Т-80У vs. M1A2, третья итерация

TSDV, 30.01.2004 10:16:07:

500, 29.01.2004 22:42:37 :

Вроде и там и там армированный СТБ. 

 

Наколько я видел разрез ВЛД Т-90, там по-другому

 

malim, 30.01.2004 19:05:33:

Меня дистанция смущает-взрыв кум. гранаты в 40 метрах от стрелка. На войне -допустимо, а тут- ИСПЫТАНИЯ. А как же техника безопасности?

 

NCD, 30.01.2004 19:49:02:

Э-э-э ... а по КАКОМУ, нельзя ли поточнее ? :o

 

Меня дистанция смущает-взрыв кум. гранаты в 40 метрах от стрелка.

 

не знаю как сделано в 72м, но в 55ых командир увидев цель в свой смотровой прибор нажимал кнопку на рукоятке поворота башенки командира, башня начинала поворачиваться в сторону цели, а командир удерживал цель в поле своего зрения, при этом через ТПУ отдавалась команда наводчику. Не думаю что в 72ых сделали что-либо примитивнее.

 

А поводу применения ручного дублирования управления - это же какие руки или ноги нужны, что бы без помощи гидравлики сжать по пять фрикционных дисков в каждой БКП, что бы затормозить 50 тонную машину - даже в "Жигулях" весом 1 тонну без гидравлики не обойтись!

 

Merkava Mk.I

An old 80s book has rated the hull armor of the Merkava Mk.1 as "inner armour is 76mm steel + 305mm air gap + 51mm steel + 150mm air gap + 100mm steel (back plate)". Superimposing this over scale drawings, its obvious that the armor must be at or near vertical ahead of the engine compartment with the cast sloped shell over top. Scale drawings also suggest a 30cm gap between this armor package and the glacis. If the outer cast is about 4 cm @ 75° that would mean LOS thickness of 15cm plus the solid thickness of the 'inner armor' [~38cm thick] and 60cm airgap.

The hull profile of the Chieftain is 0.78 of the Merkava, leaving the armor mass at 32/39cm x 0.78 = 25/30 cm KE. So some armor mass must come from the turret.

The ratio of turret profile to hull profile is 1:2 so 2 cm from the turret = 1cm on the hull. The turret from the model was 52-58cm and the hull 25-30cm. To get to 38cm we need 8 x 2 or 16cm of the turret, which leaves 36-42cm on the turret. But the air gap in the turret armor looks like 60-110cm, making it 15-30 rod diameters; this should reduce KE & HEAT penetration. The tumble rate on APFSDS should be ~ 1.1 times. With lateral confinement 36-42 cm x [0.99-0.88] cast [0.92] and spaced impact [x 1.1] that’s 36-37cm KE. The spaced armor should also boost the HEAT armor as well. If we assume the turret is similar to the hull, then it’s likely to be 3-4 + 2-3 + 7-8 @ 70-65°, the HEAT armor should be 3 x first two plates plus back plate and standoff. 69cm plus 40cm /1st Gen HEAT or 10cm /2nd Gen HEAT. That’s 36-37cm KE & 109 / 79cm HEAT [1st Gen/2nd Gen].

In addition the slanted outer plate is going to induce "YAW" to any penetrating rod making the impact on follow on plates as Yawed. Further this Yaw will be exaggerated by the multiple plate arrangement. The inner rolled plates are probably of different hardness too, leading to further increase in effectiveness. The 51mm plate could be semi-hardness steel [~ 450BHN] and the 76mm plate say 300BHN, with the 100mm plate ~270BHN. The tumble rate from the outer plate allows about 1.04 increase in effectiveness. The Te for Fuel is estimated to be 0.1 KE and 0.45 HEAT, thus the fuel LOS thickness should be ~ 6cm KE & 26cm HEAT. That would bring the hull up to 44 cm KE and 66cm HEAT. In addition the standoff should reduce the effect of shaped charges by 5-9 cone diameters. For a “Sagger” type warhead that's a loss of 2 -2.5 cone diameters penetration or 24-30cm HEAT. The same values vs. a AT-5 type warhead should be only 4-8cm HEAT, making the hull values roughly 44cm KE & 90-96cm HEAT [1st Gen] or 70-74cm HEAT [2nd Gen].


