name.
The CIA report I was mentioning was made before the second (or third depending on viewpoint) Gulf War, so I have doubts that the U.S. did exactly new wether there are two moving or one moving plate.

By your own estimates for the protection level of the Leopard 2 the NERA is less effective than RHA of the same thickness against KE. And that's why I said that the T-90's glacis is better suited against KE than the Leopard 2 glacis without any applique armour.

For example Your argument that DU was used mainly as shaped charge protection, I have American Sources from APG that says that DU was used mainly as increase in protection against APFSDS ammunition. So what You will say, that Americans, and especially source from APG do not know for what they designed new armor?

Have you a link for them? I know that Hunnicutt also said that the DU armour was meant for increase in KE protection, but still all people in the internet are having different theories of how the DU armour is designed.

 

[Damian]

Have you a link for them? I know that Hunnicutt also said that the DU armour was meant for increase in KE protection, but still all people in the internet are having different theories of how the DU armour is designed.

It is from Museum Ordnance Special 9 - Abrams Main Battle Tank M1A1 and M1A2 it is an old, small book from 1990's (1996 to be precise) that is from US Army Ordnance Museum that was back then placed in APG (Aberdeen Proving Grounds). Author Glenn Broman written it with a help from Robert Horton and Major David Dogde, he also recived informations from TACOM, GDLS and ACALA, so we have a preatty hard sources here, and credible to...

Here is a small scan from a page 4 in book.



So You can agree with authors that used unclassified data from TACOM, or belive non official guesses, Your choice.



And here a citation from Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank volume 2 by R.P. Hunnicutt. Hunnicutt also had access to TACOM archieves as well as to GDLS and other US Army sources. So this is also a far more credible source than anything You find in the internet.

What is important also is that these souces says about new special armor with depleted uranium which means it was not Burlington with just DU added, but a completely new armor array. And this is logical choice, completely new armor array might be much better tuned to use DU than just adding DU to an older armor array.

 

[hest]

An important aspect which led to adoption of such armour, DU, is that such composition significantly increased cumulative protection, while it not led to such decrease of performance against APFSDS, as earlier semi-active armour generations, so statement that main characteristic is KE protection is true in relative sense. But there is still significant difference in protection against KE and cumulative jet, given DU element and its semi-active properties.

.

 

[hest]

This does not serve as valid example if you refer to protection, because armour protection is not reflected by thickness as you implied.

If you read original article, it is stated that armour with big volume in hull and turret (1300 mm thickness) is described as armour with big dimensions and small mass, which is low relative efficiency if you measure by thickness.

Another deficiency is that top armour covering crew compartment is composed just by 50 mm of RHA, which relies on turret frontal armour projection to protect it. This is obviously not serious, as it is dependant on turret position which has to be directed to front.

 

[Damian]

An important aspect which led to adoption of such armour, DU, is that such composition significantly increased cumulative protection, while it not led to such decrease of performance against APFSDS, as earlier semi-active armour generations, so statement that main characteristic is KE protection is true in relative sense. But there is still significant difference in protection against KE and cumulative jet, given DU element and its semi-active properties.

What next, You will fight with reality? American sources from TACOM, GDLS and other goverment sources, says exactly, DU was mainly added to increase protection against Kinetic Energy projectiles, this was the main purpose, of course it also adds protection against Chemical Energy projectiles. Besides this You do not know how thick are DU plates, how thick are steel plates in which DU is encased, and how the whole package really works.

This does not serve as valid example if you refer to protection, because armour protection is not reflected by thickness as you implied.

If you read original article, it is stated that armour with big volume in hull and turret (1300 mm thickness) is described as armour with big dimensions and small mass, which is low relative efficiency if you measure by thickness.

I do not care what You say, what I care is that designers in DARPA know better than You how to design a tank, simple as that. Not to mention that weight of the armor package is preatty big, for a something with unmanned turret.

In variant with 2 man crew, weight of armor is 25,200 kg's, in version with 3 man crew it is 28,800kg's.

Besides this, if we make unmanned turret lighter armored, weight can be more distributed to the hull.

Another deficiency is that top armour covering crew compartment is composed just by 50 mm of RHA, which relies on turret frontal armour projection to protect it. This is obviously not serious, as it is dependant on turret position which has to be directed to front.

Obviously You do not understand that turret armor do not provide any top protection.

There is basic top protection for hull, and additional protection over crew compartment where hatches are placed, which is visible on drawing, there is sort of spaced armor there.

If You think that "Armata" will have differently solved top protection with thick composite armor there, then You are definetly very wrong.

