Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

And what this have to Hellfire penetration levels? I talk about provided values that are taken from the roof.

I was talking after ERA..
--
There are several about modern Hellfire II (around 1000, 1100 mm), for basic Hellfire I have source, book ("Защита танков", authors from NII Stali, MGTU), more than 900 mm, and other american sources, FAS, also 900 mm, if they refer to the basic version (for it certainly not more).

 

[Damian]

After ERA, which seems to confirm what Militarysta said about incident with M1A1HA, without ERA, AGM-114A should penetrate around 1,000mm RHA, which is very impressive.

And we can end discussion.

 

[hest]

After ERA, which seems to confirm what Militarysta said about incident with M1A1HA, without ERA, AGM-114A should penetrate around 1,000mm RHA, which is very impressive.

And we can end discussion.

Basic Hellfire had a penetration of 900 mm, regardless of the rather good value it was a single warhead design which became innefective with appearance of ERA and did not employ powerfull precursor warhead to weaken composite armour, so it is not that impressive for newer armour of M1A1HA of 1989 or 1990 to defeat single warhead Hellfire produced since 1982 or to defeat TOW-2 or HOT, when powerfull tandem warhead designs started to be the norm, and precursor is especially important to deal against semi-active array.
-
You misunderstood "after ERA", I meant the effectiveness of the design. It is not said if the value for Hellfire II is after ERA.

 

[Waffen SS]

Well, I have 2 questions-

RPG-7's Muzzle velocity is 115 m/s, cant penetrate Chobham armour. RPG 29's Muzzle velocity is 255 m/s yes it can penetrate Chobham armour, so Carl Gustaf's Muzzle velocity is 230-255 m/s, can it penetrate Chobham armor?

MANPADs such as SA-7 Grail, Stinger or Mistral have very high Muzzle velocity, can they penetrate Chobham armour??

 

[The Last Stand]

Well, I have 2 questions-

RPG-7's Muzzle velocity is 115 m/s, cant penetrate Chobham armour. RPG 29's Muzzle velocity is 255 m/s yes it can penetrate Chobham armour, so Carl Gustaf's Muzzle velocity is 230-255 m/s, can it penetrate Chobham armor?

MANPADs such as SA-7 Grail, Stinger or Mistral have very high Muzzle velocity, can they penetrate Chobham armour??

Muzzle velocity doesn't matter. The muzzle energy does matter, and only for KE projectiles. Rocket Launchers use HEAT (Chemical energy) rounds that work the same at any velocity and any range. Only the warhead matters in these cases.

MANPADs are made to take down aircraft, not armour, for this they use HE warheads which are of no use even against WW2 tanks

Do some research on tanks, projectiles and the like. This is a question even newbies in tank technology do not ask. I didn't expect this

Also, RPG-29 cannot penetrate frontal aspect of Abrams or Challenger 2, it can only penetrate weak spots or blow tracks off.

 

[militarysta]

Well, I have 2 questions-

RPG-7's Muzzle velocity is 115 m/s, cant penetrate Chobham armour. RPG 29's Muzzle velocity is 255 m/s yes it can penetrate Chobham armour, so Carl Gustaf's Muzzle velocity is 230-255 m/s, can it penetrate Chobham armor?

MANPADs such as SA-7 Grail, Stinger or Mistral have very high Muzzle velocity, can they penetrate Chobham armour??

Print Screen for future childrens where done :thumb:

Your questuion is not very accurate.
1. RPG granades, and Carl Gustaw are HEAT warhed muzzel have nothing commpon from way in what RPG penetrate the armour.
wiki will by your friend for begining:
High-explosive anti-tank warhead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. You shoud definetly read what is Cobhan armour,and read this topci. You will learn a lot about tanks from here. Just read on previous pages.

3. No, there is no way to MANPADs for penetrate enything

 

[militarysta]

Also, RPG-29 cannot penetrate frontal aspect of Abrams or Challenger 2, it can only penetrate weak spots or blow tracks off.

RPG-29 definetly fails against frontal turret (circa 960mm thickness) and hull M1A1/A2 armour (650mm thickenss + fuels) , but the same RPG was able to perforate side turret armour for angle close to the 90. (only 380mm LOS) -it's not suprice couse in western tanks side armour is developed to achive protection like frontal ones but forn angle between 20 and 30 degree from turret longitiudal axis when armour thickenss (LOS) is at least doubled (circa760mm at least).

So on TUSK is was solved by placing only M32 SLERA casette - so we have layout: SLERA M32 + 380mm main armour, what shoud be enought agains older ones graneds llike RPG-7 PG-7VR or RPG-29. More or less US army claims that there is no reson to place doubled ARAT-2 casette (whit SLERA) on turret, couse only SLERA is enought.
CR2 is diffrent story - lower hull have no special armour (in half of it hight) and those place was perforated by RPG-29.

 

[The Last Stand]

RPG-29 definetly fails against frontal turret (circa 960mm thickness) and hull M1A1/A2 armour (650mm thickenss + fuels) , but the same RPG was able to perforate side turret armour for angle close to the 90. (only 380mm LOS) -it's not suprice couse in western tanks side armour is developed to achive protection like frontal ones but forn angle between 20 and 30 degree from turret longitiudal axis when armour thickenss (LOS) is at least doubled (circa760mm at least).

So on TUSK is was solved by placing only M32 SLERA casette - so we have layout: SLERA M32 + 380mm main armour, what shoud be enought agains older ones graneds llike RPG-7 PG-7VR or RPG-29. More or less US army claims that there is no reson to place doubled ARAT-2 casette (whit SLERA) on turret, couse only SLERA is enought.
CR2 is diffrent story - lower hull have no special armour (in half of it hight) and those place was perforated by RPG-29.

