Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Maybe, it is possible reason.

 

[cobra commando]

Soviet T34/76A With German Markings Pulled From A Lake in Estonia.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YNJ-acc9Qsk

 

[Broccoli]

One of the early Type-99A2 prototypes.

And the new light tank.

 

[313230]

The latest Hellfire 114R multi purpose has a shaped charge to replace the anti tank version but with low angle compare to previous version. Any explain?

114R

Previous versions

 

[methos]

Yes, Hellfire-114R is not designed for enhanced penetration, but as a multipurpose missile. The "lower" angle allows to carry more HE.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...pc/hellfire-ii-missile/mfc-hellfire-ii-pc.pdf

 

[militarysta]

The latest Hellfire 114R multi purpose has a shaped charge to replace the anti tank version but with low angle compare to previous version. Any explain?

Yes, it's hight precision multiprupose SC warhed. In fact it's performance will bealmoust the same (circa 5% worse) (as AT) as previous one, but it have double mode -as HE.

The use of less vulnerable explosive materials was also pursued in design of the
FTB/MC, thereby informing on the ability to lower vulnerability for storage, carriage,
and use in the battlefield. To enable defeat of such a wide spectrum of targets the
main charge had to be capable of penetrating the base armour of the threat MBT, and
must also possess some KEP (Kinetic Energy Penetration) capability, enabling it to
enter structural targets where it could detonate after an extended time delay.
(...)
To ensure that the FTB/MC would produce levels of penetration which would be
commensurate with protection afforded to the frontal arc of an MBT the shaped
charge design was partially based on the main warhead in the QinetiQ tandem shaped
charge warhead system, the main charge shown in schematic in Figure 3.27.

(...)
The QinetiQ tandem warhead research design was used to inform design
shaped charge element of the FTB/MC and as PBXN-110 had previously been used in
that warhead design therefore characterisation of the warhead without the ogive was
unnecessary. The use of an ogive was required for two reasons. For emplacement, the
interaction of the FTB/MC with structural and thin armour targets requires an ogive to
maintain the structural integrity of the warhead for extended time delays to be
achieved. Secondly, with the precursor detonating several hundred microseconds
before the main charge, fragments and blast are thrown back toward the main
charge. An inter-charge barrier is typically used to protect the main charge from this.
However, the use of an ogive provides the same protection and can therefore replace
the normal flat plate inter-charge barrier
(...)

 

[militarysta]

BTW:

@313230
check this:

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1318153/1/1318153.pdf

 

[Sovngard]

With me nothing. However I have serious concerns about your ability to use logic.

I will correct you here. Not large enough to fit enough of this armor. There must be enough of this armor to actually provide protection.

Depth of the lower front hull composite armor cavity of the M1A1 Abrams : 566 mm

Depth of the turret composite armor cavity in front of the loader's position : 642 mm


Depth of the lower front hull composite armor cavity of the FMBT : 729 mm (upper section) 520 mm (lower section)

And the program had been cancelled.

Not for nothing that the Israeli have chosen the Merkava hull rather than the one of the Magach 6.

Despite the fact that the Sholef prototype had participated in military operations in the field where its systems were tested successfully under battle conditions.

It was cancelled at the time because it was too much expensive and technically too complicated.

There is no such thing as my logic, logic is logic, common sense is common sense.

Thus, in your opinion, using aluminium should be a bad decision.


Tell that to the engineers who designed the VBCI...

And they have? You are sure? If you have a proof show me.

For sure : RAIDS HS29-AMX40 - copie.pdf - Fichier PDF (on the last page)

 

[Damian]

Depth of the lower front hull composite armor cavity of the M1A1 Abrams : 566 mm

Depth of the turret composite armor cavity in front of the loader's position : 642 mm


Depth of the lower front hull composite armor cavity of the FMBT : 729 mm (upper section) 520 mm (lower section)

I don't know how to comment someones fantasy.

