Бронирование старых модификаций Т-80 и Т-72

тут видимо в башне корунд в сотах, заполненных полиуретаном.
 

 

Т-72Б 1985
лоб 45 - (5 х (22 мм сталь + 6 мм полимер + 3 мм сталь) + 5 х 20 мм воздух)

 

про эти две модификации вообще темный лес.

 

Погодите-погодите ... это физическая толщина или эквиваленты???

 

Сильно сомневаюсь

 

  В два ряда корундовые цилиндры (12x6см), между ними металическая плита. В промежутках - СТБ.
 

 

30мм сталь HSS + 60мм сталь + 100мм наполнитель + 45 мм сталь. Наполнитель в 5 слоёв: 30мм-10мм-20мм-10мм-30мм. Путём сложных мухлеваний он решил, что две 10 мм плиты - это сталь, а остальное - резина (полиуретан).

 

TSDV, 24.11.2003 10:59:46:

Достали все-таки разрезы.

 

NCD, 24.11.2003 21:04:12:

А почему такая грусть, уважаемый ?

 

The maximum armor level of the T-80U front turret armor is reported tobe 850mm thick and the insert is reportedly 400mm thick while the thickness reaches ~65cm near the gun in the “weakened zone” near the corners it thins to 750mm thickness. The T-80 turret volume is 1.9m³ and a surface area of 1.1 mІ leading to an average armor density of 4.6 tons per m^3. The T-72B has 6.1 tons and 1.85 m³ volume so the T-80U has about 4.6 /3.3 = 1.39 times as much turret armor mass as T-72B.The front surface area for the T-72B is 5.83mІ, while the T-80U looks like 6 mІ . The T-80U turret looks like 5% larger, diluting the advantage to 1.32.


T-72B has 380mm cast steel and 435mm insert if this is similar to the BDD on T-55/62 etc thats about 1 part metal 5 parts rubber[ 1g/cc], with the metal being aluminum [2.8 g/cc], or about 43 x 1.3 g/cm = ~ 7.2 cm additional steel mass for a total of 45.2cm x 1.32 = T-80U front turret armor mass of 59.7 cm. Mius the known solid thickness of 45cm leaves 14.7cm steel mass /40cm cavity or 2.88 g/cc cross sectional density.The cavity, as shown in the T-80U manuel , features two rows of ceramic [Alumina?] cylinders 12x 6cm with a plate in the middle [Aluminum- or Steel?] surrounded by some material [ probably a Steltexolite?]. If we assume Cast/STEF/ AD85/RHA/AD85/STEF/Cast , that’s 25.2 + 11.2+ 81.6 ч 7.85 = 15cm steel mass against 14.7cm estimated, pretty close.

The manlte area [ 1 meter middle section of turret around gun] is 65cm thick cast armor, but with the weakness that gun embrassure offer this is effectively only about x 90% cast and x 0.75 lateral confinement or 44cm KE resistance and 65cm HEAT.

K-5 Kontakt Patent shows a 5 layer element with two thin ERA [flyer plates] sandwiched between a steel plate with about 8mm thickness for each plate. This is fitted inside a steel box with 25mm thick plates. Most of this armor is spaced steel plates with only a small part ERA. Calculating the effetiveness we get …..

Turret front
/ ј hits= 45cm [3cm APFSDS] & 54cm [2cm APFSDS] ; ѕ hits w K-5 = 62±2 [DM-33/L-26] ;67±5[A1] & 71±6 [A2]
| Ѕ hits =35cm [3cm APFSDS] & 42cm [2cm APFSDS] ; Ѕ hits w K-5 = 50±2 [DM-33/L-26] ; 55±5 [A1] & 60±6[A2]
[44cm KE resistance and 65cm HEAT
| Ѕ hits =35cm [3cm APFSDS] & 42cm [2cm APFSDS] ; Ѕ hits w K-5 = 50±2 [DM-33/L-26] ; 55±5 [A1] & 60±6[A2]
ј hits= 45cm [3cm APFSDS] & 54cm [2cm APFSDS] ; ѕ hits w K-5 = 62±2 [DM-33/L-26] ;67±5[A1] & 71±6 [A2]

Thickness HEAT effectiveness
25mm Steel 25 x 3
7mm ERA 4 x 10
7mm Steel 7 x 3
7mm ERA 4 x 10
25mm Steel 25 x 3

Total = 251mm 60° x 35-45° = 529 - 562mm; more realistic is 37-39±17cm

In Zalogas lastest work there are 3 or 4 references to K-5 effectiveness but there all different values Here are
theKE resistance figures he quotes....
pp122 200mm Apfsds & 500mm HEAT == T80U
pp 147 120mm APFSDS & 500mm HEAT == T-80U
pp 436 150-200mm APFSDS & 400-500mm HEAT == T-80U

Upper Front Turret
The upper front turret is 5cm cast plus 5cm Steltexolite @ ~ 77 -78° or 44- 48cm LOS x 0.66 = 29 -32 KE and x 0.77 for 34-37cm
HEAT armor. The ERA that covers this area looks more like the early Kontakt ERA than K-5 so where ERA covers this the armor its plus 6-7cm KE and 36± 17cm HEAT or 35-39cm KE & 70-73± 17cm HEAT.

