armyreal.com - Forums

Go Back   ArmyReal.com Forums > Military Discussions > Military Hardware, Gear and Technology
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #71  
Old 10-22-2006, 03:31 PM
jrj100's Avatar
jrj100 jrj100 is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 1,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torspo[fin] View Post
why the hell im having thease flasbacks about the redalert 2 [URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9067036464801004539&q=redalert"]intromovie[/URL]?
mmm most be the good times playing it.. forward my comrades!
its always about somebody crawling over the border isn't it?
...nice one tor...."welcome to texas you commie bastards"......dont worry america youve got.............. tom cruise
Reply With Quote

  #72  
Old 10-22-2006, 03:33 PM
Exo1's Avatar
Exo1 Exo1 is offline
General of the Armies
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland (Ex Irish Army)
Posts: 10,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrj100 View Post
...nice one tor...."welcome to texas you commie bastards"......dont worry america youve got.............. tom cruise
Yea, its a funny one alright.....
__________________
"Barrel High, Powder Dry!"

"Illic est haud effrego ex Veneratio"
Reply With Quote

  #73  
Old 10-22-2006, 08:06 PM
torspo[fin]'s Avatar
torspo[fin] torspo[fin] is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,843
Lightbulb Armor

allrighty!.. but back to the subject at hand...

armor density and the propable stoppingpower of the plating..
as jrj100 seems to have special interest in the subject.. and it is quite interesting..
lets see then..

the overall capability of the armor is not so simple thing to measure.. as
most of the tanks have their weakpoints and all. APC:s and Assault tanks are a matter
of their own because the vehicle has to be able to carry personell with full gear and
something to lay down suppressive fire and else.. so i leave thease out.. anyhows..
the deal with light armored vehicles usually can cope with calibers ranging from standard fire arms to .50 cal armourpiercing rounds depending.. and more with modern addons like
the modular plating against 30mm AP rounds.. (patria AMV)

tanks.. there has been various modifications to the armoring in past years.. most notably
the British "Chobham armor" which was developed at the 60's and since then has seen
quite much usage in many western tanks.. Challenger 2 has "Dorchester" armor (probably with tungsten alloy plates)..
M1A2 uses the modern Chobham cheramic concept aswell (DU alloy plates).
the Leopard 2 does not use Chobham. Leopard 2 Uses Perforated armor
which means that its armor plates are spaced and filled with ceramic compounds.
(probably spectra which is like 40% harder than kevlar) this well may be the cause
of the lighter weight (55tons).

the Leopard (2A4)'s armor has a bit poor in
straight forwardcomparison to the Challenger2 and M1A2, it should be noted that
its also build with the possible penetration in mind.. the versions from 2A5
are par and over when compared to the Challenger 2 and M1A2.
because its mostly about the frontal armor upgrade and some electrics in the 2A5,
the 2A4 is probably fairly easy to upgrade in fast program, and further by adding
the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_L55"]the Rheinnmetall L55[/URL].
this gun can destroy T-80U from 4 kilometers. on the otherhand in the german tests
T-80 could penetrate the 2A3's armor from 1,2 kilometers.. well. i'd say we have that much
covered, atleast with the standard penetrators used by T80.
in the tests conducted 2A5 vs 2A5.. only 1/8:th shot penetrated the front tower armor. thats with the same gun what M1 Abrams carries.. M256... or Rheinnmetall L44.

where would we possibly go from here.. the kinetic and chemical penetration levels
are usually classified information. and without the real knowlage of the compounds used
in the cheramic armors of different types (Chobham or Perforated), i cant say much
about the realdeal stopping power of the tank armors..
what i do know for certain is that the older soviet made tanks like T-72
cant handle much without the reactive armor in place. otherwise its about the
same which western tank shoots it.. it goes trough. atleast if its not some m60
shooting..

furthermore the electronic countermeasures and all the other survival equipment
makes the overall battle capability comparison quite difficult..