Not for nothing that the Israeli have chosen the Merkava hull rather than the one of the Magach 6.

Despite the fact that the Sholef prototype had participated in military operations in the field where its systems were tested successfully under battle conditions.

It was cancelled at the time because it was too much expensive and technically too complicated.

Still it was cancelled.

Thus, in your opinion, using aluminium should be a bad decision.


Tell that to the engineers who designed the VBCI...

Yes it is bad decision, alluminium easy smelt in fire.

And hey, you think I consider French as the best engineers designing AFV's? They are far from being the best.

For sure : RAIDS HS29-AMX40 - copie.pdf - Fichier PDF (on the last page)

Ok.

 

[militarysta]

Depth of the lower front hull composite armor cavity of the M1A1 Abrams : 566 mm

Nope
650-700mm LOS

Depth of the turret composite armor cavity in front of the loader's position : 642 mm

Nope.
circa 740mm LOS

for M1A1HA and others circa 960mm LOS

 

[Sovngard]

I don't know how to comment someones fantasy.

Nope
650-700mm LOS


Nope.
circa 740mm LOS

for M1A1HA and others circa 960mm LOS

Yes it is bad decision, alluminium easy smelt in fire.

The aluminium has evolved as steel has evolved since it was invented.

It is reported that the VBCI use advanced aluminum alloy and it had been subjected to various stress tests, especially fires and IEDs.
It does not appear that the vehicle was transformed into a pizza-oven.

And hey, you think I consider French as the best engineers designing AFV's? They are far from being the best.

That was just one example amongst the others. Unlike the Patria AMV, the KTO Rosomak has also use aluminium to allow it to be amphibious.

 

[militarysta]

.

NOPE

bad work, very understiamted values.

Proper ones:

 

[militarysta]

or other way: - when is bad marked backplate -almoust all thickens (LOS) are bigger then marked by red lines

backplates:

 

[Damian]

Sovngard obviously have no idea where composite armor cavity ends and where backplate ends.

This drawing is so wrong. Weld lines are marked wrongly, I strongly suggest you will compare them to photos of real turret and hull.

 

[Damian]

This is how it looks properly without backplates.

Other thing is that such drawings are rather imperfect in scale, and preaty much everything else. But Militarysta made comparision with known meassures made on Leopard 2, and compared it's size with M1.

 

[militarysta]

hmm this:



???

 

[Damian]

BTW I seen a claim from US Army tanker, that side hull armor over crew compartment is actually around 3 inches. 3" = 76.2mm, so it's thicker than mostly estimated from photos. It would also mean that hull sides over engine compartment and at suspension attachement points would be around 2 inches. 2" = 50.8mm.

 

[313230]

Yes, it's hight precision multiprupose SC warhed. In fact it's performance will bealmoust the same (circa 5% worse) (as AT) as previous one, but it have double mode -as HE.

Thanks militarysta and methos

Any estimation of this penetration? I counted 22 blocks, don't know it is 5cm or 10cm blocks

 

[Damian]

Thanks militarysta and methos

Any estimation of this penetration? I counted 22 blocks, don't know it is 5cm or 10cm blocks

If 5cm then 5x22=110, of 10cm, then 10x22=220. I think that the 110cm is more correct and consistent with penetration capabilities.

However, it is still not certain, as we do not know what type of steel these blocks are, and what characteristics they have, which is important.

 

[militarysta]

Thanks militarysta and methos

Any estimation of this penetration? I counted 22 blocks, don't know it is 5cm or 10cm blocks

Yes, but as whole CD (core diameter) to penetration ratio:

circa 165mm CD
and possible penetration value:


so in best case 165mm x 7-8 (7-8 CD) = circa 1155-1300mm RHA max.

Mesuring by blocks - i suppose 2 inch (2") one so 50.8mm 22 blocks = 1117mm whole penetration
seems possible? of course yes becouse we have whole penetration (perofation) all blocks. The first one is not shown so propably it was the limit of warhead (next 50mm RHA)