What is SLERA? NxRA?

 

[methos]

What is SLERA? NxRA?

Self-limiting exlposive reactive armour, i.e. a combination of ERA and NERA. Very small amounts of explosives (compared to ERA) are used inside a layer of reactive material (e.g. rubber) to increase the effectiveness.

 

[The Last Stand]

Self-limiting exlposive reactive armour, i.e. a combination of ERA and NERA. Very small amounts of explosives (compared to ERA) are used inside a layer of reactive material (e.g. rubber) to increase the effectiveness.

Thanks methos! Will it be effective against multiple hits with the remaining inert layer or will the inert layer also explode when the explosives go up?

 

[Damian]

Video shows new sights of the new fire control system installed in M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEP.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Also, RPG-29 cannot penetrate frontal aspect of Abrams or Challenger 2, it can only penetrate weak spots or blow tracks off.

concerning rpg-29 - MoD kept failure of best tank quiet - Telegraph

 

[The Last Stand]

concerning rpg-29 - MoD kept failure of best tank quiet - Telegraph

Yes, militarysta informed me that RPG-29 penetrated lower front hull of Challenger 2 which is very weak.

 

[Damian]

Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 hull protection is optimized for fighting from behind prepared positions, which hull down, which means glacis plate which is very well inclined, have Burlington or Dorchester armor, however more vertical lower front hull plate, is thin, made most likely from approx 100mm thick steel plate.

This is philosophy different than that of designers of M1 and Leopard 2, where lower front hull plate, that is more exposed, is made from thick composite armor, while less exposed, extremely inclined glacis plate, is made from steel approx 40-50mm thick, which is enough when we consider such inclination and exposure.

This is why Challenger 2's armor was perforated by RPG-29, however there was at least one similiar incident with M1, where RPG-29 hit lower front hull plate, and was not capable to perforate it.

You must remeber that British tanks, during Cold War, were mostly designed for defensive operations, and if possible to fight from behind obstacles or prepared fortified positions, where they could hide their hull.

 

[The Last Stand]

@Damian, is the hull down position centred design made necessary by the fact that Britain had lesser tanks or was there any other reason?

 

[Damian]

Probably many reasons, like doctrine, tactics, number of own tanks against enemy tanks etc.

 

[militarysta]

Thanks methos! Will it be effective against multiple hits with the remaining inert layer or will the inert layer also explode when the explosives go up?

CALL(...)
reactive armor

Definition/Scope: Reactive armor is a type of vehicle armor that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. Reactive armor works by attaching small packs of explosives to a vehicle's outer shell. The explosives detonate when hit by incoming fire, blowing the round away from the vehicle. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened long rod penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armor (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armor (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armor (NERA), non-explosive reactive armor (NxRA), and electric reactive armor. Unlike ERA and SLERA, NERA and NxRA modules can withstand multiple hits, but a second hit in exactly the same location will still penetrate. Essentially all anti-tank munitions (with the exception of HESH) work by piercing the armor and killing the crew inside, disabling vital mechanical systems, or both. Reactive armor can be defeated with multiple hits in the same place, as by tandem-charge weapons, which fire two or more shaped charges in rapid succession. Without tandem charges, hitting the same spot twice is much more difficult.

Here You have example - NERA (or NxRa) wedges from Leo2A5-A6. As Youcan see they are partial - in theory damego will be closed in those squeres without destroyed whole "wedge":

 

[The Last Stand]

Here You have example - NERA (or NxRa) wedges from Leo2A5-A6. As Youcan see they are partial - in theory damego will be closed in those squeres without destroyed whole "wedge":

Thanks! Do you have any information on the Electric Reactive armour or similar being developed by US and UK? I think it is impractical since it requires a lot of energy.

 

[Damian]

Thanks! Do you have any information on the Electric Reactive armour or similar being developed by US and UK? I think it is impractical since it requires a lot of energy.

Well, nobody really knows how effective is such design, and if it works only against HEAT ammo, or other types like APFSDS. However the concept is interesting, because untill the whole armor array is intact, you actually have multihit protection capability untill you have electric power. But as you pointed out, the problem is how to generate enough energy, and where to store it efficently.

Such design might not be ready just yet for practical use, but sometime in future? Of course if it will be effective enough.

 

[methos]

Thanks methos! Will it be effective against multiple hits with the remaining inert layer or will the inert layer also explode when the explosives go up?

It depends on the exact layout of the armour. The explosive is not necessariliy a layer covering the whole surface of the armour, but might be applied to rather small portions of the armour, just to increase the bulging effect of the armour. The effect of the explosive is limited to a specific place, hence the name "self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA)."
The bluging of the armour plates will be greater than with NERA, which means that the weakened zone after being hit is much greater. The armour's efficiency decreases when a place is hit multiple times.

Thanks! Do you have any information on the Electric Reactive armour or similar being developed by US and UK? I think it is impractical since it requires a lot of energy.

In 2002 a Warrior IFV with electric reactive armour managed to survive a RPG-7, but it still does not really work. The armour per se does offer good protection against shaped charges, but several factors make it rather unusable in practice.
Depending on the shaped charge warhead it might happen that the electric armour fails to "fuze" - if the metal jet passes through the outer steel plate, before reaching the inner steel plate (which can happen with smaller charges, because the metal jet might be too short), there won't be any current flow. On the other hand if the warhead hits the armour at an angle, the rear part might break away before the jet hits the inner armour layer and thus there won't be any current flow.
Electric reactive armour does not work against tandem warheads and requires huge amounts of space externally (the armour itself is 30 - 60 cm thick) and internally (the conductor, the batteries, etc. must be stored inside the vehicle).