Side Turret
The side turret ranges from 40-60cm thick near front thinning to ~ 15-20cm around back. This is probably half and half cast / STEF
thus the KE armor is 0.66 while the HEAT armor is 0.77. The effective KE armor ranges from 40cm narrowing quickly to 26cm and 10-13cm around back. The HEAT armor ranges from 46-31cm near the front down to 15-12cm Around back. In the side and rear turret are mounted external storage boxes ~ 50cm thick that will offer a modicum of spaced armor, this may amount to an additonal ~13-15cm HEAT armor. Additionally K-5 is mounted around the front side of the turret.

Glacis

The glacis is reported to be 235mm thick and going by the above diagram the outer steel plate looks like the 30mm hard plate reported added after 1983 and the next plate is ~ 60mm thick steel. The rear plate looks like 45mm which would leave the inserts @ 100mm made up of 5 layers with two layers about 1cm thick each sandwiched between a 2cm inner layer encased in two outer layers about 3cm thick. The 1cm inner layers are the same material while the rest are the other materials. These look like two different materials and if we go from known T-62 glacis /lower hull armor of 102 mm @ 60° and 102mm @ 54°[LOS =204mm & 173mm for a total of 377mm]. The mass increase from T62 to T-80B [36.3 tons >> 42.5 tons] is about 17% increase, while the volume change from T-62 to T-80B is13% increase in density [ 12.5m³ >> 11.1m³ ]. The front hull profile on T-80B is 1.93mІ, while the T-62A is 2.16mІ [2.16/1.93], again leading to a 12% higher armor mass for the same weight or 48% mass total increase over the T-62 glacis & hull [377mm x 1.48 = 558mm ]. The T-80B lower hull is 90mm @ 64°= 205mm, so that leaves the glacis with 353mm or 134mm steel.
The glacis is reported to be based on the T-80B glacis or about 235mm thick with a hard plate, followed by a ~ 60mm thick steel. The rear plate looks like 45mm which would leave the inserts @ 100mm made up of 5 layers with two layers about 1cm thick each sandwiched between a 2cm inner layer encased in two outer layers about 3cm thick. The 1cm inner layers are the same material while the rest are the other materials. The T-80B lower hull is 90mm @ 64°= 205mm, so that leaves the glacis with 353mm or 134mm steel mass @ 67°in T-80B. Minus the known steel mass of 105mm that leaves 29.2 mm steel over 100mm insert or 2.92g/cc. This suggest that the armor could be Steel rubber/Stef or a “BDD type arrangement”, similar to the upgraded armor for the glacis of the T-62 & T-55 tanks. Thus the thick layers are rubber and the thin plates are metal, in this case it could be 2 x 1cm MS [ 7.8/cc] plus 8cm of Rubber @ 1.44g/cc = 2.72g/cc.

The T-80U glacis is most likely this model with 235mm thickness and the T-80B armor replacing insert with BDD type arrangement of 8cm rubber and 2cm mild steel.I don't have a good model for BDD so all I can do is crunch the numbers like above and modify for BDD effects [ x 1.2 with the thick confinement] .

Steel Te 15.5cm + rubber/ms = 3.2cm [8cm x 0.2 & mild steel 2cm x 0.8 ] = 18.7cm base

T/d Vs 5cm 2cm
5-6cm APDS 15.5 x 0.88 3.2 x 0.6 = 15.56 @ 68° = 40.9cm x 1.2 = 49cm RHAe
3-4cm APFSDS 15.5 x 0.9 3.2 x 0.75 = 16.35 @ 68° = 43cm x 1.2 = 51.6cm RHAe
2.5cm APFSDS 15.5 x 0.92 3.2 x 0.86 = 17 @ 68° = 44.8cm x 1.2 = 53.7cm RHAe
2.0cm APFSDS 15.5 x 0.94 3.2 x 0.88 = 17.4@ 68° = 45.7cm x 1.2 = 54.9cm RHAe


With Kontatk -5 the armor is increased as follows 25mm plus 2 x 10mm K-1 type ERA elements @ 67° . This adds 2.5cm x 0.9[ t/d ] + 2 x 1.0 cm x0.6 [t/d] = 3.4ч 0.38 = 9cm plus 8-12 cm = 18-22cm KE and 40-50cm HEAT thus about 78±2cm KE & 108± 5cm HEAT.

