Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 76 to 90 of 90

Thread: U.S. Army To Congress: No New Tanks, Please

  1. #76
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    Ahhh, again and again, the same useless sources based on complete lack of knowledge, when there are allready unclassified documents about western composite armors development.

    Oh, what a surprise, due to special disposition a single first hit will cause serious fire propagation, and what is more, shows defficiency of fire extinguishing system.
    It seems that You do not even understand the basics on what extinguishing system works and how it is designed, BTW the same system is used in all modern MBT's.

    Extinguishing gas (halon or other) is stored in cylinders placed inside a tank. It is obvious that such cylinders have limited quantity of supression gas stored in them. The main goal of such systems is to supress fire as long as possible to give crew time for evacuation and if possible to completely extinguish fire. However in many cases, fuel cables are damaged, thus fuel is leaking constantly in to the fire zone. Somethimes it is possible to extinguish such fire, sometimes not.

    That is not the point. Point is that the Abrams as shown is more susceptible to have fire initiated after a hit due to it's arrangement, and that fire propagation is more difficult to deal with and has worse consequences.
    You still do not understand. So read carefully. Design is optimized for maximum crew survivability, so every element is based on that principle. Fuel tanks are placed in M1 and many more tanks, for example Leopard 2, or Merkava, because it was discovered during tests that 70mm of fuel provide same protection level as 10mm of steel. It was then concluded that placing fuel tanks in some places, can increase protection levels. It was prooved to be succesfull solution during tests.

    You probably do not know this due to Your poor knowledge but in Soviet tanks, fuel tanks are also used as additional ammunition storage shelves, these fuel tanks are placed in crew compartment, and are not isolated like fuel tanks in western tanks, placed behind steel bulkheads or in over track sponsons.

    I know that your technical knowledge base, science, physics, is worse than school level, but just instead of saying nosense and proving your ignorance atleast read something of the subject if you try to show interest on it.
    Read this article: http://www.be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf01103338.pdf
    It is in part advertisement but all based on technical research and facts.

    Indeed, even BMP ligthly armoured sides with ERA are better protected than that of the Abrams. Only now they started to equip it with ERA developed for lighthly armoured infantry vehicles, which says much about it's level. This is comparable to decades older soviet tanks.
    Once again, what specific area You have in mind, side hull, side turret? Side hull without ERA is weaker protected than side hull with ERA, side turret without ERA is better protected than BMP side turret/hull with ERA, simple as that.

    M19 ARAT is normal, multilayer reactive armor, please explain me why it can't be good protection? Because it is used by Americans that You obviously hate?

    Please tell me why You hate Americans so much? Why You hate west so much to not respect western designs? Because You have typical eastern european inferiority complex to say that everything made in west and especially US is inferior?

    Again baseless claim with no understanding and only guesses. So where is your statement of the Abrams having superior protection, while needing ERA as lightly armoured infantry vehicles. Now is same as decades older soviet tanks. Tells much about it's protection level.
    I think You do not understand. ERA was added to increase weaker protected sides against RPG's and EFP's, nothing more, nothing less. Obviously You seems to be unable to comprehend such simple fact.

    You have failed completely, mostly because you made all that history up. Of course you know **** about technical subject, despite that you make stupid baseless guesses.
    What? Did You ever saw Combination K drawings and photos and description of Silica Core Armor? It is obvious that Combination K had more similarities to SCA than Burlington. Some for at least one more Soviet armor types, so called "Cellural Casting" insert that was probably used in T-80U/UD.

    Soviets had a longer history in composite armour use and sophistication. You do not understand anything about materials, semi-reactive interaction, etc. That is researched by proffessionals, and not stupid assumptions.
    This history is shorter than in US and UK, as proves both articles that I posted, You probably didn't even read them... lousy dunce.

    Composite armour had similar sophistication level in terms of use of semi-reactive materials, but soviets realised that apart from just passive protection it is needed to damage or affect the projectile before it interacts with main armour. Do you know, for example, how significant is destabilisation effect on cumulative jet, or APFSDS when it interacts with semi-reactive structure, or a modern composite ?
    You seems to not understand, western composite armors are not passive. This is first thing. Second in articles I provided (with full bibliography support there), it is shown that composite armor like Burlington, could achieve projectile destabilization on it's own. I know that people from where You are have inferiority complex, and will not accept simple fact that in other countries, people are also smart enough to make some things different and better.

