Search the Community

Even the Best Korea has its own armor thread. Worst Korea also needs one

From my analysis of this data, I believe the penetration of the soviet 45mm gun can be described using DeMarre coefficient of 2640. For the 76mm one, the K coefficient would be 2300. For the 85mm blunt tipped shell the K is ~2400. Using this data I've compiled these penetration tables against german RHA using modified DeMarre equation: 45mm L/66 ATG should be able to perforate the Panther's lower side at up to 1200m at 0° (700m for the L/46 gun) and the rear armor at up to 950m (450m for the L/46 gun). https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2355589#p2355589 I remind you that Pz.III and IV had face hardened armour at the front and these values are not directly applicable to them. We can see that this gun will halfway reliably perforate the Tiger I upper side (82mm/0°) only from 200m. Lower side, where it's not protected by the running gear, can be pierced from up to 600mm at 30° angle. British testing seems to agree with this data, giving the W/R for 75mm/0° RHA of 2000fps(610m/s). The 85mm BR-365 shell would be able to perforate the Tiger II superstructure side at +-30° from within ~1200m. Although I believe these shells were much rarer than the BR-365K ones, as I haven't seen them captured in T-34/85 in N.Korea nor fired during those famous testing in Yugoslavia. One thing to note: by now it's clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the soviet blunt tipped shell are less affected by slope of the armour, at least between 0 and 45° and the T/D ratios investigated here. The slope multiplier between 0° and 30° is only ~1,1 as opposed to the commonly accepted value of ~1,23 for sharp tipped shells. Though this trend doesn't continue past ~45° and at higher angles these shells start to loose their penetration faster. I wonder, if perhaps the sharp tipped shells would be less affected by slope as well when striking under such conditions where their nose shatters, as for example against face hardened armor. Too bad that currently I have little testing data to tell one way or another. Excel spreadsheet: https://mega.nz/file/eSwwyKQD#57WrHmHs91-Brdhc607upVaSksWhvkuTsTslAq6JPQg the report itself (in russian): https://mega.nz/folder/fLRmmSiD#ZrnkDPzyMthz7RmA7VfN-Q

Inverted, jacketed, telescopic APFSDS not only has a higher penetration than regular APFSDS but it also has a higher angle performance than regular APFSDS. Would this make NATO frontal hull designs obsolete as the required amount of raw thickness would be too high for (most) tanks reasonably achieve? Video of telescopic APFSDS within a simulation picture of non inverted telescopic APFSDS

I ask this due to the factor that NERA works on similar principles as ERA and with the tip being designed to not send any energy imparted onto the tip through the rest of the round that would mean that it wouldn’t be affected by the expanding affect of the NERA which would reduce its effectiveness when compared to other rounds that don’t have a tip. Link to a blog about the physical characteristics of M829A3

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

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".

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).

Apparently this is Leopard 3 prototype:

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

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.