Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EasyE

  1. 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 r
  2. 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 1
  3. Tungsten Alloy so "modern" long rods WC is tungsten carbide. The core of early APFSDS like BM-22.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Thanks so much! I think that it was a typo ADPS vs APDS that caught my eye
  7. 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 woul
  8. 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?
  9. 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 t
  10. 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-
  11. 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?
  12. 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 p
  13. 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
  14. 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/cGF0aDovNDAzMzA0NS1maWctMS1sYXJnZV96cHM1NzM3
  15. The statement by the Chrysler Corporation is typical marketing talk, I would consider this to be rather meaningless. BAE Systems, General Dynamics and PSM GmbH are all claiming that their respective IFV designs offer "best in class protection", yet all vehicles fall in the same weight class and there certainly are differences in the protection level. Claims like "the latest Eastern bloc weapons" are silly, given that the United States military dramatically underestimated the penetration performance of Soviet ammunition. The report which mentions the "400 mm vs KE, 750 mm vs CE" protection le
  16. "more than 600" where ? Leo2A4 mantlet 420mm and weight only 630kg, it 100% better than soviet mantlet in terms of CE protection, but in case of KE, it will be penetrated by any 100-125mm APFSDS imho. "gaps" are the same. more or less. in case of Leo2A4 again. whole right front part one big "gap" i agree that the casted turrets have many problems with turret roof area. I think the SB armor model for the 1992 Leo-2A4 is given a 600mm vs KE value...He might be inferring it from that. I would be interested in knowing the rational on some of the armor values. They have good access to d
  17. Well, most likely. But the amount of surface is different, just like the amount of armour. The T-80U and most Soviet tanks don't have proper mantlet armour modules, so they are more vulnerable. On some of the more modern tanks, the gun mantlet is a composite armour block with a thickness of more than 600 mm. The gaps between the armour modules of turret and gun mantlet are much smaller compared to the Soviet design, which has only cast steel armour at the center of the turret. I don't see why this should be a "bit of a boost from the XM1". There is no indication that the XM1 was worse arm
  18. Did this export armor package contain DU elements?
  19. In many cases this appears to be true.. It does seem that the first M1 was about 400mm vs KE and 750mm vs CE. A bit of a boost from the XM1 it appears. This seems to make sense in light of past statements, the often quoted 350mm vs KE probably refers to 30 deg off center and a bit more then 400mm vs KE head on for the M1 that entered limited production in 1979-80. I am not sure about the values for the M1A1. 380mm vs KE..The gun sheild? glacis, hull front? turret front? from head on ? 30 deg?.. That said RHA doesn't seem to instructive against KE projectiles at the time. As was mentioned
  20. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2rQbsBr_GtoMdZMzar-cmGTzo9yrrg8q5UYx-BCPFvoCKVhAY Good shot of the M1E1. Tough to tell if the plates are the same thickness. Looks like the top one is thicker at aprox 50-60mm. Maybe two 50mm plates?
  21. It still is. Some people think that it's about "placing more material in the path of the penetrator" as per the Wikipedia description, though. Creating a stronger rod requires increasing the thickness of the rod, which decreases the L/D ratio assuming that the mass is kept constant. The overall effect would be a net loss, I think. Unless it is bypassed entirely, K-5 or Relikt will still have some effect on a rod, and compromising the L/D of the rod would make it less effective on the base armor. Well metallurgy and manufacturing plays a huge role as well. One area that hampered develop
  22. Is there any confirmation that newer Russian APFSDS designs incorporated elements to defeat heavy ERA designs similar to K5 or Relkit? It looks to me that rounds such at the BM-42M and what little exists of cross sections of newer rounds appear to have a special tip design. However this is speculation on my and the Internets part currently. http://www.kotsch88.de/munition/125mm/bm-42m.jpg It could be that this is for both complex composite arrays and ERA? The Soviets and currently the Russians would have an understanding of countermeasures in rod design to defeat ERA and certainly bee
  23. I am starting to think that this thread should be moved out of the armor scientific area. I work as a scientist and engineer right now. and this much speculation and guessing would get me fired in real life.... Having followed this debate for some time, it is amazing how little information has actually leaked out. Chatting with a Canadian Leopard 2 crewman about the hull armor, yielded this " from what I remember sorta like lots of different layers"
  24. Most of the public statements at the time (late 1980s) talked about it being a mesh that was incorporated into high grade steel. This could be more disinformation, there could be a few solutions used in HAP-1. Ie NERA NxERA with HHS plates forged with a DU mesh to give greater density and ballistic properties as well as a ceramic incorporating DU used as part of a backing array. It can't be understated how seriously the Pentagon took the emerging threat of the next generation of soviet anti tank weaponry... It appears that in the early 1980s they learned how ineffective many current armor ar
  25. Good question.. Searching the internet for ballistic elastomers chewed up the greater part of an afternoon..One thing I has suspected was somewhat confirmed though, that the armor designers of the west had a major advantage re: high performance elastic polymers in the late 1980s and 1990s, due to have how common they were in commercial use and manufacturing. To answer your questions, for some reason polycarbonate rings a bell as a interlayer material in the early 1980s. On another related note, as most know using HHS or UHHS 400-600 BH has issues in NERA arrays. One reason is becasue HHS-U
  • Create New...