History Of Us Army Afvs

[Mighty_Zuk]

Just now, TrustMe said:

What armor type do Egyption M1's have and how do they compare to the Merkava 4's?

Damian can probably answer about the Egyptian M1s. But good luck figuring out what's in the Mark 4 armor.

[sunday]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

If I'm understanding correctly, the "best" armor is made from depleted uranium -- the same material as the kinetic main gun rounds-- followed by tungsten, then followed by traditional R.H.A.?

Where does the "ceramic/non-metal" come into play?

Thanks.

Apparently, the great advantage of DU is cheapness compared with, e.g. tungsten.

Mechanical properties, on paper, look worse than steel's. It could be that DU is good at stopping gamma rays, but little more.

[TrustMe]

15 minutes ago, sunday said:

Apparently, the great advantage of DU is cheapness compared with, e.g. tungsten.

Mechanical properties, on paper, look worse than steel's. It could be that DU is good at stopping gamma rays, but little more.

I thought that DU armour was better than steel versus HEAT rounds?

[sunday]

5 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

I thought that DU armour was better than steel versus HEAT rounds?

It could be, I do not know for sure.

However, the adiabatic shearing of some DU alloys, big advantage in APetc projectiles, does not seem an advantage when assessing the performance of an armor material.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...But good luck figuring out what's in the Mark 4 armor.

+/- same sandwiched array as in any modern tank. While exact composition is unknown, efficiency of such armor by generations is known and it is highly unlikely that Merk array is much more or much less efficient - rough protection of Merk 4 can be estimated.

[Mighty_Zuk]

19 minutes ago, bojan said:

+/- same sandwiched array as in any modern tank. While exact composition is unknown, efficiency of such armor by generations is known and it is highly unlikely that Merk array is much more or much less efficient - rough protection of Merk 4 can be estimated.

Your guess work will have a too high variance. Armor blocks have "explosive" written on them leading to suggestions of SLERA, as well as other such indications. But then they don't look much different from NERA seen on contemporary designs.

As I said, good luck. I'll gladly read what you can come up with, but I'm not holding my breath.

[bojan]

Biggest question is did Israelis sacrifice KE protection in order to squeeze as much HEAT protection as possible.

I know that they are not simple NERA, but still overall efficiency is more-less known. I don't actually like most protection estimates because they always focus on frontal protection, which is... well, not irrelevant but... Take KE protection for example - what modern tank with modern ammo will Merks will realistically face so difference between X and Y KE protection is really important? So I am going to skip front turret protection fully.

Front hull is a single relatively thin composite block, so protection there is unlikely to stop most modern KE and HEAT threats.

Lower front hull is single steel plate, so no estimates needed there.

For Merks side hull and turret we have good ideas of thickness. Rough estimate for turret - single charge ATGMs with ~500-600mm penetration maximum, IOW AT-3/4/5. Newer single charge and weaker dual charge ATGMs at some angle (let's say 45deg), and really good one from frontal ~40-50, maybe (big maybe) 60 deg.

Side hull (heavy sideskirts) - Old RPG-s (PG-7S and earlier) and equivalent at normal impact, better ones at some angle, probably 45 deg for PG-7VL.

Roof - plunging fire (say 45deg) for old RPGs, newer ones at some low angle (~30deg for PG-7VL level maybe), HEAT bomblets of ~20cm penetration and EFPs from "smart" arty ammo @ normal impact.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

5 minutes ago, bojan said:

Biggest question is did Israelis sacrifice KE protection in order to squeeze as much HEAT protection as possible.

I know that they are not simple NERA, but still overall efficiency is more-less known. I don't actually like most protection estimates because they always focus on frontal protection, which is... well, not irrelevant but... Take KE protection for example - what modern tank with modern ammo will Merks will realistically face so difference between X and Y KE protection is really important? So I am going to skip front turret protection fully.

Front hull is a single relatively thin composite block, so protection there is unlikely to stop most modern KE and HEAT threats.

Lower front hull is single steel plate, so no estimates needed there.

For Merks side hull and turret we have good ideas of thickness. Rough estimate for turret - single charge ATGMs with ~500-600mm penetration maximum, IOW AT-3/4/5. Newer single charge and weaker dual charge ATGMs at some angle (let's say 45deg), and really good one from frontal ~40-50, maybe (big maybe) 60 deg.

Side hull (heavy sideskirts) - Old RPG-s (PG-7S and earlier) and equivalent at normal impact, better ones at some angle, probably 45 deg for PG-7VL.

Roof - plunging fire (say 45deg) for old RPGs, newer ones at some low angle (~30deg for PG-7VL level maybe), HEAT bomblets of ~20cm penetration and EFPs from "smart" arty ammo @ normal impact.