how ever.. there are some estimates and figures available
from Tank Protection Levels. as the sites author says, thease are not appliable
straight in real life as such and the margin of error is there but anyways..
--
For comparison, the L55 can supposidly penetrate 810mm from 2km
using DM-53 tungsten round (1996).
while older
Russian 125mm BM-29 DU penetrated 500mm at 2km (1982)
and more recent
Russian 125mm BK-29 HEAT penetrated 700mm (1990) at all ranges...
but its Heat.. and thus not very effective against modern cheramic armors..
the the Anti-tank gear i leave for the "best antitank" thread..
they are tricky because almost everybody has em and makes/modifies
em. and their penetrators.

Leopard 2A5:

Ke penetrator:
Turret: 850-930 Glacis:620
Lower front hull:620

Ce penetrator:
Turret: 1730-1960 Glacis:750
Lower front hull:750

M1A2 SEP

Ke penetrator:
Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

Ce penetrator:
Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970

Challenger 2

Ke penetrator:
Turret: 920-960 Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

Ce penetrator:
Turret: 1450-1700 Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

T-80U

Ke penetrator:
Turret: 280-850
Upper front turret: 290-390
Glacis: 780
Lower front hull: 310-430

Ce penetrator:
Turret: 960-1450
Upper front turret: 700-730
Glacis: 1080
Lower front hull: 500

pff. go check the site if your favorate was left out..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sources: wikipedia, armorguide, army-technology, [URL="http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/main.html"]Armor site[/URL] etc....
last but definetly not least: [URL="http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm#1"]Tank Protection Levels[/URL] <-- Clicky

Last edited by torspo[fin]; 10-22-2006 at 09:18 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #74  
Old 10-23-2006, 11:28 AM
jrj100's Avatar
jrj100 jrj100 is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 1,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torspo[fin] View Post
allrighty!.. but back to the subject at hand...

armor density and the propable stoppingpower of the plating..
as jrj100 seems to have special interest in the subject.. and it is quite interesting..
lets see then..

the overall capability of the armor is not so simple thing to measure.. as
most of the tanks have their weakpoints and all. APC:s and Assault tanks are a matter
of their own because the vehicle has to be able to carry personell with full gear and
something to lay down suppressive fire and else.. so i leave thease out.. anyhows..
the deal with light armored vehicles usually can cope with calibers ranging from standard fire arms to .50 cal armourpiercing rounds depending.. and more with modern addons like
the modular plating against 30mm AP rounds.. (patria AMV)

tanks.. there has been various modifications to the armoring in past years.. most notably
the British "Chobham armor" which was developed at the 60's and since then has seen
quite much usage in many western tanks.. Challenger 2 has "Dorchester" armor (probably with tungsten alloy plates)..
M1A2 uses the modern Chobham cheramic concept aswell (DU alloy plates).
the Leopard 2 does not use Chobham. Leopard 2 Uses Perforated armor
which means that its armor plates are spaced and filled with ceramic compounds.
(probably spectra which is like 40% harder than kevlar) this well may be the cause
of the lighter weight (55tons).

the Leopard (2A4)'s armor has a bit poor in
straight forwardcomparison to the Challenger2 and M1A2, it should be noted that
its also build with the possible penetration in mind.. the versions from 2A5
are par and over when compared to the Challenger 2 and M1A2.
because its mostly about the frontal armor upgrade and some electrics in the 2A5,
the 2A4 is probably fairly easy to upgrade in fast program, and further by adding
the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_L55"]the Rheinnmetall L55[/URL].
this gun can destroy T-80U from 4 kilometers. on the otherhand in the german tests
T-80 could penetrate the 2A3's armor from 1,2 kilometers.. well. i'd say we have that much
covered, atleast with the standard penetrators used by T80.
in the tests conducted 2A5 vs 2A5.. only 1/8:th shot penetrated the front tower armor. thats with the same gun what M1 Abrams carries.. M256... or Rheinnmetall L44.