    For example ERAWA-2, have great advantages over Kontakt-1, one of these advantages is that cassette is not made from simple thin sheet metal, but from thick high hardness steel, thus with layered design it is capable to greatly decrease penetration level of even tandem shaped charge warheads. As tests in Poland prooved, PzF-3T with improved tandem warhead was not capable to perforate steel plate after ERAWA-2. Manufacturer of PzF-3 was greatly surprised with test results. So You see, Soviet Union do not have exclusiveness for doing everything best.

    In some cases difference is critical, for example when ERA effect on projectile is so powerfull that it is just unable to penetrate against even an outdated composite array, for example
    makes even an old T-72M to reach a very good protection level, after ERA effect round as M829A2 is incapable to defeat it's outdated armour composition.
    Very bold statement, especially that in Russia or Ukraine, not even single tank was tested against modern ammunition like DM53, DM63, M829A2 or M829A3. While west multiple times tested these tanks with heavy ERA and data from this tests were usefull in designing ammunition mentioned above.

    Of course You can be naive enough to belive that DM43/OFL120F1 is modern ammunition, as it was tested in Ukraine and probably also Russia.

    Western countries also realised that and implemented it, as Germany, thought in a different (and more limited) way: link
    And in the same time, without these NERA wedges, Leopard 2A6 turret was capable to survive fire tests in Greece, only two penetration in weak zones area. German armor is descendant of Burlington armor, same as Heavy Armor from US or Dorchester armor from UK. But yeah, it probably means weakness.

    Of course, You will now also contradict all research, and decisions of the rest of the world, because Abrams is special, same as with propulsion (diesel which M1 will get instead of outdated turbine), firepower increase invloving adoption of new gun, in Russia, Germany, even USA tried, going against your special logic.
    I do not think that M1 is special, but it have advantages over other designs, and seriously if I would go to battle as a tank crew member, I would go only inside it.

    Only because Your knowledge of western tanks evelopment, details of this development is limited, You can say what You want, it is far from reality.

    Said in a general sense, semi-reactive interaction is always less energic and limited, than that of explosive reaction. For initiation you can read the article which I posted.
    If you want to discuss subject, atleast get some technical education.
    You still do not understand that there is no need for ERA when we have modern composite armor, we do not need high energetic reaction of armor elements, because this is not the point.

    What I said, to armor be effective, it needs high volume so more layers will stand in projectile path, this means that more layers will yaw, bend penetrator reducing it's penetration capabilities and if possible to break it. Armor is designed in such way that outer layers are probably made from more reactive layers made from more high hardness materials, while internal layers are possibly made from high density materials to stop yawed, bended or broken penetrator.

    Burlington designers named several working mechanisms of their creation, bulging effect is one of the more knowed, however they also named one mechanism as "whistle effect", this is one of more mysterious things in Burlington development, and hopefully will get more attention and research in documentation. Everything can be read in articles I provided.

    And there is something very important. Do not measure everything by the same standard, only because something was not done in Soviet Union, doesen't mean it wasn't done anywhere else, former Soviet republics do not have exclusiveness for being best in arms development, or to have best scientists.

    I end discussion here with You, any discussion, talking with indoctrinated someone from some ex soviet nowhere is pointless.

    Anyone can make it's own conclusions by reading materials I provided.

    http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf

    Page 106.

    http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf

    Page 112.

    And these are published by Polish MoD and Armed Forces, so people writing there know about what they are writing.

  2. #77

    Default

    It seems that You do not even understand the basics on what extinguishing system works and how it is designed, BTW the same system is used in all modern MBT's.

    Extinguishing gas (halon or other) is stored in cylinders placed inside a tank. It is obvious that such cylinders have limited quantity of supression gas stored in them. The main goal of such systems is to supress fire as long as possible to give crew time for evacuation and if possible to completely extinguish fire. However in many cases, fuel cables are damaged, thus fuel is leaking constantly in to the fire zone. Somethimes it is possible to extinguish such fire, sometimes not.
    But it seems that Abrams fire extinguishing system has serious defficiencies, if in numerous cases it is incapable to properly deal with fire as proven on pictures.

