Close up image of the M1150 ABV armour array released by the Russians. After all these years, it's still NERA.
Close up image of the M1150 ABV armour array released by the Russians. After all these years, it's still NERA.
Close up image of the M1150 ABV armour array released by the Russians. After all these years, it's still NERA.
Oh this looks like the old array. Before I was thinking it was the updated NERA array but it looks similar if not exactly like the older M1A1 turret array.
We never found out what was in the M1A1. The only officially released shit is for the original M1 before the M1IP/A1 upgrades.
There is nothing to suggest a significant change in armour composition between the M1 and the M1A1, just increased thickness and therefore weight. Its likely just another layer of plates, rather than anything interesting. The protection increase on the turret face from the M1 (320-340mm) to the IP/A1 (380-400mm) was only around 60-80mm vs Ke, for a thickness increase of around 150-180mm (~700-720mm > ~870-890mm), which is roughly what you could expect from more BRL.
Also i'm pretty sure that document redacted the turret face composition? We only get the bustle and hull.
The actual known composition of at least one type of chobham was not ceramic, it was RHA+some kind of plastic. But every array is different. The presence ceramic was a British disinformation campaign to try and confuse the USSR.
The M1 essentially had a different layout on every side
The turret bustle had less air in it, and a 3-layer backplate believed to be similar to the steel-textolite-steel sandwich on the T-72
The lower hull had an NERA array, air gap, steel
And the gun shield had a larger air gap and a thicker backplate
We dont really know that the turret cheek looks like, and we cant tell if it has the same special armor back plate as the rear turret bustle or not
Do you have a source for any of this?
>There is nothing to suggest a significant change in armour composition between the M1 and the M1A1
I think the fact that the M1150's turret side armor array is different from the original declassified M1 side turret array supports the fact that the internal structures were changed from the M1 to M1IP/M1A1 in addition to getting thicker with the new turrets. There is BRL-1 which is declassified and what I posted here
and what we're seeing in this M1150 is likely BRL-2 since the ABV is based on the baseline M1A1. I could be wrong but I think it'd be weird to not change the internal components with better materials/structures over time.
I agree and think the way the early info was presented was deliberate misinformation, similar to how DU has been referred to as "mesh" by the Army before. That said, there is a case for the use of Ceramics as part of the early backplate. We don't know exactly what the materials used were so most claims I've seen are pure speculation - but according to these claims the original M1 was alternating types of steels (it was found in ballistics testing that layering harder and softer steels improved overall protection 10-15%) and the M1IP/M1A1 switched to a steel-backed ceramic. There is ballistic testing that would support this working, in the same source that talked about layering different steels of different hardness it mentioned that ceramic backed steels would be better at KE protection due to the hardness and abrasion qualities with the strong backing steel mitigating the ceramics brittleness plus the added benefit of ceramics being lighter. I'm not sure if I fully buy it but it would make sense in theory but only as a backplate and not part of a primary NERA array. I can try and find the source on the ballistics testing if you want, I SHOULD have the pdf saved somewhere
Adding on to this for general info, with tons of assumptions and speculation, this is how I think Abrams armor might have evolved.
>M1
Original variant with base armor package, BRL-1/Chobham. This is the version that has been declassified and you can find the PDF released online now.
>M1IP/M1A1
Both these tanks received the same armor. There’s a bit of conjecture if the change was just from the array becoming thicker, or if it was becoming thicker and being improved at the same time. The M1150 (based on the M1A1) lost in Ukraine showed a different side turret array, implying that the armor packages were indeed upgraded, but whether this is M1150 specific or M1A1 wide is unknown.
>M1A1HA
First gen depleted uranium. BRL/Chobham was replaced by “Heavy Armor Package”. Conjecture on if the HAP is just BRL/Chobham with DU reinforcement or if it is an entirely new armor array.
>M1A2
Second generation DU, HAP-2 armor package. Again, unknown if the array changed AND DU got better or if the DU just got better – I think it’s more likely the internal arrays were changed with HAP-1 but remained the same with better DU for HAP-2. There was only 7 years from the A1 and A2.
>M1A2 SEPV1/V2/SA/FEP
Third generation DU, HAP-3 armor package. Ditto as before, however there’s sources on DTIC confirming that this model received upgraded “side armor” likely referring to the side turret, since the side skirts haven’t changed AFAIK.
>M1A2 SEPV3
NGAP armor package, unknown if it has 4th gen DU or if it replaced it with another material. New designation seems to suggest entirely new array. The turret has been extended, we don’t know if this is because the array was thickened, or they integrated counterweights in a more streamlined way to deal with the weight from trophy systems that can be mounted.
I think depleted uranium armor is just swapping rear steel plates you can see in this package with uranium alloy plates.
You can see the turret bustle armor here, it has NERA, air gap, and 3-layer armor
Composition of the back armor is unknown but believed to be similar to the T-72s hull armor
While cheek armor us unknown
The differing compositions of the armor on the other parts of the tank means assuming its built the same as the lower Hull is not a given
>it's still NERA.