/~-38cm x 0.99[Lc] x 0.92 [cast] x 1.1 [spaced] = 37 cm KE & 100/78 cm HEAT [1st gen/2nd gen].
/ ~ 42c m x 0.88[Lc] x 0.92[cast] x 1.1 [spaced] = 36 cm KE & 109/79 cm HEAT [1st gen/2nd gen].
[~ 45-60cm LOS cast x 0.6 -0.77[Lc] x 0.92[cast] x 1.1 [spaced] = 35-36 cm KE & ~ 99/79 cm HEAT [1st gen/2nd gen].
~42c m x 0.88[Lc] x 0.92[cast] x 1.1 [spaced] = 36 cm KE & 109/79 cm HEAT [1st gen/2nd gen].
~38cm x 0.99[Lc] x 0.92 [cast] x 1.1 [spaced] = 37 cm KE & 100/78 cm HEAT [1st gen/2nd gen].

0.92[cast] = reduction due to cast armor.
[Lc] stands for lateral confinement, the ratio projectile diameter/distance from the "free edge" expressed as reduction in efficiency.
Turret side
The side turret looks like ~ 15cm thick cast with a 9cm air space x 0.92 = 14cm KE, the HEAT values should be 25cm plus 9cm standoff which should reduce a RPG-7 warhead by 1 cone diameter or 4cm, giving the side turret 29cm Vs 1st Gen HEAT & 25cm Vs 2nd Gen HEAT. Over the frontal half of the side turret, the armor is equal to the front armor or 16cm KE & 45cm 1st Gen HEAT or 33cm 2nd Gen HEAT.

Turret rear
The rear turret section is probably 3 plates 1.5-2cm thick each, with 115 cm total airgap. That should offer 1.6 times the LOS thickness if you include hardness and large Yawed impact of auto cannon fire or ~ 9cm KE. The spaced armor should offer 8-11 cone diameters standoff, which will reduce the HEAT penetration [on a precision charge] 15-19cm while the two spaced plates should boost the resistance buy 3 x 4 or 12cm leaving a resistance of 30-34cm HEAT armor.

Glacis
The glacis of the Merkava Mk.I, as stated above, has an inner armour with 76mm steel + 305mm air gap + 51mm steel + 150mm air gap + 100mm steel (back plate) plus 4cm cast glacis plate @ ~ 75°. This adds up to 44cm KE & 90-96cm HEAT [1st Gen] or 70-74cm HEAT [2nd Gen].

Lower hull
The lower hull should be as inner armour is 76mm steel + 305mm air gap + 51mm steel + 150mm air gap + 100mm steel (back plate) plus 4cm cast plate @ ~ 55° or about 36 cm KE & 60-64cm HEAT.

Hull side
Side hull should be ~43mm RHA armor mass which is probably a 3cm 350 BHN hull plate plus 800mm space and a 13mm steel skirting plate. The 30mm RHA @ 0° = 30 vs. T/d [vs. 14.5] ~ 3:1 APC shot & hardness, 1.7 x 30= ~ 5cm KE. The skirting plate will add ~ 13mm resistance and induce yaw to AP type projectiles and increase the standoff on HEAT warheads. This should increase the overall KE resistance by > 10% to ~ 7cm, while the spaced armor will increase the standoff by 6-9 cone diameters [CD]. For a 1st Gen warhead that’s almost 2-3 CD loss in penetration or ~ 23-25cm. Against 2nd Gen HEAT warhead that’s 1- 2 CD penetration loss or 15-17cm. In addition the skirting plate offers 3 times the resistance vs. HEAT [up to ~ 9cm]. Thus the side hull values are ~ 7cm KE & 32-34/ 24-26 cm [1st / 2nd Gen HEAT].

Hull rear
The rear hull seems to be a 2 cm SHS plate plus over 2.4meters cavity spacing plus 2 x 2cm SHS plates spaced 20cm apart. This leads to 5-10cm KE & 12-54cm. In both cases, the first value is the outer armor and the second value is the whole armor. If a projectile penetrates the outer armor it may lead to an ammo fire ["fire power kill"], while a penetration of the whole armor may lead to a "kill".