    You still do not understand. So read carefully. Design is optimized for maximum crew survivability, so every element is based on that principle. Fuel tanks are placed in M1 and many more tanks, for example Leopard 2, or Merkava, because it was discovered during tests that 70mm of fuel provide same protection level as 10mm of steel. It was then concluded that placing fuel tanks in some places, can increase protection levels. It was prooved to be succesfull solution during tests.
    It is false. Fuel tanks are not intended to improve protection and they are not displaced in accordance with that. Even if they do, it is not significant today, and in some designs they are a serious defficiency. Do I need to show again and again supposed "advantages" or more directly, defficiencies, of fuel tanks disposition in Abrams and how they help to survival ?

    Once again, what specific area You have in mind, side hull, side turret? Side hull without ERA is weaker protected than side hull with ERA, side turret without ERA is better protected than BMP side turret/hull with ERA, simple as that.
    So how the **** did you reached to that conclusion ? So that's why they logically placed simple ERA to protect against same monoblock RPG warheads, at level of BMP, because your imaginary thick super composite was not that great, or existant.

    M19 ARAT is normal, multilayer reactive armor, please explain me why it can't be good protection? Because it is used by Americans that You obviously hate?
    This ERA would give same protection for Abrams, as ERA for BMP. What is hard to understand ? Why it is that way ? Then go learn something about basic function, properties and implementation, it is explained in the article http://www.be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf01103338.pdf

    Please tell me why You hate Americans so much? Why You hate west so much to not respect western designs? Because You have typical eastern european inferiority complex to say that everything made in west and especially US is inferior?
    I am not single minded and I do not hate Western concepts, indeed I am generally interested in the subject.

    I think You do not understand. ERA was added to increase weaker protected sides against RPG's and EFP's, nothing more, nothing less. Obviously You seems to be unable to comprehend such simple fact.
    To give same result as BMP, or decades old soviet tanks. Objective was the same, there is nothing special about it. Just that on one side that was achieved decades earlier, and the other, the Abrams, reached to that level only now.

    And again, any proof, that it reacts against EFPs ? No more baseless assumptions.

    What? Did You ever saw Combination K drawings and photos and description of Silica Core Armor? It is obvious that Combination K had more similarities to SCA than Burlington. Some for at least one more Soviet armor types, so called "Cellural Casting" insert that was probably used in T-80U/UD.
    Obvious, probably, etc... again assumptions.

    This history is shorter than in US and UK, as proves both articles that I posted, You probably didn't even read them... lousy dunce.
    You do not really understand, and know in detail, your aclaimed Western composite structure, while not having any idea about Soviet developements. Such a strong base for argument...

    You seems to not understand, western composite armors are not passive. This is first thing. Second in articles I provided (with full bibliography support there), it is shown that composite armor like Burlington, could achieve projectile destabilization on it's own. I know that people from where You are have inferiority complex, and will not accept simple fact that in other countries, people are also smart enough to make some things different and better.
    Passive can be understood, as armour, totally passive, or which uses projectile's energy, term can be applied to semi-reactive composite structures, in contrast to Dinamic or reactive which is energic and affects the projectile.

    Yes, semi-reactive structures can create effects on projectile as destabilisation, etc, but it is very different to what is achieved with reactive element effect on projectile, and even more, with previously destabilised cumulative jet or rod on main armour. It is really complex research, and there are drastic differences, that is why armour developement went throught the way it went, it is reflected in modern tanks, T-90 for example, in a different way but with same concept, Leopard 2, but Abrams lags.

    For example ERAWA-2, have great advantages over Kontakt-1, one of these advantages is that cassette is not made from simple thin sheet metal, but from thick high hardness steel, thus with layered design it is capable to greatly decrease penetration level of even tandem shaped charge warheads. As tests in Poland prooved, PzF-3T with improved tandem warhead was not capable to perforate steel plate after ERAWA-2. Manufacturer of PzF-3 was greatly surprised with test results. So You see, Soviet Union do not have exclusiveness for doing everything best.
    More than advantages it is advertisement, ERAWA descends also from soviet developements. But poles do not understand it's implementation, ERA is effective in certain angles, and for example in PT-91 (T-72M1) with outdated armour structure ERA is placed without giving it any inclination angle (see), contrary to more correct Kontakt placement, which results in drastic loss of effectiveness.

    As for anti-tandem properties, it is also cheap advertisement, because certain results can be achieved under certain conditions. ERAWA-2 could have some effect being essentially composed double ERAWA elements (with consequent increase in weight) under some angle, but there is not any proof that such composition will reach claimed performance. In order to have real anti-tandem effect time of interaction must be of atleast 400 microseconds (Kontakt which is not really different in structure, has less than 200 microseconds) So is there any proof that such configuration of ERAWA-2, double ERAWA element, will reliably protect against tandem warheads ? No, only manipulation and advertisement.

