Transcribed Warford's 2002 article on T-72B armor

[TTK Ciar]

Not a big deal, but it's handy to have it as html IMO:

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor.t72.t72b.turret.warford_2002/warford.html

Contemplating those T-90 captured in Ukraine made me think of it.  My guess is that when they peel back the T-90 turret armor and peer inside, they'll find aluminum/rubber/steel/airgap arrays, similar to Al-Khafji/ENIGMA armor modules (essentially T-72B inserts with the thick steel plates replaced by thick aluminum plates).

[methos]

In case of the T-90, T-90S and T-90A, this is extremely likely.

At least the T-90S seems to have such armor, given that there is a LS_DYNA analysis simulating the impact of some type of round on the welded turret with such a bulging plate armor array.

Edited May 24 by methos

[KV7]

12 hours ago, TTK Ciar said:

Not a big deal, but it's handy to have it as html IMO:

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor.t72.t72b.turret.warford_2002/warford.html

Contemplating those T-90 captured in Ukraine made me think of it.  My guess is that when they peel back the T-90 turret armor and peer inside, they'll find aluminum/rubber/steel/airgap arrays, similar to Al-Khafji/ENIGMA armor modules (essentially T-72B inserts with the thick steel plates replaced by thick aluminum plates).

Why do you suspect the use of aluminium for the thick plates ? Is the array thicker so there is a suspected move where TE is traded away for better ME ? I am sceptical there would even be a notable ME gain at least vs KE. 

[TTK Ciar]

11 hours ago, KV7 said:

Why do you suspect the use of aluminium for the thick plates ? Is the array thicker so there is a suspected move where TE is traded away for better ME ? I am sceptical there would even be a notable ME gain at least vs KE. 

My expectation is that aluminum plates serve just as well as steel at reflecting energy back to the back-facing thin steel plates, keeping TE the same at a modest improvement of ME (against HEAT only; KE resistance might be reduced).

We know that Al-Khafji armor modules replace the thicker steel plates with slightly-thinner aluminum plates.  I am speculating as to the reason for this.

https://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor.russia.nera.enigma.schematic.khafjiarmor1vw4.jpg

 

[KV7]

2 hours ago, TTK Ciar said:

My expectation is that aluminum plates serve just as well as steel at reflecting energy back to the back-facing thin steel plates, keeping TE the same at a modest improvement of ME (against HEAT only; KE resistance might be reduced).

We know that Al-Khafji armor modules replace the thicker steel plates with slightly-thinner aluminum plates.  I am speculating as to the reason for this.

https://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor.russia.nera.enigma.schematic.khafjiarmor1vw4.jpg

 

Thank you. It would be nice to see some simulations that are good enough to model it.

My understanding here was that movement of the back plate was largely from bulging in the face plate and rubber interlayer. The bulging mechanism should be more effective (in ME, but not necessarily TE terms) when there is a a lower density of the bulging medium and I think also a higher Poisson ratio, in which case aluminium will be a bit better on both metrics.

It also has to tamp forward movement of the bulging material, so that the back plate moves more, presumably largely by inertia and stiffness (perhaps this is what you mean by reflecting) in which case aluminium is worse, but this may be achieved well enough anyway (perhaps this is what you mean by "serve just as well"). 

I also wonder if aluminium is superior to some textolite or similar material. Or more specifically, if some steel/textolite/rubber-steel sandwich of equal mass would be superior to one of aluminium-rubber-steel. 

Edited May 25 by KV7