M113G3 Serrated, Holed Add-On Armor

[methos]

Which patent? Do you have link or patent number?

 

DE 2324724A

[APF]

The patent only covers the specific mounting of the outer armor plate (amongst much legalese)

[methos]

The patent only covers the specific mounting of the outer armor plate (amongst much legalese)

 

Yes, what do you expect? But it mentions that the mounting allows the usage of steel alloys which cannot used for structural elements, it mentions that the elasitcal mount was found to be more effective than other types of spaced armour, that the armour moves when being hit (Schwenkbewegung) and that the rubber-coated bolts work like Stahlfederpuffer unter Vorspannung (i.e. coil springs). At the same time the armour plates can be easily replaced. Patents never contain much information about effiency and working mechanism

Edited November 2, 2012 by methos

[Colin]

armor looks identical to the swiss schützenpanzer 63/89:

http://preservedtank...e=2&PhotoID=287

 

http://www.panzerbae..._mr_spz63-a.htm

 

Interesting Lee ARV on that link.

[Mr King]

armor looks identical to the swiss schützenpanzer 63/89:

http://preservedtank...e=2&PhotoID=287

 

http://www.panzerbae..._mr_spz63-a.htm

 

Interesting Lee ARV on that link.

 

I really dug the museums sign behind the ARV. Pretty cool.

[Guest Jason L]

The patent only covers the specific mounting of the outer armor plate (amongst much legalese)

 

Yes, what do you expect? But it mentions that the mounting allows the usage of steel alloys which cannot used for structural elements, it mentions that the elasitcal mount was found to be more effective than other types of spaced armour, that the armour moves when being hit (Schwenkbewegung) and that the rubber-coated bolts work like Stahlfederpuffer unter Vorspannung (i.e. coil springs). At the same time the armour plates can be easily replaced. Patents never contain much information about effiency and working mechanism

 

That's not really true. It just depends what aspect of the system is being patented. Now whether or not they describe the working mechanism properly or not is another matter entirely

[APF]

The patent only covers the specific mounting of the outer armor plate (amongst much legalese)

 

Yes, what do you expect? But it mentions that the mounting allows the usage of steel alloys which cannot used for structural elements, it mentions that the elasitcal mount was found to be more effective than other types of spaced armour, that the armour moves when being hit (Schwenkbewegung) and that the rubber-coated bolts work like Stahlfederpuffer unter Vorspannung (i.e. coil springs). At the same time the armour plates can be easily replaced. Patents never contain much information about effiency and working mechanism

 

No, the patent is about a way to mount the outer layer of the dual layered armor by means (and that is patented) of a specially designed combination of rubber dampers, some of them designed to work as joint, the other somehow designed to fix the outer shell by some sort of bayonet-system or something like that. Thats all.

[DB]

Close-up of the CVR(T) perforated plate. Diameter of those holes is similar to that of a AAA battery.

 

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j169/dbracer/Tankfest%202006/scimitar_perf_plate.jpg

[TTK Ciar]

Close-up of the CVR(T) perforated plate. Diameter of those holes is similar to that of a AAA battery.

 

http://i80.photobuck..._perf_plate.jpg

Thank you, DB.  That's interesting .. AAA is about 10mm in diameter.  If the holes were slightly larger, say 12mm, they should provide very good effect against 12.7mm and 14.5mm diameter threats (tumbling the projectile, and bending or breaking it depending on the projectile's composition, resulting in severely degraded ability to penetrate the vehicle's main armor).  The plate looks to be about 6mm thick, which (assuming that's 6mm of steel) would be plenty for interfering with armor-piercing 14.5mm.

 

I am not familiar with the CVR(T)'s armor, and all the references I can find are vague ("average 25mm thickness", which for aluminum armor would be the equivalent of 12mm to 18mm RHA depending on alloy).  How well proofed is its side armor against 7.62x54R?  The holes seem too large, and the plate too thick, to have 7.62mm threats in mind, but if fired upon from at least a 20deg angle they should provide reliable effect against 7.62mm as well (that's assuming 12mm holes; 10mm holes would be reliable at about 15deg or more).

Edited November 20, 2012 by TTK Ciar

[TTK Ciar]

deleted duplicate post

Edited November 20, 2012 by TTK Ciar

[Colin]

You might find this interesting, from a Malaysian 90mm CVRT

 

 

[Lieste]

The cores are both about 10.9mm though ~ so a 10mm hole is going to be a better match than a 12+mm one? No?

[TTK Ciar]

The cores are both about 10.9mm though ~ so a 10mm hole is going to be a better match than a 12+mm one? No?

I didn't know the 14.5mm had a 10.9mm core. You are right, that would make 10mm a better fit than 12mm.

[Guest Jason L]

Really don't think 2 mm matters all that much. You have to be bloody lucky/un-lucky (depending if you're shooting or being shot) to land a round where the jacket strips and the penetrator perfectly squeeses through a 12 mm hole. That's half a mm of radial clearance. Most rounds are going to strike oblique to the holes anyway so the LOS of the perforation is totally different anyway.

[TTK Ciar]

Jason, you are right on all counts. However, holes closer to 10mm would be more reliable against 7.62mm threats (and does anyone know if the CVR(T) base side armor is supposed to provide proof against 7.62x54R?), and would also be closer to DB's size estimate.

 

Until someone can stick a caliper in one, there's not really sufficient evidence (even circumstantial evidence) to say for sure.

[Guest Jason L]

Jason, you are right on all counts. However, holes closer to 10mm would be more reliable against 7.62mm threats (and does anyone know if the CVR(T) base side armor is supposed to provide proof against 7.62x54R?), and would also be closer to DB's size estimate.

 

Until someone can stick a caliper in one, there's not really sufficient evidence (even circumstantial evidence) to say for sure.

 

I wonder if you can cover all your bases from 7.62 all the way up to some of the crappier 20mm APDS by double stacking a set of (say 5mm + 5mm) plates with a 15mm perforation that is interleaved so that the interference makes an perpendicular LOS of < 7mm with a rubber buffer between the two.

 

Naively 10mm RHA + 20mm RHAe is getting close to some of the crappier 20mm stuff. Especially if you get a "double edge" from the interleaved perforations.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Jason L

[Paul Lakowski]

It’s more than just matching the projectile to the hole size. If the plate is mild steel, it will deform under impact and the projectile will yaw as the plate deforms . The yawing projectile will then likely shatter if it impacts some hard armor surface. Speak to Sebastian, he did some ballistic tests on basic mesh wire armor placed ahead of steel plate. Those studies included multiple mesh plates.

 

 

Good to see this stuff is still going on.

[Lieste]

For the same plate thickness and weight, you get a *lot* more holes with the smaller dimension and similar packing ratio. The length of 'edge' present goes up in inverse proportion to the size of the hole, with equal armour mass remaining.

 

Obviously there are limits, where too small a web gives little protection against larger projectiles, and too small a hole matters little against very large projectiles... but for 'design' range conditions a smaller hole seems favourable for edge-impact probabilities.

[Nikolas93TS]

You might find this interesting, from a Malaysian 90mm CVRT

 

 

 

 

I think thickness of base armor was 12.7mm,and with that inclination it theoretically protected against HMG.

 

Interesting shots,thanks for sharing.