    Very bold statement, especially that in Russia or Ukraine, not even single tank was tested against modern ammunition like DM53, DM63, M829A2 or M829A3. While west multiple times tested these tanks with heavy ERA and data from this tests were usefull in designing ammunition mentioned above.
    Of course You can be naive enough to belive that DM43/OFL120F1 is modern ammunition, as it was tested in Ukraine and probably also Russia.
    Again you show ignorance. You have no idea of how tests and research is performed. Under special conditions, as proximity to target, etc, to simulate several levels of projectile penetration. But you did not know...

    And in the same time, without these NERA wedges, Leopard 2A6 turret was capable to survive fire tests in Greece, only two penetration in weak zones area. German armor is descendant of Burlington armor, same as Heavy Armor from US or Dorchester armor from UK. But yeah, it probably means weakness.
    This further proves the point. Being Leopard armour structure similar to your mentioned developements, used in the Abrams, germans still understood it's limitations, as soviets earlier, and realised the concept, with added armour wedges with the function which I explained, similar to ERA.

    And for you to know, tests are performed that way. For example, T-90 turret protection is also tested clean without ERA elements: see

    You again, should stop making assumptions under lack of information, or understanding.

  3. #78
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    I should stop to discuss with You, but it seems that You have Your own crusade do You?

    But it seems that Abrams fire extinguishing system has serious defficiencies, if in numerous cases it is incapable to properly deal with fire as proven on pictures.
    So it seems that Merkava extinguishers also have defficencies because these tansk also burned in numerous cases, oh wiat, it seems that Soviet tanks also have extinguishers with defficencies because it seems that again You did not understood.

    It is false. Fuel tanks are not intended to improve protection and they are not displaced in accordance with that. Even if they do, it is not significant today, and in some designs they are a serious defficiency. Do I need to show again and again supposed "advantages" or more directly, defficiencies, of fuel tanks disposition in Abrams and how they help to survival ?
    All NATO tanks use fuel tanks as additional protection in specific points of construction, for example side hull sponsons protecting upper part of side hull. As I said, research done by engeeners showed that fuel can be used as additional protection. Did You read these articles I provided? Articles based on official documentation from Burlington R&D program?

    So how the **** did you reached to that conclusion ? So that's why they logically placed simple ERA to protect against same monoblock RPG warheads, at level of BMP, because your imaginary thick super composite was not that great, or existant.
    God... IQ level below minus 180... Read my post untill You will understand, but I doubt that primitive form of life like You will ever be capable to do that.

    This ERA would give same protection for Abrams, as ERA for BMP. What is hard to understand ? Why it is that way ? Then go learn something about basic function, properties and implementation, it is explained in the article http://www.be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf01103338.pdf
    Both of these ERA gives high protection levels against HEAT warheads and some degree of protection against EFP's, so what is so hard here to understand?

    I am not single minded and I do not hate Western concepts, indeed I am generally interested in the subject.
    Yet You do not understand anything, nor design solution nor overall design concept.

    To give same result as BMP, or decades old soviet tanks. Objective was the same, there is nothing special about it. Just that on one side that was achieved decades earlier, and the other, the Abrams, reached to that level only now.
    When did I say that there is somethin special about it? And level of protection at hull sides were achieved recently because need for adding protection there was needed recently, not earlier.

    And again, any proof, that it reacts against EFPs ? No more baseless assumptions.


    Multiple damage marks, obvious EFP, vehicle with minor damage back to base on it's own.

    You do not really understand, and know in detail, your aclaimed Western composite structure, while not having any idea about Soviet developements. Such a strong base for argument...
    Yes, of course, these photos do not mean anything...





    Only T-72B/T-90 is in apparance similiar to western composite armors however less advanced, "Cermetal" package in one variant of T-80U/UD protection would be closer in used materials. However in all these designs, composite armor volume is lower than in NATO designs, thus making heavy ERA use a nececity, not some super solution.

    Again you show ignorance. You have no idea of how tests and research is performed. Under special conditions, as proximity to target, etc, to simulate several levels of projectile penetration. But you did not know...
    Such tests are not reliable, I know how this works, it is completely useless, because different projectile will differently react with armor. It is very naive to belive that DM43/OFL120F1 will react in the same way as DM53/63 or M829A2/A3.