Note the front hull armor of the Merkava is boosted by the fact that the engine block covers most of the front profile. Penetration of the hull and glacis will probably lead to a "mobility kill" and penetration into the fighting compartment should add ~ 10-20cm KE & HEAT to the above armor values, but penetration should result in a "kill".

Merkava Mk.II

If the armor is substantially more than this its in 'armor tech' we can assume for the hull 45cm LOS fuel cell. With a honeycomb internal structure this would bring the 'TE' up to 0.15 for KE, that’s plus 1cm KE & 6cm HEAT. In addition hard steel plates are added to the front and side turret and special armor is added to the front hull, turret front and sides to boost KE & HEAT protection. The weight increase of the Merkava Mk.II is only 1.000 kg, suggesting what ever material is used is quite light. A similar weight upgrade to the Leopard 1 turret was only 3-5cm steel-rubber combination. In addition the side skirts are boosted with special armor, which I interpret to be NERA, as the side skirts look 3-4cm thick. Steel rubber armor has been experimented by Rafeal and this is assumed to be the special armor. In a recent Miltech article it was reported by RM Ogorkiewcz that the turret armor is hard steel plates sandwiched with a non metal interlayer, a vague reference to NERA. Ogorkiewcz also reports such armor is 1.8 times as effective as the LOS suggest vs. HEAT warheads.

/~-38cm LOS x 0.99 [Lc] x 0.92 [cast] x 1.1 [spaced] + 9cm LOS NERA [1.75/7] = 53cm KE & 141cm HEAT.
/ ~ 42c m x 0.88 [Lc] x 0.92[cast] x 1.1 [spaced] + 9cm LOS NERA [1.75/7] = 52cm KE & 142cm HEAT.
[~ 45-60cm LOS cast x 0.6 -0.77 [Lc] x 0.92 [cast] x 1.1 [spaced] + 9cm LOS NERA [1.75/7] = 51cm KE & ~ 142cm HEAT.
~ 42cm x 0.88 [Lc] x 0.92 [cast] x 1.1 [spaced] + 9cm LOS NERA [1.75/7] = 52 cm KE & 152cm HEAT.
~-38cm LOS x 0.99 [Lc] x 0.92 [cast] x 1.1 [spaced] + 9cm LOS NERA [1.75/7] = 53cm KE & 141 cm HEAT.

0.92[cast]= reduction due to cast armor.
[Lc] stands for lateral confinement, the ratio projectile diameter/ distance from the "free edge" expressed as reduction in efficiency.

Turret side
Side turret looks like ~ 15cm thick cast with a 9cm air space + 4cm NERA = 21cm KE, the HEAT values should be 25cm plus 4 x 7cm NERA giving the side turret 53cm HEAT. Over the front half of the side turret the armor is the front armor or 22cm KE & 60cm HEAT.

Turret rear
The rear turret section is probably 3 plates 1.5-2cm thick each, with 115cm total airgap. That should offer 1.6 times the LOS thickness, if you include hardness and large yawed impact of auto cannon fire or ~ 9cm KE. The spaced armor should offer 8-11 cone diameters standoff, which will reduce the HEAT penetration [on a precision charge] 15-19cm while the two spaced plates should boost the resistance buy 3 x 4 or 12cm leaving a resistance of 30-34cm HEAT armor.

Glacis
The glacis of the Merkava Mk.II has an inner armour with 76mm steel + 305mm fuel cell + 51mm steel + 150mm air gap + 100mm steel (back plate) plus 4cm cast glacis plate @ ~ 75°. If we assume better Armor tech and more 45cm diesel fuel, this boost the armor by adding up to 38 cm KE & 69cm HEAT + 45cm fuel cell x 0.15 /0.6 [Te] or 9cm KE & 36cm HEAT. That’s 47cm KE & 96cm HEAT.

Lower hull
The lower hull should be as inner armour is 76mm steel + 305mm fuel cell + 51mm steel + 150mm fuel cell + 100mm steel (back plate) plus 4cm cast plate @ ~ 55° or about 39 cm KE & 88cm HEAT.

