Terminology for Composite Armor

[Guest Achzarit]

Once one gets into the many variations of composite armors, I am a bit lost in regard to

the proper terminology to distinguish between them, outside of using brand names.

 

Is there a significant difference in composition and design between the sort of composite

armor you might find on, say, an MRAP or light AFV and that used on a main battle tank?

 

While specifics of composition are usually classified, I'm wondering if there is a general

terminology used to distinguish something like Chobham and its successors from something like

the ceramic-steel armor panels on a ballistic vest or armored limousine or pilot section of an

attack helicopter.

 

Spaced composite? Multi-layered composite? Ceramic-steel-DU-Kevlar-Composite? All of those

seem kind of awkward and perhaps not the right way to put it.

[TTK Ciar]

Once one gets into the many variations of composite armors, I am a bit lost in regard to

the proper terminology to distinguish between them, outside of using brand names.

 

Is there a significant difference in composition and design between the sort of composite

armor you might find on, say, an MRAP or light AFV and that used on a main battle tank?

 

Yes, there are very significant differences in armor composition and design between different vehicles. As vehicles get larger and heavier, armor composition shifts away from high mass efficiency and towards higher thickness efficiency, and the design targets different kinds of threats (bullets and bomb fragments for MRAP, heavy long-rod penetrators and large-bore shaped charges for tanks).

 

Also, with higher mass budgets different arrangements become feasible. The minimum worthwhile thickness of DU and SiC for dwell effect is far below what an MRAP could support, but well within a 70-ton tank's means. Conversely, light vehicles (helicopters, humvees) can carry so little armor mass and bulk that their design starts to look more like bulletproof vests -- pricey plastics and thin ceramic tiles, covering only a few critical areas (like the cockpit).

 

While specifics of composition are usually classified, I'm wondering if there is a general

terminology used to distinguish something like Chobham and its successors from something like

the ceramic-steel armor panels on a ballistic vest or armored limousine or pilot section of an

attack helicopter.

 

Spaced composite? Multi-layered composite? Ceramic-steel-DU-Kevlar-Composite? All of those

seem kind of awkward and perhaps not the right way to put it.

 

I've noticed that most folks fall into one of three camps: Laypeople who use simple terms (like "armor") or flat-out wrong terms ("chobham" to refer to composite armors in general); people concerned with current capabilities of existing systems who use specific vehicles names ("T-72B", or "Mi-24R") or brand names ("MEXAS", "Armox"); and people concerned with components or theoretical systems who use drawn-out and awkward-sounding descriptions (like "Steel/Rubber/Aluminum bulging array" or "Titanium cockpit bathtub").

 

The point of language is communication, so when you want to communicate with someone about armor, it might be best to figure out which camp your audience belongs to and use the terminology to which they're accustomed.

 

When I'm with my father we might talk about "urethane" or "aramid", but when I'm with my wife (who is smarter than I am, but educated in different subjects) I say "varnish" or "plastic".

[Guest JamesG123]

Also the perspective of the speaker/source. There is more than a little bit of "marketing speak" in the terms thrown around about the various types of armor and systems. Much more so than anything engineering specific usually.

 

 

I just call it "The peanut butter".

[IronsightSniper]

I just call it by it's technically correct term of "Composite Armor" which references to different types of materials being layered together.

[Guest Achzarit]

I've noticed that most folks fall into one of three camps: Laypeople who use simple terms (like "armor") or flat-out wrong terms ("chobham" to refer to composite armors in general); people concerned with current capabilities of existing systems who use specific vehicles names ("T-72B", or "Mi-24R") or brand names ("MEXAS", "Armox"); and people concerned with components or theoretical systems who use drawn-out and awkward-sounding descriptions (like "Steel/Rubber/Aluminum bulging array" or "Titanium cockpit bathtub").

 

The point of language is communication, so when you want to communicate with someone about armor, it might be best to figure out which camp your audience belongs to and use the terminology to which they're accustomed.

 

Fair enough, and a good point to bring up. Let's say the discussion falls more into the theoretical/component level, and the audience is somewhere above the layman level but below the professional or dedicated expert - e.g., a discussion forum on AFVs, moderately serious tank wargames, etc. That is, one wishes to say something like "the following main battle tanks tanks use (insert term) composite armor" or distinguish between IFV and MBT armor types. Much as one might say in a discussion of jet aircraft "airliners and transports tend to use high bypass turbofans, while fighter aircraft tend to use low bypass turbofans with afterburners."

 

Basically, I was looking for any terms that offer more precision than the rather vague "composite armor" without having to break down precise descriptions of composition. Much like it might be useful to know that a particular tank or autocannon ammunition is armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot ammunition, rather than just a rather "kinetic energy armor piercing" projectile, or on the other hand, something specific like 120mm M829.