QuoteReplyTopic: Misconception on DU munitions Posted: 21-May-2006 at 14:39
Originally posted by Russian
Du armor protectcion is even simpler, it is just a massive piece of metall, and a less massive piece o metal sollapses with it, so, which one survives? the one that is more massive, but in a few shots it is gonna be penetrated anyways.
ERA is more vulnerable to multiple hits than DU armor. One hit on ERA and you lose an entire block which needs to be replaced, where one hit on DU leaves a small hole which would be very hard to hit a second time.
"DU being more dense made for a far better penatrator than tungston and was able to penetrate the new modern armour designs. DU is also a lot cheaper than tungsten as it is a by product of the nuclear power industry."
DU is good, but you can also protect pretty well against DU, with DU armor, like Abrams, or Explosive reactive armor, like russian Kontakt-5 second genetration heavy era, west agreed on the effectiveness of this armor, after their DU rounds were shattered by ERA, I can show you photo if you want, also, there is Kaktus era, third generation, but noone knows what that is and what are capabilities.
Du armor protectcion is even simpler, it is just a massive piece of metall, and a less massive piece o metal sollapses with it, so, which one survives? the one that is more massive, but in a few shots it is gonna be penetrated anyways.
Du armor protectcion is even simpler, it is just a massive piece of metall, and a less massive piece o metal sollapses with it, so, which one survives? the one that is more massive, but in a few shots it is gonna be penetrated anyways.
ERA is more vulnerable to multiple hits than DU armor. One hit on ERA and you lose an entireblock which needs to be replaced, where one hit on DU leavesa small hole which would be very hard to hit a second time.
Lol, ERA are small cubes, my friend, it will be also nearly impossible to hit it again as well, so, it is not much harder to pierce DU armor, if harder at all, plus, after ERA defeated DU, there is no damage to hull.
here is the pic, scroll down to the little article about ERA, you will also find picture of shattered DU ammunition:
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html
it is a bit old though, but still, I heard US and Germany made new APFSDS ammunition, but Russia made Kaktus, new "heavy" type ERA.
Now imagine this:
a tank, which has all russian protection systems, DU armor on turret, not just frontal arc, but most of turret and hull, and ERA, now this would be a PROTECTED tank, lol.
Lol, ERA are small cubes, my friend, it will be also nearly impossible to hit it again as well, so, it is not much harder to pierce DU armor, if harder at all, plus, after ERA defeated DU, there is no damage to hull.
According to the article, Kontakt-5 bricks are 10.5cm by 23 cm. Losing one is going to leave a larger portion of a tanks armor vulnerable than a depression caused by a hit on a combination DU Chohbam plate. Once the block is gone so is the protection against AP rounds.
I imagine weapons designers are hard at work on fragmentation rounds that will strip away large portions of ERA on modern tanks. That's the problem with this type of armor, once it's gone you need to replace it quickly or be destroyed.
Lol, ERA are small cubes, my friend, it will be also nearly impossible to hit it again as well, so, it is not much harder to pierce DU armor, if harder at all, plus, after ERA defeated DU, there is no damage to hull.
According to the article, Kontakt-5 bricks are 10.5cm by 23 cm. Losing one is going to leave a larger portion of a tanks armor vulnerable than a depression caused by a hit on a combination DU Chohbam plate. Once the block is gone so is the protection against AP rounds.
I imagine weapons designers are hard at work on fragmentation rounds that will strip away large portions of ERA on modern tanks. That's the problem with this type of armor, once it's gone you need to replace it quickly or be destroyed.
If you read the whole article, you will see that ERA is really hard and is acting only when APFSDS hits it, or other ROUND, and not fragments.
can you hit 20X10 cm area of tank again with super presicion?, then if you would hit the turrent again, and there will be no ERA, I would say that round will have a chance of bouncing off, have you seen the slopes of T-90 or T-80 without ERA? Abrams is not the only tank with sloped armor. I agree that ERA leaves bigger portion of tank to be vulnerable for a second shot, but then again, ERA covers more area of a tank than Abrams DU armor plates, and T-90 is in general way smaller than Abrams and lower profile, and it's turret, compared to Abrams is tiny.
Look, here is an article about Abrams that was penetrated by something that disabled it:
I remember someone here said that 50 kg of explosives wouldn't stop Abrams, well, let's see:
"On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was completely destroyed and its driver killed from shrapnel wounds when an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three M109A6 155 mm shells with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg detonated next to the tank"
This is from Wikipedia article about Abrams. Now imagine what would 50 kg of explosives do to Abams, it would tear it to pieces.
The Abrams has the armor protection of a WW II battleship in the front arc, 50 kgs of HE isn't going to do any damage there. If you set a large charge off in a vulnerable spot it's going to damage any tank, the fact is the Abrams is one of the best protected tanks for combat conditions.
The Abrams has the armor protection of a WW II battleship in the front arc, 50 kgs of HE isn't going to do any damage there. If you set a large charge off in a vulnerable spot it's going to damage any tank, the fact is the Abrams is one of the best protected tanks for combat conditions.
how come those Abrams was ripped apart by 34 kg of explosives?
The Abrams has the armor protection of a WW II battleship in the front arc, 50 kgs of HE isn't going to do any damage there. If you set a large charge off in a vulnerable spot it's going to damage any tank, the fact is the Abrams is one of the best protected tanks for combat conditions.
how come those Abrams was ripped apart by 34 kg of explosives?
Unless the charge was packed into a vulnerable spot I find it hard to believe 34 kg of explosive would do anything more than superficial damage. The Abrams is one of the heaviest armored vehicles ever built and there are armored cars available that allow the occupants to survive such blasts.
