Armour. How has it progressed???

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Malakovski:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

Stinking normal RPG HEAT.

Was that the final verdict on the "mystery weapon"? </font>

[M1A1TC]

I think it was a new generation RPG, that was shot from a close range and there was not enough time for it to arm itself. The sides of the main hull arent very armored.

[K_Tiger]

@redwolf

That is the incident from August I was talking about.

Stinking normal RPG HEAT.

Are you sure?? Hardly to belive, that a HEAT "Round" will go thrue two sides of a Tank. Maybe we mean two different things. Also the 7mm Hole looks to me a bit small vor a HEAT impact.

Originally posted by Martyr:

Since when is China at war with the US? Even if they (or anyone) had such a fanciful weapon, wouldn't it be smarter to test it on a parked tank at home?

Maybe I'm missing the joke here. [/quote

I would also miss the joke, if i see the things in black&white like you.

Yes...the Chinese have dozens of Abrahams parked in China

I did only rephrase the opinions from the origin author who sayed, that only the USA, Israel, Russia and China do work on such Projekts.

Maybe the old regime got some single weapons...who knows? Did anyone remember the stopped delivery from a Artillery piece that was sold to Bagdad from a German Companie? Its several jears ago...but wasnt it also a High-Tech piece?

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

I read some days ago about an incident in Iraq, that a Abrahams was pennetrated by a unidentified Weapon. They sayed, that a Hole from 7mm was made on the entry (they didnt mention the side of the tank) and the Bullet or whatever did exit on the other side of the tank.

How about the swedish S2000 (wire-driven 2 man AT-weapon)?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

@redwolf

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That is the incident from August I was talking about.

Stinking normal RPG HEAT.

Are you sure?? Hardly to belive, that a HEAT "Round" will go thrue two sides of a Tank. Maybe we mean two different things. Also the 7mm Hole looks to me a bit small vor a HEAT impact.

</font>

[Nightwatch]

I've heart some speculation that it was an export version Russian Comintern anti-tank Missile, the ones that the russian army has been complaining for years are crap because they are testing them on T-85's and T-90s and they have been bouncing off.

As far as I am aware, Chopham armour is only used on British Tanks, as the British regard how to make the stuff as one of their most important secrets. Their right. The Russians use a kind of Honeycomed reactive armour that is hellishly dificult to penetrate with anti-tank missiles. I have to admit from my (admitiadlt not particutalry extensive) research, the M1 is not really impressive among the modern battle tanks.

[gunnergoz]

Nightwatch, your conclusions may be a bit premature. For one thing, there are few or no Brit tanks in Iraq to be subject to such weaponry, so we do not know their actual vulnerabilities and strenghts. Not so's I've heard, anyway.

As to the Russian armor, reactive armor is fine on the steppes where there is no infantry around to get fragged by chunks of blown reactive armor. Tanks in Iraq (or any urban battlefield) have infantry all around them a fair part of the time. One more thing - reactive armor works but once.

From what I understand, the Abram's composite armor is no worse than Chobham. The problem is, no tank can be equally protected in every area.

[Lord Harmes]

There are actually quite a few ChallengerII British tanks in Iraq now... and they obviously took part in the invasion, and capture of Basra... I don't think any were lost, and I can assume they have been targeted by the same sort of weaponry as the M1. I'll see what I can find out!

I was sure that Britain exported a type of Chobham to the US, and used an upgraded version on the new Challenger tanks... but I may be wrong on that!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Nightwatch:

As far as I am aware, Chopham armour is only used on British Tanks, as the British regard how to make the stuff as one of their most important secrets.

This is not true. The M1 Abrahms and the Leopard 2's main plates are made out of the same Chobham armor (also named Burlington armor). The British were the first to acually field such a tank, though.

It is very obvious by the shape of the turrets. You cannot bend Chobham in any way and it is very difficult to make strong plates from smaller parts. This is why the Leo2's turrent front looks like they forgot the angled armor theory.