 

Can't comment on all right now, but we do know there is a KE protection armor there. Look at turret pics online, you'll see on the lower part of the turret that it looks different directly at the front compared to the side modules.

Rafael displayed ERA (actually SLERA) solution in 2021 at IAV. It is very likely integrated in a custom form on the Merkava. Internal pics show heavy braces on the front armor array, indicating some violent reaction (SLERA?) coupled with heavy weight.

[bojan]

Ofc there is KE protection incorporated, but is it KE protection vs some super theoretical APFSDS that potential opponents might or might not get or... let's say, BM-42 and KEW-A1?

[Mighty_Zuk]

30 minutes ago, bojan said:

Ofc there is KE protection incorporated, but is it KE protection vs some super theoretical APFSDS that potential opponents might or might not get or... let's say, BM-42 and KEW-A1?

Producing armor and standardizing it across a fleet of close to a thousand tanks takes longer than it would take Egypt or Syria import 2nd hand advanced Chinese or Russian tanks with modern 125mm APFSDS.

So take that into account when asking about Israeli procurement, which is far more often done proactively than reactively.

[Damian]

12 hours ago, Rick said:

If I'm understanding correctly, the "best" armor is made from depleted uranium -- the same material as the kinetic main gun rounds-- followed by tungsten, then followed by traditional R.H.A.?

Where does the "ceramic/non-metal" come into play?

Thanks.

No, DU is not the best armor. And Heavy Armor Package is not made purely from DU, DU alloy is only used in some parts of the armor. And DU can be replaced by different, not worse materials, like Tungsten alloy, ceramics combined with high hardness steel etc.

The only advantage that DU really have, it's that it's dirt cheap for US, because it is a waste from nuclear reactors spent fuel.

@TrustMe @sunday As for mechanical properties, you guys are making one certain mistake. You look at mechanical properties of pure DU. While both in armor and ammunition, there are used certain DU alloys, which properties are definately not fully declassified, especially when we talk about newer types.

Remember, do not mix pure DU with DU alloys.

9 hours ago, TrustMe said:

What armor type do Egyption M1's have and how do they compare to the Merkava 4's?

Egyptian M1A1's use basic FMS Armor Package, which is probably close equivalent to original 1985 Armor Package used in basic M1A1's, before they were replaced by M1A1HA with Heavy Armor Package.

Improved FMS Armor Package for close allies and NATO members, depending on it's generation is either equivalent to 2nd generation Heavy Armor Package, like the one tested in Sweden or newer ITA and NEA/NGAP.

In a report from january 2000, it is mentioned there were back then 4 generations if armor packages for US M1 tanks (+ 2 generations of FMS armor packages).

So 1st generation armor is original Starflower armor package developed for M1 and later modified for M1IP and basic M1A1, 2nd generation armor is so called Heavy Armor Package in it's 1st generation used in M1A1HA/M1A1HC, 3rd generation armor is 2nd generation Heavy Armor Package, and 4th generation armor is 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package.

And then you have 5th generation armor which is identified as ITA for M1A1SA and M1A2SEPv2, while 6th generation armor is NEA/NGAP used in M1A2SEPv3.

Edited Tuesday at 09:53 PM by Damian

[Damian]

4 hours ago, bojan said:

Ofc there is KE protection incorporated, but is it KE protection vs some super theoretical APFSDS that potential opponents might or might not get or... let's say, BM-42 and KEW-A1?

Egypt got green light to procure KEW-A4 APFSDS.

https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/egypt_18-05.pdf

https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/egypt_18-47.pdf

I also know Egypt plans at some point to upgrade their M1A1 fleet to M1A2 standard, but when and what will be details I do not know.

[Damian]

20 hours ago, Mr King said:

Are the armor packages inside the M1 turrets designed to be relatively easy to remove and swap out, or is it a major undertaking?

19 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Definitely a major undertaking.

Not really that difficult. What is need to be done is to cut welds of the external steel plates, take them off, then remove internal special armor packages, replace them with new ones, and weld external steel plates again. Here are some photos I found, showing cutting process of the turret and hull external steel layers of the special armor pockets, during replacement within modernization program.

By the way, these photos proves that front hull armor is also replaced and upgraded during modernization.

Here are turrets before and after armor replacement.

And here is turret during production, before special armor modules are installed.

Both solutions have pros and cons. Solution used in M1 Abrams and many other modern MBT's, definately takes more time and effort to replace during repairs or upgrades, but then again, quiet thick, external steel shell provides internal special armor modules with greater structural integrity and protection.

On the other hand solution used in for example, Merkava Mk4, provides faster and simpler repairs or upgrades, but at the cost of special armor modules, more vulnerable to mechanical damage and smaller structural integrity during hit.