There's a reason that so much developement has gone into HEAT and AP rounds, it's very difficult to pierce the armor of modern MBTs let alone blow them apart. Think about it, how much damage is a 65 lb. ominidirectional charge going to do to a vehicle made of some of the densest, most structurally strong materials weighing 138,000 lbs.
The Abrams has the armor protection of a WW II battleship in the front arc, 50 kgs of HE isn't going to do any damage there. If you set a large charge off in a vulnerable spot it's going to damage any tank, the fact is the Abrams is one of the best protected tanks for combat conditions.
how come those Abrams was ripped apart by 34 kg of explosives?
Unless the charge was packed into a vulnerable spot I find it hard to believe 34 kg of explosive would do anything more than superficial damage. The Abrams is one of the heaviest armored vehicles ever built and there are armored cars available that allow the occupants to survive such blasts.
There's a reason that so much developement has gone into HEAT and AP rounds, it's very difficult to pierce the armor of modern MBTs let alone blowthem apart. Think about it, how much damage is a 65 lb. ominidirectional charge going to do to a vehicle made of some of the densest, most structurally strong materials weighing 138,000 lbs.
once again, you missed the point, it is not a vulnerable SPOT that has been hit, it is INVULNERABLE SPOTS that are on the tank, the tank itself is not covered and surrounded by DU armor, it is only on front arc, and that's it. I agree that 34 kg of explosives will not seriously damage DU armor plates, but it tears apart ALL THE REST, which is not DU, if Abrams would be covered with DU all around, it would weigh 100 tons and wouldn't be able to move.
Abrams is a very armoured vehicle, like all MBTs nowadays, but it still stands no chancce against 50 kg of explosives my friend, no chance in hell, maybe you think Abrams would withstand a shot from "Little David"? I would guess it will be blown away.
While Abrams is hard to take out from front(again, like all MBTs), it is still possible, DU armor IS PENETRATABLE, DU can be burned through, it is ceramic armor that saves Abrams from HEAT, not DU.
http://www.waronline.org/analysis/merkava.htm
the link is in russian.
Merkava, which is also one of the most protected tanks, if not THE most protected (yes, merkava might be more protected than Abrams), it was blown up on 100 kg!!!!! of explosives, it's turret that weighed 22 tons was found 10 meters away, it's engine, when it was flying up from the explosion, hit the gun barrel, which acted as lever and ripped turret clean off the tank, all crew members were of course dead.
Abrams would be torn apart as much as this Merkava was, maybe even more.
From what you are saying about explosives, I think you hav a vague knowledge of what C4 and TNT is and on the power of this thing, and what happens when it is applied to tanks and other armoured vehicles in big quantities.
While to make Abrams it costs million or so, to destroy Abrams it costs 2000 dollars. (that's how much it costs to buy 100 kg of C-4)
It all depends where the charge goes off, 100kgs of explosive isn't going to do much to 70 ton or even 50 ton AFV if most of the force is directed away from the vehicle. That's the whole point of using shaped charges.
As for the Abrams , the side armor of the M1A2 is roughly equivalent to the frontal protection of the original M1 and is substantial. The rear armor is the thinest but still equivalent to the frontal armor of a WW II medium tank.
I think your numbers are off for the exploding charge you were discussing also. AFAIK an individual 155mm round weighs over 125 lbs.
It all depends where the charge goes off, 100kgs of explosive isn't going to do much to 70 ton or even 50 ton AFV if most of the force is directed away from the vehicle. That's the whole point of using shaped charges.
As for the Abrams , the side armor of the M1A2 is roughly equivalent to the frontal protection of the original M1 and is substantial. The rear armor is the thinest but still equivalent to the frontal armor of a WW II medium tank.
I think your numbers are off for the exploding charge you were discussing also.AFAIK an individual 155mm round weighs over 125 lbs.
I meant that it is gonna be lying on the ground in front of the vehicle.
yeah, but in this round, explosives do not constitute a lot of weight, rather a small amount.
It all depends where the charge goes off, 100kgs of explosive isn't going to do much to 70 ton or even 50 ton AFV if most of the force is directed away from the vehicle. That's the whole point of using shaped charges.
As for the Abrams , the side armor of the M1A2 is roughly equivalent to the frontal protection of the original M1 and is substantial. The rear armor is the thinest but still equivalent to the frontal armor of a WW II medium tank.
I think your numbers are off for the exploding charge you were discussing also. AFAIK an individual 155mm round weighs over 125 lbs.
I meant that it is gonna be lying on the ground in front of the vehicle.
yeah, but in this round, explosives do not constitute a lot of weight, rather a small amount.
It all depends where the charge goes off, 100kgs of explosive isn't going to do much to 70 ton or even 50 ton AFV if most of the force is directed away from the vehicle. That's the whole point of using shaped charges.
As for the Abrams , the side armor of the M1A2 is roughly equivalent to the frontal protection of the original M1 and is substantial. The rear armor is the thinest but still equivalent to the frontal armor of a WW II medium tank.
I think your numbers are off for the exploding charge you were discussing also.AFAIK an individual 155mm round weighs over 125 lbs.
I meant that it is gonna be lying on the ground in front of the vehicle. yeah, but in this round, explosives do not constitute a lot of weight, rather a small amount. What does AFAIK means? [IMG]smileys/smiley24.gif" align=middle>
tankbellies are vulnerable.
AFAIK= As Far As I Know
that's what I am saying, in order to be the most protected you must have protection from everything, T-90 for example can detonate mines 50 meters away from the tank.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum