Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

EasyE's Achievements


Crew (2/3)



  1. Damian Ratka posted this on twitter. It suggests in rather vauge language that the M1IP armor is not BRL-2 as tested in 1977. It appears to say that early development of high density materials resulted in the incorperation of "KE backpacks" for the M1IP. That these developments in armor technology were transfered to the M1 program in 1979.
  2. Yikes! What was the LOS distance of the array? I think what ends up mattering a great deal is what the concept of "complex" armor is. IIRC there was a document floating around suggesting some assumptions regarding a sandwich array of Steel, aluminum, cermaics etc. I can see a 3BM-26 design being rather more effective against such an array due to the stablizing effect of solid material not allowing for the effecient imparting of lateral forces vs a spaced NERA array, like Type B and what we assume is in the turret and hull of the M1 ~1980. I agree overall I wouldn't rule out that under some circumstances it could be effective. Interestingly in the early 1980s the ammo fired by the USA seems to be more effective against the spaced arrays protecting their tanks, while the Soviet ammo was more effective againsttheir own arrays more comprised of steel. If defeating their own arrays was the goal...they all nailed it. Anyhow saw this pic floating around. This seems to be a armor concept that Dr Manfred Held suspected could be in use by western tanks in the 1980s.
  3. I think that is more of a "when" not if. They dumped billions into bringing the turret armor of the M1A1 up signifigantly and delivered armor components to the Lima tank plant by early 1988. I suspect development took a few years. On another note The FGR and UK saw things differntly for some time it seems. Was the XM579E4 a WA or WC core? The contemporary Soviet APFSDS were nearly all WC core up until the mid 1980s. 3BM-29 not sure about this round. That seems reasonable. I was thinking that reference threat could have been measured in flat pen. The M833 does about 380mm at 1km flat. For compairison it looks the M744 defeats the HT target at about 1190m/s vs 1020 m/s for the M833. 65 vs 53 m/s V drop. Against the HS target the M774 fails at >~1230m/s vs M833 ~920m/s (Back of envelope calcs). I am a doubtful on the 3BM-26 I have seen no evidence that it does well against spaced arrays. Even if the M1A1 turret array is somewhat less then BRL-2 target . A round similar to the DM-13 was insufficent at any range. A steel WC slug design even putting it at the rear, out performing that test round or comming close to that seems a bit of a stretch. Mayyybe 3BM-29 not sure what the construction is (steel encased DU?, DU slug ?). 3BM-32 almost certantly based on what seems to be true.
  4. Tungsten Alloy so "modern" long rods WC is tungsten carbide. The core of early APFSDS like BM-22.
  5. In this case it appears to fall under the "not always". I would be very interested in knowing what these targets were. Are BRL-1 and BR-2 in that mix? Also that their toughest target in these test were able be defeated at greater then 3km by a 105mm APFSDS may have been very concerning from a protection point of view.
  6. For context. Points to note that the M774 out performs the WA M829 (XM829E1) against the Nato tripple heavy target. From the same paper the XM833 was able to defeat a what was defined as the most difficult "complex" target at 3.3 km The WA XM829E1 appears to have failed at even very short range. No information that I could find as to what this " complex" target was. Further development of BRL-2 ? More evidence I think to support that the M1 in 1980 was protected from older APFSDS designs and little else with regards to KE threats. Also that if the CIA document is correct and the M1A1 protection listed as 380mm vs KE that if these KE rounds were something like the DU M833, that this represents a very large jump in protection vs the M1, albiet not enough against 125mm BM-32.
  7. Thanks so much! I think that it was a typo ADPS vs APDS that caught my eye
  8. I tried to get the origional document and for some reason wasn't able to. There are CIA documents floating around that has had some of the redacted edited back into areas with technical details about western equiptment. Perhaps I am getting some different documents mixed up. Just based on CIA documents it appears likley that the 400mm KE 750mm CE describes the M1 against early APFSDS designs while the British estimates of 325-340 refer to more advanced WA ones. The value of 380mm for the M1A1 seems very close to the performance of the M833 against flat RHA at about 1000m. It would not surprise me if the M1A1 was protected against the M833 at a certian range and that RHA value is extracted from it. The 380mm value also seems rather close to early estimates of a 115mm DU APFSDS, so it may also refer to that protection criteria. Using RHA to try an determine actual protection against the rapid evolution of KE threats in the early to mid 1980s is an intersting black box.
  9. I thought this document was proved to have been inauthentic. Assuming it is it seems rather sloppy and unreliable. I mean what is a ADPS? Who has T-80s in the Middle East, with a 90km/ hr road speed? Same goes for the M60A3? The source is assumed to be from from the early 1990s correct?
  10. That is so very interesting. Any idea about the constuction nature of the "SB-60-24" APFSDS? The performance of a 105mm DU "proto" XM833/M829 vs more primitive 120mm WHA rounds is very interesting to say the least. It looks like I made an error in my measurments by assuming the welds are consistant thickness and that the top plate looks a bit raised, when they are not it may or may not be. The perspective of the shadow if those assumptions are wrong suggests they are differnt thicknesses. Safe to say that no one really has much a clue about what the armor of the M1A1 is or how it performs? Thinking out loud that against contemporary threats, it performs better then the Leopard 2 with Type B but worst then Type C vs KE and better then both vs CE threats.
  11. For reference on the M1E1. It looks like 3 x 2' or 50.8mm steel plates for weight simulator for the armor package of the M1A1. The IPM1 and M1A1 seem to be a bit of a mystery with regards to protection. Are they the same array ? Is BRL-2 as tested in the late 1970s what was eventually fitted to one or both of these tanks? Was it incrementaly improved over the ~5 or so years? BRL-2 as tested in the 1970s seemed to be sufficent against German and UK 120mm tugnsten designs at ranges over 1000m. Also seemed be more then enough against the monoblock DU XM774. M833? 115mm BM-28? BM-32? BM-42? No clue. I suspect that "if" the M833 failed against the turret of the M1A1 that it may have been sufficent against the BM-42. My reason for this line of thinking is that the 105mm DU M833 proved much better in testing against complex armor arrays then the W XM829. On the flip side the BM-32 performed much better then the BM-42 against spaced target arrays so perhaps the M1A1 would be defeated by one and not the other.
  12. EasyE

    M829A2 Design

    That seems very reasonable looking at it now. Why add that though? Is the stepped tip not designed for heavily sloped armor, or do the two elements work better together?
  13. EasyE

    M829A2 Design

    Kontakt-5 doesn't stop an APFSDS round, but only reduces its penetration. We know from Russian performance estimates and NATO testing (mostly reports from Jane's Defence Weekly and similar magazines) that the M829A1 was incapable of defeating at least the T-72B and T-80U with Kontakt-5. According to Nii Stali, Kontakt-5 improves the armour protectiton of a T-72B/T-90 by 20% (or rather: it reduces the penetration of the APFSDS by 20%). Based on the estimated performance of the M829A1 (somewhere around 600-650 mm at combat ranges against sloped armour) and the estimated armour protection of previously mentioned tanks, adding just a few centimetres in penetration might be enough to defeat the base armour, even if Kontakt-5 keeps reducing the overall penetration by 20%. The T-72B's turret for example is often estiimated to provide somewhere between 500 and 600 mm protection by the more reliable sources (its armour array is known and the thickness of the layers is relatively well documented), it could survive an impact of the M829A1 APFSDS only thanks the protection provided by Kontakt-5 ERA. The added raw penetration of the M829A2 together with its (slightly) reduced vulnerability to ERA (new DU alloy containing Vanadium) could make a change from "not being able to penetrate a T-72B with Kontakt-5 at most places at all but the shortest combat ranges" to "being able to penetrate a T-72B with Kontakt-5 at European combat ranges at most places of its turret and hull armour". I don't think that the velocity will change anything regarding the performance of Kontakt-5 ERA; the impact velocity is more relevant for the binary question: "Will the ERA fuse or not?" The Soviet ammunition had a much higher velocity and still could defeat Kontakt-5 with special tip constructions. "Russian performance estimates and NATO testing (mostly reports from Jane's Defence Weekly and similar magazines) that the M829A1 was incapable of defeating at least the T-72B and T-80U with Kontakt-5." I have never seen the M829A1 mentioned. Only the M829 in the original header to the article. If you have access to this article in entirety I would be interested in the details. "According to Nii Stali, Kontakt-5 improves the armour protectiton of a T-72B/T-90 by 20% (or rather: it reduces the penetration of the APFSDS by 20%)." That is almost certainly the high end. The USSR didn't have long thin monoblock DU APFSDS to test K5 against. Also from information I have seen initiation of the explosives wasn't reliable against thicker rods traveling at velocities lower then 1500m/s, and further not reliable against rods with diameters less the 45mm IIRC. IMHO both the M829A1 and K5 T-72B and T-80U were at the edges of each others performance envelope. There is little doubt that defense industry in the USA was more then happy to lobby for a new round to provide "overmatch" against Russia armor. "I don't think that the velocity will change anything regarding the performance of Kontakt-5 ERA; the impact velocity is more relevant for the binary question: "Will the ERA fuse or not?" The Soviet ammunition had a much higher velocity and still could defeat Kontakt-5 with special tip constructions." I agree.
  14. EasyE

    M829A2 Design

    I am not sold it is just part of the windshield. In the KEW-A3 picture the leading section ahead of the stepped tip is much darker then the silver background which appears to be the main part of the windshield, It also has a great deal more relief, and shadow. You can also see that the conical piece has more relief and is solid. Maybe it is a windshield design, but on a round that was designed to defeat ERA having a design element that appears similar to other solutions known about at the time, makes me think that this advanced windshield design theory needs more of an explanation then an anti era element. "My understanding is that the M829A2 was a brute-force attempt to defeat Kontakt-5,'" Why is this your understanding? It seems to me that if K5 works as advertised adding another 40-60mm of penetration from a velocity increase will have little effect. From what we know about K5 ERA a higher velocity makes initiation more likely.
  15. EasyE

    M829A2 Design

    I am getting conflicting views on this. Developed to be able to defeat the K5 ERA on Russian tanks. No doubt it employs a few methods to do this. One thing is not clear to me though. That is the presence of an break away or arrow tip on the M829A2. The KEW-A3 clearly has it. http://i.imgur.com/TxRK8Lp.png CHARM-3 has it http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/images/346_a379.jpg The m829A2 I am not so sure. http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/120mm/120mm_M829A2_APFSDS-T_T.jpg http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/APFSDS/media/cGF0aDovNDAzMzA0NS1maWctMS1sYXJnZV96cHM1NzM3M2ExZi5naWY=/?ref= Doesn't appear in this computer model http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/f/fd/M829A2.jpg/800px-M829A2.jpg Does anyone know for sure?
  • Create New...