    This further proves the point. Being Leopard armour structure similar to your mentioned developements, used in the Abrams, germans still understood it's limitations, as soviets earlier, and realised the concept, with added armour wedges with the function which I explained, similar to ERA.

    And for you to know, tests are performed that way. For example, T-90 turret protection is also tested clean without ERA elements: see

    You again, should stop making assumptions under lack of information, or understanding.
    T-90A turret was tested with much weaker ammunition, as we know penetrator lenght limitations makes penetration values smaller. M829A3 is allready 800mm long with ballistic cap 900mm long. It is highly possible that penetrator lenght will achieve even 1000mm at some point. Besides this, if we can belive Kholopotv, and his drawing of how composite inserts look like in T-90A turret, then it is still not the same thing as in NATO designs, still at all predictible hit angles, there is less composite layers than in NATO designs.

    About ERAWA... yes yes, if tests against PzF-3 with Germans involed ended with success of ERAWA-2, then this is definetly manipulation, but every claim of Russians or Ukrainians about their ERA is only absolute truth...

  4. #79
    Senior Member Maximmmm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    A Russian getting his education on in Vancouver, Canada
    Age
    21
    Posts
    3,495

    Default

    Rule #436 of Milphotos.net:
    "One shall not argue with Sir Damian about tanks, especially when one is not well informed"

  5. #80
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    As allways, my fault is that I belive more official documents prepared by designers of each specific design and facts. Not on assumptions made by people liking or disliking some designs or countries of their origin...

    Yeah, right we should all assume that US, UK, French, Israeli designers are morons, and that they did not done any progress in their developments leading to very different yet no less effective solutions. Technological rascism and Chauvanism at it's best, as allways, from ex Soviet union territory. Thank god that there are still Russians and Ukrainians that are normal, and can discuss on high level without criticizing everything and seeing it as inferior to their solutions.

  6. #81
    Senior Member Maximmmm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    A Russian getting his education on in Vancouver, Canada
    Age
    21
    Posts
    3,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    As allways, my fault is that I belive more official documents prepared by designers of each specific design and facts. Not on assumptions made by people liking or disliking some designs or countries of their origin...

    Yeah, right we should all assume that US, UK, French, Israeli designers are morons, and that they did not done any progress in their developments leading to very different yet no less effective solutions. Technological rascism and Chauvanism at it's best, as allways, from ex Soviet union territory. Thank god that there are still Russians and Ukrainians that are normal, and can discuss on high level without criticizing everything and seeing it as inferior to their solutions.
    We love you Damian, there's quite nothing like reading one of your assessments of a new tank modernization introduced somewhere around the world. You remind me of my tank encyclopedia I had as a kid :P

  7. #82
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    We love you Damian, there's quite nothing like reading one of your assessments of a new tank modernization introduced somewhere around the world. You remind me of my tank encyclopedia I had as a kid :P
    Thanks... but did I need to start worry about this love towards me?




    ;P

  8. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post

    So it seems that Merkava extinguishers also have defficencies because these tansk also burned in numerous cases, oh wiat, it seems that Soviet tanks also have extinguishers with defficencies because it seems that again You did not understood.
    Nobody is dicussing about Merkava here.


    All NATO tanks use fuel tanks as additional protection in specific points of construction, for example side hull sponsons protecting upper part of side hull. As I said, research done by engeeners showed that fuel can be used as additional protection. Did You read these articles I provided? Articles based on official documentation from Burlington R&D program?
    Question is if this limited protection is of any relevance against today's weapons. Also, I do not see the point of using fuel tanks as preotection (little which it offers) when after interaction with projectile it ignites and gives this result


    Both of these ERA gives high protection levels against HEAT warheads and some degree of protection against EFP's, so what is so hard here to understand?
    If it offered good protection already as you suggested there wouldn't be need of uparmoring as there is with BMP, to offer same result.

    Yet You do not understand anything, nor design solution nor overall design concept.
    Contrary to you I do not make assumptions under lack of technical knowledge, or of any kind.

    When did I say that there is somethin special about it? And level of protection at hull sides were achieved recently because need for adding protection there was needed recently, not earlier.
    Yes, after combat experience proved it was needed, but took a rather long time to realise and implement.

    Multiple damage marks, obvious EFP, vehicle with minor damage back to base on it's own.
    Again "obvious" assumptions.

    Yes, of course, these photos do not mean anything...
    What is your point, you understand their interaction in detail, against projectile, or you can give photos of western composites of same time period for comparison ? What is the point ?