Hull side
It’s noted that the side skirts on the Merkava Mk.II are thicker than on the Merkava Mk.I, while no weight increase is recorded. Israeli researchers have done extensive work on NERA plates as defeat for HEAT warheads, so it’s assumed that Merkava Mk.II side skirts are steel-rubber-steel. Going from Merkava Mk.I ~43 mm RHA armor mass which is probably a 3cm 350 BHN hull plate, plus 800mm space and a 3-4cm skirting plate, with two 5mm steel plates and rubber sandwiched in between. The 30 mm RHA @ 0° = 30 vs. T/d [Vs 14.5] ~ 3:1 APC shot & hardness; 1.5 x 30= ~ 4.5cm KE. The skirting plate will add ~ 3 x 1.75cm resistance ~ 10cm, while the spaced armor will increase the standoff by 6-9 cone diameters [CD]. Against 2nd Gen HEAT warhead, that’s 1- 2 CD penetration loss or 15-17cm. In addition the skirting plate offers 7 times the resistance vs. HEAT to ~ 21cm. Thus the side hull values are ~ 10cm KE & 39-41cm HEAT.

Hull rear
The rear hull seems to be a 2cm SHS plate plus over 2.4meters cavity spacing plus 2 x 2cm SHS plates spaced 20cm apart. This leads to 5-10cm KE & 12-54cm. In both cases, the first value is the outer armor and the second value is the whole armor. If a projectile penetrates the outer armor it may lead to an ammo fire ["fire power kill"] , while a penetration of the whole armor may lead to a "kill".

Note the front hull armor of the Merkava is boosted by the fact that the engine block covers most of the front profile. Penetration of the hull and glacis will probably lead to “mobility kill” and penetration into the fighting compartment should add ~ 10-20cm KE & HEAT to the above armor values, but penetration should result in a "kill".

Merkava Mk.III

As reported, the new arrangement is modular special armor, but the armor mass is about the same. In the turret the 20cm solid thickness is translated into 42cm thick @ 65° or 97cm LOS thickness. That’s an average density of 3.75g/cmі. If this is 2 x 4cm semi-hardness outer steel plates with insert in between, that leaves 2.8g/cmі insert. If we assume BDD and include 1/3 rubber plus 2/3 ceramic, that allows for > 3.8g/cmі ceramic or AD-97-AD-99. That should lead to 8cm x 1.2 [Te SHS] + 12cm {0.2/0.4 [Te rubber] + 22cm 1.05/2.6 [Te AD-99]} 12 ч 42= 0.836 KE & 1.7 HEAT. The BDD should boost the KE armor values by 1.15 times bring the values to 0.96 KE and 1.7 HEAT.

/~-90cm LOS [SHS + AD-99 + rubber] 0.96/1.7 x 0.95 [Lc] = 82cm KE & 153cm HEAT.
/ ~ 97cm LOS [SHS + AD-99 + rubber] 0.96/1.7 x 0.85[Lc] = 79cm KE & 164cm HEAT.
[~ 110cm LOS [SHS + AD-99 + rubber] 0.96/1. 5 x 0.78[Lc] = 82cm KE & ~ 165cm HEAT.
~ 97cm LOS [SHS + AD-99 + rubber] 0.96/1.7 x 0.85[Lc] = 79cm KE & 164cm HEAT.
~-90cm LOS [SHS + AD-99 + rubber] 0.96/1.7 x 0.95 [Lc] = 82cm KE & 153cm HEAT.

[Lc] stands for lateral confinement, the ratio projectile diameter/ distance from the "free edge" expressed as reduction in efficiency.

Turret side
The side turret looks like ~ Front armor viewed form the side. This should lead to 35cm KE & 66-69cm HEAT.

Turret rear
The rear turret section is probably 3 plates 1.5-2cm thick each, with 115 cm total airgap. That should offer 1.6 times the LOS thickness if you include hardness and large yawed impact of auto cannon fire or ~ 9cm KE. The spaced armor should offer 8-11 cone diameters standoff, which will reduce the HEAT penetration [on a precision charge] 15-19cm while the two spaced plates should boost the resistance buy 3 x 4 or 12cm leaving a resistance of 30-34cm HEAT armor.

Glacis
It’s assumed that along with the change in turret armor a corresponding change in the hull armor array occurs. It’s noted, in some sources, that diesel fuel cells are no longer in the front armor. Using the Merkava Mk.1 inner armour arrangement as a start point, the armour is 227mm inner armor mass @ 0° & 4cm cast glacis plate @ ~ 75 °. This could become 28/ 68cm or an average density of 3.25g/cmі. If we assume [like the turret] a steel ceramic rubber NERA array is used, we could get ј steel [SHS- 1.2/1.2] Ѕ rubber/plastic [0.4/0.8] ј ceramic [AD-99 1.05/2.6] or 3.4g/cm і. That should lead to 0.76 KE & 1.35 HEAT factor in the NERA 1.15 that’s 0.88 / 1.35 x 68cm = 60 cm KE & 92cm HEAT. Plus the 30cm air gap between main armor and outer cast cover plate & 4cm cast glacis plate @ ~ 75 ° 16cm / 46. That’s + 76cm KE & 138cm HEAT.

Lower hull
The lower hull benefits from the changes to the glacis armor but utilises a 4cm cast cover plate at 55° and the 60cm KE & 92cm HEAT. In combination with the special armor discussed above, this leads to 67cm KE & 113cm HEAT.

Hull side
NERA research has revealed that HEAT values can be increased by using an "Asymmetrical sandwich", and it’s assumed that the Merkava Mk.III is equipped with such side skirts. The thinner face plate will lead to at least 1.2 x higher HEAT values but lower KE values. Since the Israelis are unlikely to go for that, it’s also assumed that the side hull armor goes up to SHS statues or about 450 BHN. This changes the armor values as follows: ~43 mm armor mass which is probably a 3cm 450 BHN hull plate, plus 800mm space and a 3-4cm skirting plate, with a 3mm & 7mm steel plates and rubber sandwiched in between. That’s 30mm vs. T/d [Vs 14.5] ~3:1 APC shot & hardness; 1.7 x 30 = ~ 5cm KE. The skirting plate will add ~ 3 x 1.5cm resistance ~ 10cm, while the spaced armor will increase the standoff by 6-9 cone diameters [CD]. Against 2nd Gen HEAT warhead, that’s 1- 2 CD penetration loss or 15-17cm. In addition the skirting plate offers 9 times the resistance vs. HEAT to ~ 27cm. Thus the side hull values should be ~ 10cm KE & 46-48cm HEAT.

Hull rear
The rear hull seems to be a 2cm SHS plate plus over 2.4meters cavity spacing plus 2 x 2cm SHS plates spaced 20cm apart. This leads to 5-10cm KE & 12-54cm. In both cases, the first value is the outer armor and the second value is the whole armor. If projectile penetrates the outer armor it may lead to an ammo fire ["fire power kill"], while penetration of whole armor may lead to a “kill”.

Note the front hull armor of the Merkava is boosted by the fact that the engine block covers most of the front profile. Penetration of the hull and glacis will probably lead to "mobility kill" and penetration into the fighting compartment should add ~ 10-20cm KE & HEAT to the above armor values, but penetration should result in a "kill".

Copyright: Paul Lakowski

 

Гость Мк2, 08.03.2004 00:30:35 :

Это все, конечно, интересно, но еще интереснее что скажет Василий Фофанов.

 

500, 08.03.2004 23:04:28 :

Помимо накрутки КС он немного завышает защиту лба и сильно принижает защиту бортов. Про вот этот
борт они пишет "3cm hull plate"?

 

Гость Мк2, 09.03.2004 16:44:52 :

А что Пол Лаковски по поводу Абрамса пишет ?

 

500, 10.03.2004 23:46:06 :

Насчёт Лаковского - он расчитывал по официальному весу, а он существенно отличается от реального.

 

Mayh3M, 11.03.2004 13:15:58 :

З.Ы. Ещё бы не помешали наиболее близкие к правде данные по бронированию на наших ОБТ

 

israel, 11.03.2004 09:25:54 :

Ник, а что комментировать?

 

Гость Мк2, 11.03.2004 12:45:50 :

Автор демонстрирует видимость обьективного и компетентного подхода.
Получается это у него плохо.