Besides this it is preaty obvious that You are nothing more than a little propagandist trying to bash with mud anything non made in Russia.

 

[hest]

What next, You will fight with reality? American sources from TACOM, GDLS and other goverment sources, says exactly, DU was mainly added to increase protection against Kinetic Energy projectiles, this was the main purpose, of course it also adds protection against Chemical Energy projectiles. Besides this You do not know how thick are DU plates, how thick are steel plates in which DU is encased, and how the whole package really works.

There is no contradiction. It is indeed relatively more effective than prevoious compositions in the sense that there is less difference of KE and cumulative protection, (still significant) but out of relatives, semi-reactive effect is more focused on cumulative jet, like all semi-reactive composition.

I do not care what You say, what I care is that designers in DARPA know better than You how to design a tank, simple as that. Not to mention that weight of the armor package is preatty big, for a something with unmanned turret.

In variant with 2 man crew, weight of armor is 25,200 kg's, in version with 3 man crew it is 28,800kg's.

It is all explained in article. It is also obvious that last thing you want to base on your protection value is thickness measure, especially if armour is of low efficiency (big volume, small weight).

Obviously You do not understand that turret armor do not provide any top protection.

There is basic top protection for hull, and additional protection over crew compartment where hatches are placed, which is visible on drawing, there is sort of spaced armor there.

If you read the article, it is stated that partial function of turret armour volume is to cover and protect crew compartment from above, which is vulnerable, consisting only of 50 mm of RHA.

If You think that "Armata" will have differently solved top protection with thick composite armor there, then You are definetly very wrong.

Besides this it is preaty obvious that You are nothing more than a little propagandist trying to bash with mud anything non made in Russia.

On perspective Soviet and now Russian tanks, top armour did not consist just of 50 mm of RHA.

 

[Damian]

There is no contradiction. It is indeed relatively more effective than prevoious compositions in the sense that there is less difference of KE and cumulative protection, (still significant) but out of relatives, semi-reactive effect is more focused on cumulative jet, like all semi-reactive composition.

So the NERA applications in Russia are strange. NERA in the west is treated as universal armor... In Poland we developed NERA for BRDM-2 and other lighter vehicles, mainly to increase their protection against HMG's AP projectiles + as a side effect also very small shaped charge weapons.

Besides this I proved that You are wrong, and Russian sources are wrong. Now, just be silent.

It is all explained in article. It is also obvious that last thing you want to base on your protection value is thickness measure, especially if armour is of low efficiency (big volume, small weight).

Small weight? For You a 28 tons armor that is as heavy or heavier than a complete turret of a modern tanks is a small weight? Can I ask, You are completely sane? Especially that front turret armor fo western tanks allready is approx 1,000mm thick.

If you read the article, it is stated that partial function of turret armour volume is to cover and protect crew compartment from above, which is vulnerable, consisting only of 50 mm of RHA.

And this is wrong. I don't know, maybe You are not even unable to comprehend drawings, but unmanned turret do not have any armor over crew compartment, there is such armor in manned turret variants also shown in article.

Besides this over crew compartment is spaced armor visible on drawings. Good protection against bomblets, against ATGM's there is no way to efficently increase protection... only some fantasies of some silly Bellarussian.

On perspective Soviet and now Russian tanks, top armour did not consist just of 50 mm of RHA.

On Soviet and Russian tanks, whatever You put there, armor is inefficent and incapable to protect against top attack ATGM's. Period!

Unless You belive in magic, but if so go and read Harry Potter, instead of wasting our time little propagandist.

Now I'am wating when this troll will say that Russian tanks are invincible...

BTW a funny joke about Russians mentality.

"ITAR-TASS agency reports: on the Soviet-Chinese border, Chinese troops attacked peaceful soviet tracktor... tracktor responded with machine guns and rocket fire, and withdrawn by flying deeper in to soviet territory".

 

[hest]

For example, it was shown earlier, 477 Molot

And structure

Protection of crew compartment, in top hull, was composed not just of steel element, but complex active protection with use of integrated reactive armour.

 

[Damian]

For example, it was shown earlier, 477 Molot

And structure

Protection of crew compartment, in top hull, was composed not just of steel element, but complex active protection with use of integrated reactive armour.

This is ineffective against top attack tandem warheads, it is good only against bomblets, just like spaced or thin composite armor.

 

[hest]

This is ineffective against top attack tandem warheads, it is good only against bomblets, just like spaced or thin composite armor.

Now you show your understanding...

Late Soviet tanks solved the problem with use of new active defeat methods, as you see in armour composition, and whom which you are not familiarised ( I showed article), which are not implemented anywhere else at this level.