Yes, and no. Yes, becouse indeed the whole idea was as you said, but no, becuse uniqe Burlinghotn mehanism is based on those 3 mehanism working in the same time. In rest known armour: reflecting plate, simple NERA (or rather bulging armour) there is no sucht coordination between mehanism. And most mehanism work together in no linear way -so it not like 15% + 15% =30% but rather 15%+15%=50% etc.
Yes, but why do you think that such mechanism will work with such effectiveness against more modern projectiles ? Fact is that situation with projectiles of 70s was completely different, they were more subject to destabilisation, deformations, so it just cannot serve for making estimations.
It may be the case that many secondary effects of interaction are innefective, or even not achievable against modern APFSDS.
In fact these estimations were made already by specialists, having in account modern rounds, most modern composite armour based on principle of using energy of projectile, will not surpass equivalence with RHA in thickness, potential of semi-reactive principle is more limited than perforation growth of projectiles and their improved design.
Yes, but only for first part of Burlinghton style armour - when most semi-active layers are placed. You can see this on Leopard-2A4 layout and M1A2. Layers closer to backplate are without spaces. In fact only first 60-75% armour LOS had layout whit something like sandwich. Rest is mady by kevlar/armaid/cermics, and HHS, THS, etc plates. And some kind of polymer/absorber.
Base of composite block is mostly layer configuration, as you showed for example for hull armour, constituted 500 mm of 600-650 max.
First - 4mm HHS plate whit HB close to 600-660 act like 12mm RHA plate whit HB close to 200. So what is more dense - 220mm cast steel whit HB close to 220-240 or stack thin plates whit whole LOS 80mm (2x4mm in 10 structure plates modules) whit HB close to 600HB?
Do You consider that question? And even simple stack RHA plates whit the same thickness and HB have about 20% bigger protection then RHA monoblock whit the same thickness and HB:
IMHO stack thin HHS plates whit very hight HB can act like almous 3x bigger cast steel whit low HB. And always stack of plates whill be better then steel monoblock whit the same thickness and HB scale.
This is simple example of steel plates and self forming projectile. Yes, steel hardness and space makes difference, but you should consider that composite armour is not based mostly of steel, it is lighter and there is significant space between layers, with usage of less dense material among others to achieve semi-reactive effect mainly against CE, so in fact, given
- Composition based on spaced layers
- Relation of steel to weight
Without account of semi-reactive effect (that is destabilisation of round, etc), passive protection equivalence is lower than RHA of same thickness. Account of semi-reactive effect, given it is more limited in performance against modern APFSDS, will not compensate to the point of equivalence, less to surpass it (surpass is needed to achieve protection given thickness limitation, 600-650 mm of hull armour), which is just not probable. And layered composition makes about 500 mm...
Second - why You are so sure that "semi-active effect does not compensate" Hmm?
As I mentioned -on test LKEI was not able to perforate 40mm HHS + 50cm "special armour"+40mm HHS +40mm HHS so LOS 620mm only doubtfull question is how big on 2000m perforation has DM43 (it's between 560 and 620mm RHA). So it's first doubt.
Second is based on known NERA performance. Burlinghton is less reactive but more sophisticaded. And NERA performaces are better then psyhical thickness against both: APFSDS and HEAT.
On test double german NERA whit LOS (at angle 45 degree) 40mm + space 71mm + 40mm (whole 151mm) was able to stop HEAT whit 950mm RHA perforation... as I remember simmilar combination NERA can reduce APFSDS at about 25-40% so no metter what APFSDS -value against KE will be bgger then steel plate at the same LOS thickness (151mm). The only doubt is that NERA is not Burlinghton. But Burlinghton works whit three mehanism in the same time, NERA-not.
So on what actually is based You statsment that semi-active effect does not compensate?
Those examples do not serve to explain how composite armour in thickness can be equivalent to RHA against APFSDS.
It is aknowledged that semi-reactive effect (NERA) is limited in growth, and not sufficient to cause significant damage and destabilisation to modern projectile.
In discussion I'd preffer base on known test, documents, and other -so I gave example about known test erly Burlinghton.
And if You want consider about modern and older rounds. Soviets rounds have tungsten slug inisde (BM-22 -BM26) and partial structure - very vulnerable on active or semi-active armour. BM42 had interesting dual core structure - in theory developed to overcome bulinghton style armour, but in fact it was "dead end" becouse modern Soviet/Russina round are monoblock.
But in the same time on DE and USA there where monoblock APFSDS round whit small L
ratio. Ant those kind of penetrator are less vulnerable against semi-active armour then whit partial structure (BM22 BM26) or bigger L
ratio.
And rememeber that Burlinghton style armour in 1978 just must had smaller performance then in 1985 example.
Yes, but it is just not representative, effect on old projectiles, and it is not valid as reference at all.
Soviet APFSDS were tested against composite block, better in characteristics than armour with effects which you describe, comparable to actual armour. So they considered semi-reactive effect Western structure, thus it will be less effective. And I would not talk about structure of modern Russian projectiles.
Increase in lenght and decrease in diameter in generall will lead to better performance against steel, but of course it would be more vulnerable to semi-reactive or reactive effect, bending, etc. So they are designed with compromises to achieve optimal performance, more complicated.
Vell photos shown quite good what is M1A1 turret sides structure. And we known layout for Leo2A4.
Important is usage of volume by armour, it may be, most likely spaced configuration not fully effective if we take as reference visible thickness.
IMHO due to active layers is quite close. And it's better then cast steel.
It will be less effective than steel of same thickness against APFSDS.
But NERA armour in Leopard2A5-A6 was developed between 1988-1993 to protect against future Soviet APFSDS and ATGM's. Propaby even 140mm. And others thread including cal. 152mm.
This is rather funny statement. And Kontakt-V will protect against rail-gun projectiles
Seriously, it was added to increase protection against growing performance of 125 mm APFSDS and ATGM.
What?? If You said about M1A1 or M1A2 then turret sides at 90. was avaible to perforate by HEAT warhed whit perforation bigger then 550mm RHA so for 90. it's will be against APFSDS like 400mm RHA (1:1,36) or better becouse ratio for 1978 must be worse then for 2004...
First, forget about ratio of 70s armour and projectiles because it is not valid.
Second, is that protection equivalence is known. It was showed with combat experience. On it's upgrade participated several companies, including NII Stali, to provide side turret protection against 500 mm perforation warheads, while they finally added simple ERA. Given CE equivalence to 400-500 mm and that it is composed mostly by layers, KE protection corresponds with stated value of more than 200 mm from normal.
But in the same time I gave known examples when after 1990 Burlinghton armour was able to stop:
AGM-114 (more then 1100mm RHA HEAT) on M1A1
DM43 (560-620mm RHA APFSDS) on Leopard-2A4 late armour
M829A2 (720mm RHA and more APFSDS) (CR2 IraqFreedom)
CLM322 (650mm RHA APFDS) (Leopard-2A6 nacked turret for Greece)
etc
Here are two types of examples, those which are speculation, and those which do not answer to statement, that composite armour does not reach equivalence with RHA in thickness against KE.