No shit you mongoloid moron, did you expect ERA inside? And what is this supposed to mean anyway? What are the 'modern' alternatives? moronic explosive bricks that have a one time effect and kill your own men that happen to be nearby? Moreover did you expect the latest and greatest in old tanks donated to Ukraine?
>What are the 'modern' alternatives
Real Chobham ceramic armour we was promised by Ogorkiewicz. Not some Soviet trash reactive armor.
you are now aware that chobham armor is NERA.
But NERA is shit comparing to ceramic.
shill your channel somewhere else thirdie
>yfw it's the Soviets who made real Chobham armour
Yet the Russians keep "modernizing" the shittier T-80BV -> T-80BVM.
This is why we need to return to heavy armor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiekt_770
The angles of the penetrators are incorrect.
The Abrams would need to climb over a hill while being shot at. The angle right now is the worst possible one for this arry and the least likley way for it to get shot at while the T -80 gets the complete opposite with the best possible angle with the same scenario
Do...do you know what NERA means? I don't think you do.
It means reactive armor (aka Soviet garbage).
I don't know of the Soviets ever using NERA
The soviets did use NERA but it's different than how it's deployed on the Abrams particularly the way it's structured in the turret. The principle is the same though, steel, rubber/fiberglass, steel sandwiches. Sorry for the pic rel being fricking small lol
God so when the Ukes pointed out the angle is completely fricking wrong, the angle really is COMPLETELY fricking WRONG.
Let's all remember that the Iraqi's NERA addons were a better design than this.
>Enigma
Yeah. They actually have the slant right to not have the near 45 degree strike vulnerability.
Chobham being ceramic is a psyop. It's NERA, always has been.
Wouldn't be surprised if thats the case. Not the first time the Brits did something similar when they called their nuclear program as "tube alloys"
Challenger bros… I don’t feel quite as special anymore
At this point I'm convinced "muh Ceramic Chobham" armor was purposeful disinfo put out by the British, especially when all unclassified British Chobham armor designs are also NERA.
Ceramic would be NERA
Ceramics is not NERA, which in all examples are a steel sandwhich with rubber or plastic. The only exception to this is the T-80U's liquid filled pocket holes which is also classed as a type of NERA.
Isn't the definition of NERA just layered composite armor?
>open up western tank
>steel - rubber - steel
where the ceramics?
seethe
If someone were to put ceramics in a NERA array, would it cease to be NERA?
Clearly you havent a clue what you are talking about and its evident you are a fan of Binkovs Battlegrounds. Stick to the Youtube comment section.
>open up russian full of old used up NATO rubber
>where the ceramics?
In obsolete garbage russian tanks that toss the turret every time they take a hit from a western weapon, because the morons who made them fell for the ceramics meme just like (You).
Clueless
>Moreover did you expect the latest and greatest in old tanks donated to Ukraine?
Yes, if they are german 🙂
frick americ**ts
Military secrets thread? What's the US developing here?
>U"A"V
>is clearly a submersible
The "A" is for aqua. Does no one speak Latin these days?
>Underwater
>Arial
>Vehicle
Shrimple as that
OOF see you in 72 hours.
Its monkey model so I don't see how it matters.
>After all these years
Will this finally quell all the Warthunder autism over this shit? Or
Only the heat death of the universe will be the end of that particular type of autism
>the stats on this heat loss are wrong
>entropy bias! devs pls
When you really thing about it, isn't entropy the ultimate camper?
I got a chub ham for ya right here pal
What did you think all armor was?
You didn't fall for the ceramic honeycomb disinfo, did you?
>You didn't fall for the ceramic honeycomb disinfo, did you?
Entire Westernboos population fell for ceramic disinfo in the 1985-2015 time period... Remember Paul Lakowsky calculations? Good ol times...
I think the honeycomb meme was pretty disabused in 04-05 when images of M1 battle damage from IEDs started being shown off
Well then westaboos had cope that was side turret armor, frontal armor has "real ceramic Chobham armour".
But then we got Burlington unclassified files which clearly had NERA structures. Also those files openly said how specific knowledge of armor can be used to counter it (tandem charges) and how it is important to hide true nature of the armor and use disinfo for that....
And now we got this tank opened up.
if russia hasn't figure out how to defeat the same types of NERA arrays they use yet after decades then they have bigger problems than falling for disinfo.
>Real Chobham armor has never been tried
now I want someone to build a "real" ceramic chobam plus NERA array in their backyard and fire an RPG at it for youtube clout and science
Just ask the Japs, I think they make heavy use of ceramics in their armor arrays to keep the weight down
Is there the same image without Peter Griffin?
I mean its more important to protect the sides from HEAT and small and medium calibre cannon fire than KE Penetrators in a cold war design. So NERA would be optimal.
inderasting
look like
1. face plate 1 inch thick
2. layered plates of some type of metal with at least 3 layers
3. separated by rubber bumpers (?)
4. thin separation plate of metal
5. more metal layered things that are much closer
These appear to be quite soft metal from how bent they are
6. and 7. two armor plates that appear to be different material/grades
the secret sauce is still secret, they took all the ham out of the chob before sending it to ukraine
Bongs taking L after L. This is their prized armor.
Its literally just a m1a1 chasis. Nothing new or significant here.