[Tim Sielbeck]

6 minutes ago, Damian said:

Not really that difficult.

But not something that can be done other than, seemingly, in a factory setting.  Hence a major undertaking getting the tank, from where ever they may be, to the refurbishment facility and then back again.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Damian said:

...quiet thick, external steel shell...

38mm front turret plates on M1, IIRC Leo 2 is 40mm.

[Rick]

12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Composite armor is called such because you're designing an armor typically around a certain set of interactions, rather than individual materials. 

If DU happens to be heavier than an alternative then this might limit how you install armor elsewhere so it's not inherently better.

Aside from keeping the composition a secret, an export variant may be different simply because of different user requirements. Or the user may simply accept some downgrades like a slightly higher weight or volume, or just relying on a less standard supplier.

I seriously doubt any such alteration in armor results in any meaningful downgrade.

By the way, DU is very rarely used. It and tungsten are difficult metals to process, and their niche use means few companies are offering services. So in wartime or other peak demand times, they may be even a point of vulnerability.

Thank you for the explanation to an ex-sailor.

[sunday]

4 hours ago, Damian said:

The only advantage that DU really have, it's that it's dirt cheap for US, because it is a waste from nuclear reactors spent fuel.

@TrustMe @sunday As for mechanical properties, you guys are making one certain mistake. You look at mechanical properties of pure DU. While both in armor and ammunition, there are used certain DU alloys, which properties are definately not fully declassified, especially when we talk about newer types.

Remember, do not mix pure DU with DU alloys.

DU is a byproduct of the nuclear fuel enrichment process. Were it taken from spent nuclear fuel, it would be more expensive, as the process would have to deal with highly radioactive materials.

I looked at ultimate tensile strength and Young's modulus. Pure iron has better properties.

That matches with your statement that DU is dirt cheap, statement that matches what I wrote a while before.

[Peasant]

Found this cool channel, his other videos are great as well:

 

[Damian]

17 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

But not something that can be done other than, seemingly, in a factory setting.  Hence a major undertaking getting the tank, from where ever they may be, to the refurbishment facility and then back again.

AFAIK it can be done on depot level, not necessary factory level. You only need tools and skilled workforce.

16 hours ago, bojan said:

38mm front turret plates on M1, IIRC Leo 2 is 40mm.

Still more than external plate of Merkava Mk3 and Mk4 armor modules.

14 hours ago, sunday said:

DU is a byproduct of the nuclear fuel enrichment process. Were it taken from spent nuclear fuel, it would be more expensive, as the process would have to deal with highly radioactive materials.

I looked at ultimate tensile strength and Young's modulus. Pure iron has better properties.

That matches with your statement that DU is dirt cheap, statement that matches what I wrote a while before.

Primary point is that both ammunition and armor, use specific DU alloys, not pure DU.

[sunday]

20 minutes ago, Damian said:

Primary point is that both ammunition and armor, use specific DU alloys, not pure DU.

That is an exercise in semantics, as the DU penetrators used in APDSFS projectiles are actually made of DU alloyed with a small amount of, e.g. titanium, but point accepted.

Still, I have not seen any document that presents a comparison between uranium alloys over aluminium, titanium, or steel alloys used in armor plates. There are a few studies on DU alloyed penetrators, but I could not find anything on armor that uses DU alloys.

There are other countries that have lots of DU, but do not use DU alloys in tank armor, so there could be something in the topic that escapes me.

It is very likely that this matter is classified, however. At least until some player leaks it in some War Thunder forum or other...

Edited Wednesday at 04:37 PM by sunday

[Damian]

41 minutes ago, sunday said:

That is an exercise in semantics, as the DU penetrators used in APDSFS projectiles are actually made of DU alloyed with a small amount of, e.g. titanium, but point accepted.

Still, I have not seen any document that presents a comparison between uranium alloys over aluminium, titanium, or steel alloys used in armor plates. There are a few studies on DU alloyed penetrators, but I could not find anything on armor that uses DU alloys.

There are other countries that have lots of DU, but do not use DU alloys in tank armor, so there could be something in the topic that escapes me.

It is very likely that this matter is classified, however. At least until some player leaks it in some War Thunder forum or other...

I doubt there will be any avaiable source material, about DU alloy or alloys used in US tanks armor, for foreseeable future.

[sunday]

I could not but agree with that.

[Renegade334]

2 hours ago, Damian said:

AFAIK it can be done on depot level, not necessary factory level. You only need tools and skilled workforce.

GDLS seems to be the favored contractor for armor refits in preparation for foreign military sales. In the case of the Polish M1A1 Abrams, there were three companies that answered a bid to handle this process:

1. Safariland LLC. Some experience working with lightweight armor packages, but none with DU; they also lacked facilities to service heavy combat vehicles.

2. MCM Learning. No known experience with manufacturing armor but claim to have personnel familiar with certain Abrams procedures and programs. Also no suitable facilities for the job.

3. PLUS Ops, a Polish outfit. Failed to provide paperwork proving they had the chops for the job, and so were rejected.

Since all three were found wanting in this category and more, the contract went to the OEM i.e. GDLS. By the way, there was quite an emphasis on owning "secure facilities" in order to get the job:

Quote

GDLS is also the only source with Abrams Tank specific experience that can provide facilities with approved secure areas and trained personnel with the specific skills necessary to manage the storing, processing, and secure protection of classified information up to the Secret/Special Access Program level. The combination of skilled personnel, specialized technical expertise, and secure facilities and procedures are essential to the management and success of the Abrams M1A1 tank turret upgrade program. GDLS is responsible for the integration of the Government Furnished Information (GFI) armor designs into the Abrams Main Battle Tank. GDLS is currently the only known contractor with the necessary secure armor facilities and necessary production equipment capable of supporting the installation of classified armor into the Abrams Main Battle Tank.

According to the report, it'd take 64 months (7 months for design requirements, 12 months for manufacturing requirements, 60 months for construction and accreditation of a secure facility that can handle the engineering, production and integration duties and 4 months for testing and validation of ballistic armor samples) for a third-party contractor to catch up with GDLS' know-how and experience in regard to refitting the Abrams turret armor and more.

Source: https://sam.gov/api/prod/opps/v3/opportunities/resources/files/288b930b2b8d4cfbba2602ed617fccd0/download?&status=archived&token=

By the way, The War Zone had a write-up on this prior to sending M1A1s to Ukraine.

 

But, yeah, sure. Anniston and Lima should be able to handle the job without much problem.

Edited Wednesday at 07:07 PM by Renegade334

[Damian]

26 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

GDLS seems to be the favored contractor for armor refits in preparation for foreign military sales. In the case of the Polish M1A1 Abrams, there were three companies that answered a bid to handle this process:

1. Safariland LLC. Some experience working with lightweight armor packages, but none with DU; they also lacked facilities to service heavy combat vehicles.

2. MCM Learning. No known experience with manufacturing armor but claim to have personnel familiar with certain Abrams procedures and programs. Also no suitable facilities for the job.

3. PLUS Ops, a Polish outfit. Failed to provide paperwork proving they had the chops for the job, and so were rejected.

Since all three were found wanting in this category and more, the contract went to the OEM i.e. GDLS. By the way, there was quite an emphasis on owning "secure facilities" in order to get the job:

According to the report, it'd take 64 months (7 months for design requirements, 12 months for manufacturing requirements, 60 months for construction and accreditation of a secure facility that can handle the engineering, production and integration duties and 4 months for testing and validation of ballistic armor samples) for a third-party contractor to catch up with GDLS' know-how and experience in regard to refitting the Abrams turret armor and more.

Source: https://sam.gov/api/prod/opps/v3/opportunities/resources/files/288b930b2b8d4cfbba2602ed617fccd0/download?&status=archived&token=

By the way, The War Zone had a write-up on this prior to sending M1A1s to Ukraine.

 

But, yeah, sure. Anniston and Lima should be able to handle the job without much problem.

But I agree, that it should be either GDLS or specialized US Army unit if such exist. My argument is only, that this is depot level work, from technical point of view.

As for Polish M1A1FEP's, I talked here in Poland with GDLS guys, they idea is that these tanks over time will be rebuild and upgraded to M1A2SEPv3 standard, here in Poland, most likely by WZM facility which belongs to state owned PGZ.

WZM is already closely cooperating with GDLS, and is right now doing deprocessing of tanks and other vehicles after they are shipped here.

In future WZM in cooperation with GDLS, will be able to repair, overhaul, modernize and if everything goes well, also coproduce M1 tanks.

I am in contact with GDLS, so maybe in coming months I might be able to get some more information. Also Polish Army is now participating in the Abrams Users Club, sharing their experiences, observations, data and ideas how to further improve M1 tank.

[FatOtaku]

On 8/20/2018 at 8:24 PM, DKTanker said:

You certainly couldn't range at night using them, could barely see anything through them, they were primarily used to detect IR sources. I didn't see or hear about them until arriving in Germany in 1980, by which time you would think they should have been widely fielded. Widely fielded meant issued to tank platoon leaders and above and kept in the arms room. Just another useless sensitive item we signed for and kept safely hidden in the back of the odoment tray until we returned from the field.

Sorry for asking about this so many years later.

The metascope AN/PVS-6, as the name PVS suggest, relies on active infrared to see stuff. "could barely see anything through them", was that with an infrared searchlight? Or were you trying to use it as a passive night vision?