    Only T-72B/T-90 is in apparance similiar to western composite armors however less advanced, "Cermetal" package in one variant of T-80U/UD protection would be closer in used materials. However in all these designs, composite armor volume is lower than in NATO designs, thus making heavy ERA use a nececity, not some super solution.
    Where are proofs, that they are less advanced than western composites of same time period, where is comparison ? Again this garbage statements.

    This is utter lack of understanding and show of ignorance.
    Using your logic, western composite structure is defficient, because for example germans in Leopard 2 complemented it with armour wedges.


    Such tests are not reliable, I know how this works, it is completely useless, because different projectile will differently react with armor. It is very naive to belive that DM43/OFL120F1 will react in the same way as DM53/63 or M829A2/A3.
    I do not think you have any knowledge at all, about subject.

    T-90A turret was tested with much weaker ammunition, as we know penetrator lenght limitations makes penetration values smaller. M829A3 is allready 800mm long with ballistic cap 900mm long. It is highly possible that penetrator lenght will achieve even 1000mm at some point. Besides this, if we can belive Kholopotv, and his drawing of how composite inserts look like in T-90A turret, then it is still not the same thing as in NATO designs, still at all predictible hit angles, there is less composite layers than in NATO designs.
    Again this is schoolboy's level of thinking. You do not have the most basic technical education and still continue asserting. In penetration of kinetic projectiles there are many factors, but level can always be simulated under certain conditions. For example, firing from much closer distances, as 200m from target, to not only meet, but exceed requirements, as there is much more energy in projectile and penetration power. And important thing is that test was succesfull despite that turret was without additional ERA coverage.

    Also is funny how judge projectiles by a single characteristic, when many factors play an important role in firepower, muzzle velocity, diamenter, etc. M829A3 in specific has larger diameter and slower muzzle velocity because of several limitations, so you cannot take a single characteristic as representative.

    And I simply do not understand how can you elaborate such discussions without any base to sustain them, as for example absolutely nothing has been revealed about T-90A composite structure.

    Also it is

    About ERAWA... yes yes, if tests against PzF-3 with Germans involed ended with success of ERAWA-2, then this is definetly manipulation, but every claim of Russians or Ukrainians about their ERA is only absolute truth...
    Success ? Even your advertisement said that it was only partial, under certain conditions, (time of action between warheads can be different depending on weapon, there is no way to assure that it will be effective). Also, even with that staged test parasitic effect was too big, to call result effective, and it further proves it's innefectiveness, to protect weaker zones as hull sides.

    There are no claims, I showed to you scientifical publications with tests, pictures, figures in detail. Not manipulated advertisements.

  9. #84
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    Nobody is dicussing about Merkava here.
    And again You do not understand the point, nor You understand the design and working mechanism of fire extinguishing systems. Merkava also suffered combat looses due to engine fire, and nobody complains.

    Question is if this limited protection is of any relevance against today's weapons. Also, I do not see the point of using fuel tanks as preotection (little which it offers) when after interaction with projectile it ignites and gives this result

    Only because You do not understand, (you actually do not understand most things) do not give You right to criticize and see it as inferior.

    If it offered good protection already as you suggested there wouldn't be need of uparmoring as there is with BMP, to offer same result.

    God... read that point once again... I was talking about ERA, get that?

    Contrary to you I do not make assumptions under lack of technical knowledge, or of any kind.

    Oh really? And all of Your posts are what? What do You actually know about NATO MBT's? Nothing, completely nothing, no, You actually lack knowledge about any non Soviet, Russian or Ukrainian design.

    Yes, after combat experience proved it was needed, but took a rather long time to realise and implement.

    Because NATO tanks were designed for open ground war, not urban combat. In fact in NATO doctrine, use of AFV's in urban areas was allways prohibitet and it was recommended to avoid such situations if possible.

    Again "obvious" assumptions.

    I seen enough EFP's damage marks to know how they look alike, contrary to You.

    What is your point, you understand their interaction in detail, against projectile, or you can give photos of western composites of same time period for comparison ? What is the point ?

    The point is that these Soviet developed composite armors are very different in design and working mechanisms to Burlington armor and it's further developments. I will ask again, did You even tried to read articles I provided? Or ignored them because they contradicted with Your limited and biased view on this subject?

    Where are proofs, that they are less advanced than western composites of same time period, where is comparison ? Again this garbage statements.

    Materials used, for example T-72B/T-90 armor are just layers of steel plates with rubber between them. NATO composite armors were using high hardness steel, ceramics (but in different quantities and in a different way that it was belived previously), later high density heavy metal alloys and other materials like graphite were added to further improve protection.

    Your lack of knowledge is obvious here because You seems to honestly belive that NATO composite armors were not evlolving, in fact they are still evolving, many developments proved that composites have great potential if proper R&D program is funded to develop stronger and lighter materials.

    This is utter lack of understanding and show of ignorance.
    Using your logic, western composite structure is defficient, because for example germans in Leopard 2 complemented it with armour wedges.

    It actually shows Your lack of knowledge, KWS-I program was intended to improve Leopard 2 protection not against even current threats, but to prepare base for protection against future high pressure, high calliber (140mm, 152mm) guns threat. Of course due to fall of Soviet Union, and military spending cuts, these programs were never finished, but what they achieved was used to develop these wedge shaped NERA modules. Important thing is that similiar NERA layers are inside composite armor cavity of any NATO tanks.

    I strongly recommend You to throw away any of Your Russian language sources about history of NATO tanks, they are very weak as I read some books, inaccurate also, and to buy some books written by respected western authors, like Richard Hunnicutt or Rolf Hilmes.

    I do not think you have any knowledge at all, about subject.

    I also highly doubt You have any knowledge at all. We performed similiar tests with odl German ammunition in Poland. These tests are however not seen as properly done, because one of our arms manufacturer was decreasing quantity of propelant charge in casings for simulations tests. There was even atmoshpere of an scandal about these tests, however exact details are unknown, everything was classified.

    Again this is schoolboy's level of thinking. You do not have the most basic technical education and still continue asserting. In penetration of kinetic projectiles there are many factors, but level can always be simulated under certain conditions. For example, firing from much closer distances, as 200m from target, to not only meet, but exceed requirements, as there is much more energy in projectile and penetration power. And important thing is that test was succesfull despite that turret was without additional ERA coverage.

    Again, You do not have any knowledge about these tests either, what ammunition was used, from what distance, at what hit angle etc. How do we know it was succesfull, we only see one photo, without photos of turret interior. But as allways You will belive in any statement from former Soviet Union states, but west is allways inferior and is manipulating informations... even if Soviets were masters of lies and manipulations.

    Also is funny how judge projectiles by a single characteristic, when many factors play an important role in firepower, muzzle velocity, diamenter, etc. M829A3 in specific has larger diameter and slower muzzle velocity because of several limitations, so you cannot take a single characteristic as representative.

    M829A3 is heavier, thus it will loose less kinetic energy at longer distance than other types of ammunition. Larger diameter also makes it less vurnable to yaw, bending and broking compared to penetrators with smaller diameter. In fact if we know how ERA and composite armors work, we can assume that projectile less vurnable to these defeating mechanisms, can perform higher penetration levels.

    Unconventional thingking is beautifull. But You can stick to You schematic thinking and faith.

    And I simply do not understand how can you elaborate such discussions without any base to sustain them, as for example absolutely nothing has been revealed about T-90A composite structure.

    Alexei Khlopotov claimed that T-90A turret composite armor could be similiar to T-72B/T-90.

    Success ? Even your advertisement said that it was only partial, under certain conditions, (time of action between warheads can be different depending on weapon, there is no way to assure that it will be effective). Also, even with that staged test parasitic effect was too big, to call result effective, and it further proves it's innefectiveness, to protect weaker zones as hull sides.

    You know very little.



    This is book written by designer of ERAWA-1, ERAWA-2, CAWA-1, CAWA-1NA, CAWA-2, CERAWA-1, CERAWA-2 and PAWA-1. Main armor designer in WITU (Military Institute of Technology and Armament). This book is used on WAT (Military Technology Academy), buy it, read it, apologize.

    There are no claims, I showed to you scientifical publications with tests, pictures, figures in detail. Not manipulated advertisements.

    As above, read book written by engeeners, I'am not interested in Your marketing materials.
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  10. #85

    Default

    Why the Army Is Wrong About Closing Its Only Tank Plant


    Full article: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-plant%3F.html

  11. #86

    Default

    I have a follow up question regarding fire suppression in MBT`s.

    From what I`ve read in this thread Halon is normally used.

    Has any waterbased fire fighting systems like "watermist", "Hi-fog", "AFFF" or similar been tested in MBT`s?

