AGDUS was developed to made normal (close to the reality as it's possible) fight on field. And damage model is realistic as it's possible. The only simplifiaction is palcment of laser indicators - to many numbers is to heavy to place on tank. So there is some simplifiaction about areas (for example - gun mantled mask is not excluded). But generally tank have sevral zones and there is 7 class of thread.
It is a representation of engagement, flying path and hit, with different threat levels, but it is by no means a measure to estimate actual penetration or composite armour. The main objective, to train tank crew for manouver and exposure of "safe" front, and for gunner, missile operator to aim at more vulnerable zone when range allows it, programmer made it that way. In view of that, estimating actual protection or missile weapon performance is nosense.
Even with that, I do not see any strong protection of main armour with that hull vulnerability.
Bla bla bla
You had version: M1A1HA, AGM-114 was used in one version in ODS. Caliber of SC is known - 170mm, perforation is calimed as bigger then 1100mm RHA for sucht big SC. Front turret hit, circa 70cm depth penetration. No more details.
Sources was given sevral times here - those acciden is mentioned quite offen in literature, but I had few more details from polish soilders whos wents to For Knox and Bennig for trening at M1. It was typical "exchange in order to acquire experience" when sevral polish NCOs went to USA to known M1 Tank and compare it whit Leo-2A4 used in Polish Army. Of course for you it will be "not enought" "funny source" "misinforamtion" etc. For my those guys haven't resons to lie, and if in 1968 Burlinghton windstand 711mm RHA 152mm SC co in 1991 it's really posible that armour windstand 170mm SC whit >1100mm RHA penetration.
You are the "quack" with such claims
.
There are different versions of Hellfire warhead
- Basic Hellfire
- Interim Hellfire, improved warhead, small precursor
- Optimised Hellfire, or Hellfire II, improved tandem warhead design.
The first two had innefective performance against latter armour. In Desert Storm
only basic Hellfire was available
http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/215705.pdf
This was plain m
onoblock design which started production
in 1982 and was seen as innefective against latter armour, no talk about any "1000 mm" because that value is for the third, tandem design produced in 1992.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/214851.pdf it was outdated missile against M1HA and it's composite armour deployed in 1989 or 1990.
But compare to the penetartion level and cone angle, jet tip velocity and other factor give conclusion that in 1980s it was unposible to "catch up the difference" between new 125mm SC warhed and older 152mm warhed. And I would to remind that hight presicion SC went to service in second half of the 1980 when was possible to use numerical modeling based on research on nuclear weapons.
Just compare posibilites BK rounds in Soviets, or difrences betwen nex ATGMs generation. Before circa 1986-1988 it was unable to catch up the difference.
And you don't known how ast was jet tip in 1968 152mm SC, what more - You are unable to give how wast is jet tip in Cobra warhed.
So from two unknown values you automaticly generated that in Cobra must be used super speed jet. While there was used normlan ones -typical for that yers on west and east.
The characteristics do matter, depending on design. You know, the penetration of steel is increased in proportional, almost linear way to caliber (from given construction, explosive..) because the velocity gradient to diameter and elongation is maintained. You ignore howewer, the fact that relation in penetration to caliber of that 152 mm warhead, to Kobra, is worse, reflects less effective design, and different stream elongation and velocity characteristics which reflect in interaction with semi-active armour. For example, not significant increase in steel mm penetration, but increased energy which increases deformation velocity, while at same time having the stream lower velocity characteristics.
Nobody says Kobra is "super design", what is being said, is that that 152 mm warhead stream characteristics,
do not have to correspond to Kobra, neither does it's interaction with Burlington, so saying Burlington must protect against it is empty claim, the same applies to the opposite, of course, but there well could be such possibility.
Further, warhead quality as well as of explosive
did improve in Kobra, even between it's different versions as was shown (improvement in warhead material, and explosive material).
it will have interaction whit 8-9 layers whit at least 16-18 moving plates. It's bigg difrence. What more - those layers can be separated by ceramisc and others. And wehat more -there is no evidence that Kobra warhed jest was faster then typical rest of SC warheds.
I have explained the interaction, and shown the relation against multiple bulging plates, where penetration is accounted as the summ of metallic plate thickness plus the penetration in back plate, and the most important factor, is the velocity of the stream elements and the velocity of the deformantion, the problem is maintained, that is the reason why bulging plates are never protection by themselves, but need good back plate.
Burlington design was not anything special or uknown for it's time, being thin bulging plate mechanism now well described. In fact what did I describe is more advanced construction with better understanding (of decades later, and was tested against the real 125 mm warheads Burlington tried to protect against).
But in most NERA/NxRA, Bulging armour test it's obvious that jet tip velocity is not scalable whit greater penetration. They are other factors. More or less "dedly for Burlinghton jet velocity from Cobra warhed theory" is inconsistent whit known NERA/NxRA/Bulging armour tests. Jet can be fast aven after passed double layer (not even mentioned about typical 7-9 layers as in known Burlinghton moddels) but it still is not scalable whit greater penetration.
The factor for whole array, including back plate, is velocity gradient in relation to the energy which causes deformation, as was shown in graphic. If you have worse relation between diameter and velocity gradient but similar penetration, as could be a less effective, but greater caliber warhead, it will reflect in bigger effectiveness of composite armour. You do not see the consequence, of having lower warhead efficiency, but making it up with caliber as was done in 1968.
It's obvious, but the questions are:
a) Is Kobra warhed quality mucht better in penetration mehanism then 152mm SC warhed?
b) it's obvius that 1975 Kobra warhed can't be better then 7 yers erlier mucht bigger 152mm SC test warhed, after that we have in half of the 1980s next warhed - so question is only about this warhed from half of the 1980s. Becouse erlier (1975) just must be whorse.
c) how 7-9 lauers of the Burlinghton armour responde on jet. IMHO without any problem becouse there is no evidence that warhed from circa 1985 have some smart solutions to overpass ERA/others. It has precursor and it was enought in most cases.
a)
Relation between diameter and penetration is better in Kobra and worse in that 152 mm, thus
relation between velocity gradient and diameter is different, this, as explained with armour working mechanism, has it's consequence.
b) 1 It is more efficient, because of already shown calliber effectiveness. 2 Kobra warhead was also improved in different versions with
material and explosive
c) It was explained, depending on stream diameter and velocity of the elements, it can have improved effectiveness, relative. It can be due to inherent design, but also to intention of the designers, after improved knowledge of armour and weapon, which optimise the design, explosive energy, cone angle, precursor warhead (important against semi-active armour, plates, glass, composite and ERA).