Lower Hull
Lhe lower hull isbased on the T-80B lower hull with the reinforced rubber steel skirts. That’s 9cm RHA plus 2cm dozer plate @ 64° = LOS thickness of 26cm LOS armor, but the spaced plate should add 1.3d to APFSDS & 2.6d to sheathed penetrators.The lower hull also features a rubber flap that hangs from the hull nose and provides a basic spaced armor for HEAT warheads. This rubber skirting is energetic but shows no evidence of ‘wire mesh/perforated plate design’. Is probably really thin strands of wire in alternating layers like in tires. Its hard to gauge this but the approximate density is similar to aluminum/Fibre Glass,so this is used. FibreGlas should offer 0.4 /0.6 Te plus the spaced plate effect prorated to the effective te. So that’s 0.4 x 3cm = 1.2cm + [Sqrt (1.2/3) x 1.3 d x 1.6 r x 3cm]=3.95cm + base armor 6cm .HEAT is 3cm x 0.6 x 6 + base armor & standoff [7/18cm].
RHAe should work out to..
2cm APFSDS = 27cm +1.2+3.2 = 31cm
3cm APFSDS = 28cm + 1.2 +3.95= 33cm
3.5cm sheathed APFSDS = 33cm + 1.2+ 8.5 = 43cm
The HEAT resistance should work out to 32cm HEAT + 18 = 50cm.

Side Hull
Along the front Ѕ of the side hull, Kontakt ERA is mounted that adds 16cm HEAT [Pj], as well as ~ 3-5cm KE [2cm-4cm APFSDS].

Front Ѕ Side Hull with Kontakt ERA Rear Ѕ Side Hull
13cm Vs 3cm API That's ~ 6+5cm = 11cm Vs 3cm API
14cm Vs 1.5cm APDS [ 25mm APDS] That’s ~ 6+6cm = 11cm Vs 1.5cm APDS [25mm APDS]
11cm Vs 1cm APFSDS [25mm APFSDS] That’s ~ 6+4cm = 9cm Vs 1cm APFSDS [25mm APFSDS]
40cm Pj HEAT HEAT resistance = 24cm Pj HEAT


The fuel tanks along the sponsons should add 65cm x 0.1 KE and 0.3 HEAT or an additional 12cm KE and ~ 25cm HEAT armor.

Rear tank armor
The rear armor is unlikely to be more than 4cm but diesel fuel tanks mounted ther could offer 0.1 to 0.15 Te resistance to
APFSDS and 0.34 resistance to HEAT. The HEAT armor would range from additional 3-4cm to 18cm HEAT armor.

Top tank armor
The tank's top armor is in three sections, the rear 1/3 [ turret & engine deck] looks like just ~ 2cm RHA, while the top turret & front hull deck seems to be ~ 5cm thick. The front 1/3 turret and all the glacis is quite thick and may offer ~ 17cm KE & 20cm HEAT.

Bottom tank armor
The tank's bottom armor seems quite thin with may be 2 x RHA plates 1-2cm thick each. Inaddition there should be 10-20cm gap between the plates. The resistance is probably ~ 4-5cm KE; while the standoff in the plates plus the ‘ground clearance’ should offer a standoff of 55-65cm leading to ~ 5-10cm increase in HEAT protection for a value of 11-16cm HEAT.

Copyright: Paul Lakowski

 

Керамический наполнитель двухкомпонентный. ТО что он называет "корундовыми цилиндрами и метталлом между ними".

 

Скорее СТБ, армированный стальными плитами HSS.

 

Я товарищу Полу Лаковски не особо верю ... особенно после его разгромной статьи Armor Basics ... там наших просто по полной опустили

 

500, 25.11.2003 00:44:26:

Расчёт эквивалента ВЛД Т-80У исходя из 30(HSS)-60-30(СТБ)-10(HSS)-30(СТБ)-10(HSS)-30(СТБ)-50.

Итого: 50мм HSS + 110 мм сталь + 90 мм СТБ.
КЕ: (50*1.34+110+90*0.41)/0.38=563 мм.
HEAT: (50*1.3+110+90*0.55)/0.38=591 мм.

С Контакт-5 имеем:
813 мм КЕ
1191 мм HEAT (841 мм - vs. тандем).

 

По вашему выходит все одно, что размести все HSS и наполнитель вместе сверху , или снизу, или как реально размещено. Разве это так?

 

500, 25.11.2003 02:05:09:

Так в интернете все рассчитывают .

 

Например преграда ВЛД Т-64 80+105(СТБ)+20 будет хуже, чем 60+105(СТБ)+40.

 

Расчёт против КС примерно такой же, а против кумулятивных сильно преувеличен.  Sergey Sava оказался пророком  .
 

 

...почему второсортные Т-72 выпускались по более совершенной схеме ВЛД, чем первосортные Т-64 и Т-80, вплоть до 87-го. Только на Ушке ВЛД профиксили.

 

Насчет 80+105+20 хуже, чем 60+105+40 вы имели ввиду что у СТБ подкрепление меньше 

 

  На каком расстоянии от свободного края плиты действует краевой эффект и от чего это расстояние зависит?

 

Т-72 до 79 г (появление Т-72А) имела точно же такую ВЛД 80-105-20, с того периода Т-64Б имеет ВЛД 100-105-20, после 82 г. Т-64Б/БВ имеет ВЛД 120-105-40.