    Hi-fog : http://www.marioff.com/
    Watermist: http://www.watermist.com/
    AFFF: http://www.chemguard.com/fire-suppre...ff/c301ms.aspx

    I`m a mariner, and have seen or tested these three systems in use in ship engine rooms. I`m highly impressed.

    "Watermist" and "Hi-fog" are basically freshwater under pressure(Nitrogen) stored in metal cylinders similar to Halon cylinders. The water is pulverized through tiny nozzles. A large engine room can be covered within seconds and stops a fire extremely fast with a small amount of water.
    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvIAp2J7JO0

    AFFF is basically 3% of a chemical mixed with water. Against a fire in fuel such as diesel it is very effective. It is also very effective against re ignition.
    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpOwk...eature=related


    Advantages over Halon as I see it:
    -Both engine and crew compartment can be filled rapidly.
    -Re ignition can be prevented when there are fuel leaks.
    -Water absorbs heat so the hot areas are cooled down.
    -Burn injuries to the crew could be prevented or at least reduced.
    -Reduce the chance of ammunition exploding.
    -Water is inexpensive, and only small amounts are needed.


    Disadvantages:
    -Water can freeze.
    -Cylinders might take up slightly more volume.
    -Hot water steam can hurt people.


    I hope the "tank-gurus" can give me an answer!

  12. #87
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    @trikora88

    GDLS and JSMC Lima, Ohio recived another contract to upgrade another 46 M1 tanks (24 M1A1's and 22 M1A2SEP v1's) to M1A2SEP v2 standard (this will bring quantity of this variant up to ~1,600+ tanks of this type in invenory). Work will be finished in 2013 or 2014, more contracts may come. Also currently JSMC is performing modernization of Saudi M1A2's to M1A2S standard, currently ~100+ vehicles are in Lima, another ~100+ are waiting in Saudi Arabia for their turn (so JSMC will upgrade around ~270 from 373 Saudi M1 tanks).

    @Darh Vidar

    Interesting systems, however as I understand these are used in ships? It might be problematic to install them in tanks where space issues are far more serious... on the other hand I heard that Halon based fire suppresion systems are replaced by something else, dunno what however.

  13. #88
    The member that no one remembers. IconOfEvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The United American Empire
    Posts
    15,524

    Default

    How much is a M1A2SEPv2 roughly? IM worried the next civil war will start soon, and my state has no active armor

  14. #89
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    This year M1A2SEP v2 numbers will increase to roughly ~1,600+ in US Army and ARNG ABCT's, ARNG ABCT's have also roughly ~1,000+ M1A1SA's, USMC have as I suppose ~100-200+ M1A1FEP's maybe more, this is active component from overall fleet of roughly ~8,000-9,000+ M1 tanks in US Armed Forces inventory.

  15. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    117′N, 10351′E
    Posts
    1,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Vidar View Post
    I have a follow up question regarding fire suppression in MBT`s.

    From what I`ve read in this thread Halon is normally used.

    Has any waterbased fire fighting systems like "watermist", "Hi-fog", "AFFF" or similar been tested in MBT`s?

    Hi-fog : http://www.marioff.com/
    Watermist: http://www.watermist.com/
    AFFF: http://www.chemguard.com/fire-suppre...ff/c301ms.aspx

    I`m a mariner, and have seen or tested these three systems in use in ship engine rooms. I`m highly impressed.

    "Watermist" and "Hi-fog" are basically freshwater under pressure(Nitrogen) stored in metal cylinders similar to Halon cylinders. The water is pulverized through tiny nozzles. A large engine room can be covered within seconds and stops a fire extremely fast with a small amount of water.
    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvIAp2J7JO0

    AFFF is basically 3% of a chemical mixed with water. Against a fire in fuel such as diesel it is very effective. It is also very effective against re ignition.
    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpOwk...eature=related


    Advantages over Halon as I see it:
    -Both engine and crew compartment can be filled rapidly.
    -Re ignition can be prevented when there are fuel leaks.
    -Water absorbs heat so the hot areas are cooled down.
    -Burn injuries to the crew could be prevented or at least reduced.
    -Reduce the chance of ammunition exploding.
    -Water is inexpensive, and only small amounts are needed.


    Disadvantages:
    -Water can freeze.
    -Cylinders might take up slightly more volume.
    -Hot water steam can hurt people.


    I hope the "tank-gurus" can give me an answer!
    Water is much heavier and not compressible as Halon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •