Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'armor'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Discussion Forums
    • AFV Forum
    • General Naval and Air
    • Weapons other than Tanks (WOTTs)
    • King Sargent Military History Forum
    • Military Current Events
    • Armor Scientific Forum
    • Modeller's Forum
    • Gamer's Forum
    • Free Fire Zone
    • Tanknet Library
    • Hall of Remembrance
  • TankNet Features
    • Reception Station
    • The Whine Cellar
    • The Trading Post

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 7 results

  1. Even the Best Korea has its own armor thread. Worst Korea also needs one
  2. Jacob Marx, Marc Portanova and Afsaneh Rabiei have published their findings regarding a composite armor structure consisting of a boron carbide faceplate, a "foamed" energy-absorbing interlayer and an aluminum backing plate, with most of their attention on the novel energy-absorbing layer. Phys.org wrote up an article about their findings, though the headline is a little misleading. The interlayer is not quite "foamed" like most people think of it, but rather a composite of hollow hardened steel microspheres sintered in a metallic matrix. The mass efficiency of their system vs 12.7x99mm (Ball and AP) varies between tests, but averages out to about 2.1. It's hard to tell from their figures, but my first attempt to calculate its thickness efficiency puts it at about 1.3. I'd like to revisit that to get a higher confidence figure. The article is here: https://phys.org/news/2019-06-metal-foam-caliber-rounds-steel.html Their findings were published in Composite Structures (2019). I have a copy archived here: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/misc/paper.x.armor.ballistic_performance_of_composite_metal_foam_against_large_caliber_threats.marx_portanova_rabiei.2019.pdf
  3. Just saw this, and my first thought was, "What would be the mass efficiency of a metal/ceramic composite incorporating q-carbon?": http://phys.org/news/2015-11-phase-carbon-diamond-room-temperature.html Second thought was, "Hey this doesn't look like it would be too hard to mass-produce".
  4. I ran across this curious gem today: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/misc/paper.x.materials.library_curtin_edu_au.Characterization_of_mechanical_and_fracture_behaviour_in_nano_silicon_carbide_reinforced_vinylester_nanocomposites.2013.alhuthali_low.pdf In it, Alhuthali and Low examine the influence of SiC nanoparticles on vinylester's fracture mechanics. Of particular interest was the discovery of a "sweet spot" in the ratio of vinylester to SiC for maximum strength vs toughness, being somewhere near 5% SiC but definitely higher than 3% and lower than 10%. Also, on pp11-12 it is mentioned that larger SiC granules offer a toughening effect by mitigating crack propagation (like ripstop). Thinking back to previous discussions of ballistic properties of composites of vinylester and large-diameter ceramic granules in closer to 50%/50% proportion, it occurs to me that one might combine the strengthening effect of the nanoparticles with the antiballistic and toughening effects of large-diameter granules. A mixture of 57% vinylester, 3% SiC nanoparticles, and 40% SiC granules would put the fraction of nanoparticles in the vinylester between granules at 5% (57 + 3 = 60, 3 / 60 = 0.05), for an overall cured density of 2.0 g/cc. Does this seem reasonable? The main problem I foresee is mixing the granules with the composite without accumulating piles of microparticles in front of them, which Alhuthali and Low point out creates focus points for mechanical stress (what they call "agglomerations" on p10).
  5. Sardaukar

    Leopard 3

    Apparently this is Leopard 3 prototype:
  6. Hey there, Has anyone got any data or sources for the RHAe (thickness) of GFRP vs CE? I interpret this Russian source as yielding a thickness RHAe-KE/CE of 0.41 / 0.77. The RHAe-KE is pretty much in line with other sources. But I have no idea about the CE value. Does anyone have an links to studies regarding the RHAe-CE? (TBH, links to any papers on the subject of RHAe-CE would be welcome--haven't found much there). Cheers, Olds
  7. Dual hardness armor appears to work even when it's very thin. Hell, wasn't it originally intended for helicopters? It would seem to me, therefore, that it would make decent body armor. It would be somewhat heavier than ceramic plates, but lighter than the high hardness steel plates which are still very common on the police market. In addition, they wouldn't be as fragile as ceramic. Does anyone actually make dual hardness steel body armor, or body armor out of any other metal laminates? All the ones I can find information on appear to be ceramic or high hardness steel. Frequently they have aramid spall liners on the back, but personal protection seems to be downright primitive compared to tank armor.
×
×
  • Create New...