The Soviet composite armor is entirely different, BTW. First of all most tanks, in particular export tanks have plain steel and several tanks can be produced with either a steel turret or a composite turret. While Chobham is intended to increase resistance to both kinetic energy and HEAT, the Russian composite armor is mainly against KE, which they considered to be the bigger threat. Because large fast formations of Soviet tanks are hard to stop with ATGMs which have few ammo and lousy ROF. NATO tanks would be far more dangerous. When needed, resistance against HEAT would be increased by reactive armor.

[Mr. Tittles]

Not all Chobham armor is the same. Its a formula that has been improved since the origional british attempts.

The US applys a extra sheet of DU armor on the turet front area also. Thats what those rectangles are. These may give added KE protection.

[Londoner]

Just posted this in the M1 thread on the general forum......

‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what?

Mystery behind Aug. 28 incident puzzles Army officials

By John Roos

Special to the Times

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad “was hit by something” that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.

Army officials still are puzzling over what that “something” was.

According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle’s skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that “my little finger will not go into it,” the report’s author noted.

The “something” continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner’s seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner’s flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1½ to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.

As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of “mobility kills” since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7 but most likely something new — and that worries tank drivers.

Mystery and anxiety

Terry Hughes is a technical representative from Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., who examined the tank in Baghdad and wrote the report.

In the sort of excited language seldom included in official Army documents, he said, “The unit is very anxious to have this ‘SOMETHING’ identified. It seems clear that a penetrator of a yellow molten metal is what caused the damage, but what weapon fires such a round and precisely what sort of round is it? The bad guys are using something unknown and the guys facing it want very much to know what it is and how they can defend themselves.”

Nevertheless, the Abrams continues its record of providing extraordinary crew protection. The four-man crew suffered only minor injuries in the attack. The tank commander received “minor shrapnel wounds to the legs and arms and the gunner got some in his arm” as a result of the attack, according to the report.

Whatever penetrated the tank created enough heat inside the hull to activate the vehicle’s Halon firefighting gear, which probably prevented more serious injuries to the crew.

The soldiers of 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division who were targets of the attack weren’t the only ones wondering what damaged their 69-ton tank.

Hughes also was puzzled. “Can someone tell us?” he wrote. “If not, can we get an expert on foreign munitions over here to examine this vehicle before repairs are begun? Please respond quickly.”

His report went to the office of the combat systems program manager at the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, Mich. A command spokesman said he could provide no information about the incident.

“The information is sensitive,” he said. “It looks like [members of the program manager’s office] are not going to release any information right now.”

While it’s impossible to determine what caused the damage without actually examining the tank, some conclusions can be drawn from photos that accompanied the incident report. Those photos show a pencil-size penetration hole through the tank body, but very little sign of the distinctive damage — called spalling — that typically occurs on the inside surface after a hollow- or shaped-charge warhead from an anti-tank weapon burns its way through armor.

Spalling results when an armor penetrator pushes a stream of molten metal ahead of it as it bores through an armored vehicle’s protective skin.

“It’s a real strange impact,” said a source who has worked both as a tank designer and as an anti-tank weapons engineer. “This is a new one. … It almost definitely is a hollow-charge warhead of some sort, but probably not an RPG-7” anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade.

The well-known RPG-7 has been the scourge of lightly armored vehicles since its introduction more than 40 years ago. Its hollow-charge warhead easily could punch through an M1’s skirt and the relatively thin armor of its armpit joint, the area above the tracks and beneath the deck on which the turret sits, just where the mystery round hit the tank.

An RPG-7 can penetrate about 12 inches of steel — a thickness far greater than the armor that was penetrated on the tank in Baghdad. But the limited spalling evident in the photos accompanying the incident report all but rules out the RPG-7 as the culprit, experts say.

Limited spalling is a telltale characteristic of Western-manufactured weapons designed to defeat armor with a cohesive jet stream of molten metal. In contrast, RPG-7s typically produce a fragmented jet spray.

The incident is so sensitive that most experts in the field would talk only on the condition that they not be identified.

One armor expert at Fort Knox, Ky., suggested the tank may have been hit by an updated RPG. About 15 years ago, Russian scientists created tandem-warhead anti-tank-grenades designed to defeat reactive armor. The new round, a PG-7VR, can be fired from an RPG-7V launcher and might have left the unusual signature on the tank.