where would we possibly go from here.. the kinetic and chemical penetration levels
are usually classified information. and without the real knowlage of the compounds used
in the cheramic armors of different types (Chobham or Perforated), i cant say much
about the realdeal stopping power of the tank armors..
what i do know for certain is that the older soviet made tanks like T-72
cant handle much without the reactive armor in place. otherwise its about the
same which western tank shoots it.. it goes trough. atleast if its not some m60
shooting..

furthermore the electronic countermeasures and all the other survival equipment
makes the overall battle capability comparison quite difficult..

how ever.. there are some estimates and figures available
from Tank Protection Levels. as the sites author says, thease are not appliable
straight in real life as such and the margin of error is there but anyways..
--
For comparison, the L55 can supposidly penetrate 810mm from 2km
using DM-53 tungsten round (1996).
while older
Russian 125mm BM-29 DU penetrated 500mm at 2km (1982)
and more recent
Russian 125mm BK-29 HEAT penetrated 700mm (1990) at all ranges...
but its Heat.. and thus not very effective against modern cheramic armors..
the the Anti-tank gear i leave for the "best antitank" thread..
they are tricky because almost everybody has em and makes/modifies
em. and their penetrators.

Leopard 2A5:

Ke penetrator:
Turret: 850-930 Glacis:620
Lower front hull:620

Ce penetrator:
Turret: 1730-1960 Glacis:750
Lower front hull:750

M1A2 SEP

Ke penetrator:
Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

Ce penetrator:
Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970

Challenger 2

Ke penetrator:
Turret: 920-960 Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

Ce penetrator:
Turret: 1450-1700 Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

T-80U

Ke penetrator:
Turret: 280-850
Upper front turret: 290-390
Glacis: 780
Lower front hull: 310-430

Ce penetrator:
Turret: 960-1450
Upper front turret: 700-730
Glacis: 1080
Lower front hull: 500

pff. go check the site if your favorate was left out..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sources: wikipedia, armorguide, army-technology, [URL="http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/main.html"]Armor site[/URL] etc....
last but definetly not least: [URL="http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm#1"]Tank Protection Levels[/URL] <-- Clicky
Thanks tor.....some great knowledge...it seems to me most tanks have different strenghts and weaknesses......nice one for the stats
Reply With Quote

  #75  
Old 10-23-2006, 12:00 PM
torspo[fin]'s Avatar
torspo[fin] torspo[fin] is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrj100 View Post
Thanks tor.....some great knowledge...it seems to me most tanks have different strenghts and weaknesses......nice one for the stats
noproblemos. remember..
thease are values constructed on various information which
could have some holes.. which then have been filled with the best guess.

Last edited by torspo[fin]; 10-23-2006 at 12:12 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #76  
Old 10-23-2006, 03:59 PM
Exo1's Avatar
Exo1 Exo1 is offline
General of the Armies
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland (Ex Irish Army)
Posts: 10,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torspo[fin] View Post
noproblemos. remember..
thease are values constructed on various information which
could have some holes.. which then have been filled with the best guess.
I am not a big armour buff but those stats are good man... cheers for it....
__________________
"Barrel High, Powder Dry!"

"Illic est haud effrego ex Veneratio"
Reply With Quote

  #77  
Old 10-25-2006, 03:22 PM
jrj100's Avatar
jrj100 jrj100 is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 1,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torspo[fin] View Post
noproblemos. remember..
thease are values constructed on various information which
could have some holes.. which then have been filled with the best guess.
Understood a lot of stats on armour can be secret like the Dorchester armour on the Challenger2 tanks is top secret....its guess work really
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:11 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    
·Contact Us   ·Legal   ·Privacy   ·Link To Us    ·Advertise With Us    ·About Us    ·Site Map     
     Copyright 2004-2019 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Armyreal.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.