In addition, the Russians have developed an improved weapon, the RPG-22. These and perhaps even newer variants have been used against American forces in Afghanistan. It is believed U.S. troops seized some that have been returned to the United States for testing, but scant details about their effects and “fingerprints” are available.

Still another possibility is a retrofitted warhead for the RPG system being developed by a Swiss manufacturer.

At this time, it appears most likely that an RPG-22 or some other improved variant of the Russian-designed weapon damaged the M1 tank, sources concluded. The damage certainly was caused by some sort of shaped-charge or hollow-charge warhead, and the cohesive nature of the destructive jet suggests a more effective weapon than a fragmented-jet RPG-7.

A spokesman for General Dynamics Land Systems, which manufactures the Abrams, said company engineers agree some type of RPG probably caused the damage. After checking with them, the spokesman delivered the manufacturer’s verdict: The tank was hit by “a ‘golden’ RPG” — an extremely lucky shot.

In the end, a civilian weapons expert said, “I hope it was a lucky shot and we are not part of someone’s test program. Being a live target is no fun.”

John Roos is editor of Armed Forces Journal, which is owned by Army Times Publishing Co.

[Ant]

Armour grogs might be interested in the latest British idea in armour protection.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml

I've actually got a friend who's working on this.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Ant:

Armour grogs might be interested in the latest British idea in armour protection.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml

I've actually got a friend who's working on this.

Do you? Do you think you could ask him whether it'll work against explosively formed penetrators?

Scott

[Ant]

I could try but she wasn't saying much about it last time we met up.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Not all Chobham armor is the same. Its a formula that has been improved since the origional british attempts.

Source?

And of course, they tinker with the materials all the time.

Do you want to imply that the British kept improvements for themself? If so, source?

The US applys a extra sheet of DU armor on the turet front area also. Thats what those rectangles are. These may give added KE protection.

Uh, except the first M1s and M1A1s before the M1A1(Heavy Armor) didn't have it and had the same rectangles on the turret front

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Londoner:

In addition, the Russians have developed an improved weapon, the RPG-22. These and perhaps even newer variants have been used against American forces in Afghanistan. It is believed U.S. troops seized some that have been returned to the United States for testing, but scant details about their effects and “fingerprints” are available.

This nonsense is getting out of control.

The RPG-22 is not an improved performance design of previous RPGs. It is an extralight, disposable squad AT weapon, and it is a copy of the U.S. M72 LAW. Previous RPG versions are more powerful but too heavy to give one to non-RPG-decicated soldiers, i.e. soldiers who carry other extra stuff. You can do that with the U.S. LAW and RPG-22.

And the tandem warheads for the RPG-7, as noticed 15 years old, have been found on that ship for the Palenstinans that the Israelis seized in 2002. This is hardly a rare weapon to find.

[ April 10, 2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Mr. Tittles]

no rectangles here

These are the rectangles

M1A1D Abrams Main Battle Tank

The M1A1 fleet remains the majority of the Armor Force. The M1A1D is a digitized M1A1 that provides improved situational awareness and far target designate capability. The installation of a digital appliqué command and control package on the M1A1 is necessary to achieve Force XXI required capabilities. Another planned improvement is replacing the analog Turret Network Box (TNB) and Hull Network Box (HNB) with new digital units to eliminate the associated obsolescence problems and to allow the introduction of a built-in-test (BIT) capability to support the Force XXI maintenance structure. Digital TNBs and HNBs also allow future electronic growth by providing unpopulated VME card slots.

In the survivability area the Army is working to develop and field a contingency armor package that is thin and lightweight, but with a high level of protection. These armor packages can be applied to either the side or front of Abrams tanks to provide additional protection as required by the mission. The Army is also seeking to fundo resource upgrades to the M1A1 fire control system with the same 2nd Gen FLIR package on the M1A2.

[ April 11, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Ant:

Armour grogs might be interested in the latest British idea in armour protection.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml

I've actually got a friend who's working on this.

Thats great. But if the copper can be replaced with a non-conductive 'penetrator', it would then defeat this technology.

[Other Means]

can you think of one that would be non-conductive? i was thinking bukkytubes but they are conductive. ceramic possibly but they tend to be brittle.

[Mr. Tittles]

Ive heard the Russians use DU in hollow charge warheads (how nasty is that?). Is DU conductive?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Lord Harmes:

So am i right in believing that Chobham armour was first developed for the British Cheiftan tanks? And how does the Abrams compare to the Challenger 2???

The Chieftain was deployed in 1966 and had basic homogenous steel armour. The distinctive curved turret shape indicates that it is cast, which is not possible with Chobham armour. Additional armour upgrades, known as 'Stillbrew' are likely to be composite types

The Challenger 1 is the first British tank to use Chobham (although it was originally developed for the Shah of Iran) Apparently the Challenger 2 uses an uprated Chobham type called Dorchester. Compared to the Abrams, the Challenger is slower, but more heavily armoured. In addition, the Challenger 2s in Iraq are equipped with full-length side skirts of some kind of composite armour that definately stops RPGs. AIUI, the Chobham side skirts of the M1s stops about 1/3rd of the way back.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how the old 88 could be made to perform using modern ammunition? Doesn't the use of DU and so on contribute substantially to the huge penetration values today?

Use of DU, better barrel materials and propellants all contribute. For example, a 40mm cannon, firing APFSDS, being considered for the Warrior penetrates over 175mm RHA at close range. Compare this to a 2pdr, which is the same calibre.

Posted by redwolf:

If you have seen the photos, you know that it wasn't a single solid projectile but a melting stream which split up

Mr. Flamingpicky would like to note that the jet generated by a shaped charge is not molten, but is in fact a hyper-plastic - the internal pressure of the material has exceeded the yield stress.

It is very obvious by the shape of the turrets. You cannot bend Chobham in any way and it is very difficult to make strong plates from smaller parts. This is why the Leo2's turrent front looks like they forgot the angled armor theory.

Mr. flamingpicky would assume that this refers to any Leo2 up to and including the 2A4. 2A5 and 2A6 have very nicely sloped front turret plates.

Posted by Scott B:

Do you? Do you think you could ask him whether it'll work against explosively formed penetrators?

Being as it's designed to work against shaped charges, then it should work against EFPs, as that's essentially how a shaped charge works.

The Torygraph article falls into the 'molten stream of metal' hole. The liner does not undergo a phase change.

AIUI it's also supposed to work against KE projectiles.

Posted by Mr Tittles: Ive heard the Russians use DU in hollow charge warheads (how nasty is that?). Is DU conductive?

DU is a metal, so it ought to conduct.

I'd be surprised if DU worked as a liner for a shaped charge. The properties that make it good for KE would be a distinct drawback for a shaped charge. Liners have to be very ductile in order to produce an effective stream without being torn to pieces.

[Redwolf]

Mr. Tittles, the article talks about additional armor which can be applied to the front or sides. This is not the same as the heavy armor package that make the M1A1(heavy armor) and M1A2(heavy armor) variants.

The square metal plates may be the armor you talk about although I doubt even that. It is not the HA upgrade which is a complete replacement of the turret's front. It is probably not armor at all, much too thin. And I have seen it on photos of non-HA M1s with these squares.

[ April 11, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Ogiwan]

Originally posted by Martyr:

Since when is China at war with the US? Even if they (or anyone) had such a fanciful weapon, wouldn't it be smarter to test it on a parked tank at home?

Maybe I'm missing the joke here.

Oh, darn, what was it....something about the Spanish Civil War, and Germany giving Franco BF-109s and PzIs and -IIs.....

</sarcasm>

It's not that unlikely. I am not a fan of China, so i wouldn't put it past them to be testing new thingies in Iraq.

[Firefly]

I'm not a fan of Manchester United, but I don't think they're up to funny things in Iraq. Keep the loony political theories in the General Forum where they belong. I've been enjoying the stuff on armour penetration though.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Posted by Mr Tittles: Ive heard the Russians use DU in hollow charge warheads (how nasty is that?). Is DU conductive?

DU is a metal, so it ought to conduct.

I'd be surprised if DU worked as a liner for a shaped charge. The properties that make it good for KE would be a distinct drawback for a shaped charge. Liners have to be very ductile in order to produce an effective stream without being torn to pieces. </font>