NationStates Jolt Archive

SOV-06 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (Special Operations Vehicle)

http://www.militaryart.com.au/catalog/ASLAV.jpg

A Joint Fluffywuffy/Macabee Project

Armor:
The SOV-06 uses a mass of MEXAS as it’s principle armored system and each SOV-06 has a layer of a full eighteen millimeters of MEXAS armor, giving it an RHA value from 8mms to an extraordinary 2,500mms (for CEs, KE is considerably less), depending on the angle it’s installed at. The MEXAS is covered with a secondary layer of a stitched glass reinforced composite. The matrix resins used are orthophtalic polyester, isophthalic polyester, vinyl ester and epoxy, which are currently used on some Norwegian patrol craft. The hulls are laminated inside and outside with fibre reinforced plastic composed of glass fibre and carbon laminates bound with vinyl ester and polyester resin. A scrimp manufacturing process is used in construction, involving vacuum assisted resin injection. Carbon fibre and carbon loaded materials have been selected for the beams, mast and supporting structures, which need high tensile strength, for example the support structures for the gun and the electro-optical and radar weapon director.
The IFVs glass reinforced secondary layer is not made up of a single brick, or in that case small bricks. Instead, special production plants, built of course for the SOV-06 and the SOV-06 alone, will manufacture this armor, now dubbed ‘GRA’, in sheets which can be applied to the IFV. Meaning, that if the GRA is one part of the IFV is damaged then the IFV wouldn’t have to go through an extensive operation to fix the damage. Instead, a team of mechanics could simply take off the sheet and re-apply a new sheet while the old sheet is ‘recycled’ back home.

Although the layer of glass reinforced armor is not particularly strong against incoming shells or guided missiles it is rather stealthy. This is further enhanced by the application of Wave-X RADAR absorbent material which is like a ‘mother of all’ RAM. It applies honeycomb RAM along with non-broad band RAM which means that the consequent RAM has a very large band and can absorb most types of RADAR without tuning it to a specific type. In total the Wave-X has a frequency range of 100MHz to 6GHz, and the RAM would have a relative thickness of about .05mms. The surface resistivity would be 1MΩ. Moreover, hatches and doors are covered with RAM combs so that they aren’t picked up if said door or hatchet opens.

Weapon Systems:
The SOV-06 uses a 15mm Gatling machine gun which fires 15mm uranium depleted shells as an anti-tank gun and a general urban combat gun, meaning to break down walls or other light vehicles. The SOV-06 also has a secondary 10mm light machine gun for anti-personnel purposes.

A side arm of sorts the SOV-06 also incorporates a beautiful six slot rocket system for ATGMs. The ATGM used would be a new meter long ATGM with a small Octagen warhead but incredible stopping power, including a ‘digging warhead’. Moreover, the velocity at which said ATGM would fly would exceed Mach 4.4, providing it with vast KE energy.

Fire and Control System:
The new fire and control system present on the SOV-06, dubbed 'Brass', is the new top notch of said systems, developed by General Dynamics (Canada) and expanded upon by Macabee engineers. It includes Multi-Role Sensor Suite, Multi-Sensor Integration, Integrated Sensor/TA Suite, Virtual Immersive, Environment (AVTB)\, Neuroholographic ATD/R, Immersive Visualization. Moreover, the new system has both a low altitude RADAR and LIDAR system which has capabilities of tracking and giving firing solutions for up to twenty different targets at up to four thousand meters for the LIDAR and up to eleven thousand meters for the RADAR (although, of course, a gun doesn't necessarily have the power nor the type of shell to reach that far, and of course, that doesn't mean that the area between you and the enemy tank if full of large rocks that can disrupt your shell and its vector). The LIDAR uses a gaussian transmitter, which is right now the most advanced LIDAR transmitter developed by the United States. Of course, this fire and control system also uses thermal imaging, and of course, infra-red imaging.

Engine:
The SOV-06 uses a 700 horsepower diesel engine and on road this gives it a maximum velocity of up to one hundred kilometers per hour, although it will be a rare day that you see the SOV-06 cruising at that speed.

Crew:
The SOV-06 has a crew of three, including a navigator and a driver. However, the IFV has capabilities to transport up to eight personnel, and has space for three wounded soldiers fully stretched out. It also has a proper medical services kit.

Weight: ca. 15 tons

Cost: 4.5 million

[bumping this shizzle up like a motha f----]

(OOC: I think it's not selling because you need a pic. No seriously, I can't read all that. But seriously, good job.)

(OOC: I think it's not selling because you need a pic. No seriously, I can't read all that. But seriously, good job.)

[OOC: But I can't draw worth crap! But I'll try ... :( ]

[OOC: But I can't draw worth crap! But I'll try ... :( ]

(OOC: Draw?! Get a real life pic :P)

(OOC: Draw?! Get a real life pic :P)
[OOC: Meh, but I hate doing that because then people go 'that doesn't resemble your tank! Fee, fi, fo, fum, I am going to spam your thread because it smells of Irish man!' in exactly those words...exactly to those words.]

OOC: 7.62mm DU anti-tank rounds? Um... did you misplace a point there?

OOC: 7.62mm DU anti-tank rounds? Um... did you misplace a point there?

[OOC: No... it was supposed to be the size of a standard NATO assault rifle round..I don't need to power to stop a freakin' Abrams, just the power to blow through a wall.]

[OOC: No... it was supposed to be the size of a standard NATO assault rifle round..I don't need to power to stop a freakin' Abrams, just the power to blow through a wall.]

OOC: Ah, well your wording said "Anti-tank gun", which leads me to assume it's for use against tanks. Although a DU 7.62mm round wouldn't be much different from a normal one because of it's small size, and I doubt it would be very effective against anything more heavily protected then an uparmoured Hummer.

[there, pic added]

So, this thing is armored like main battle tank, by looking those RHA stats?

I'll take 100

A DU round for a 7.62mm weapon is hardly worth it. At that size, the difference in mass is too low for penetration to be improved by much, and if you use a SLAP-type round, the penetrator will be too small to be of much use. The end result is that this is still good only for unarmored and extremely lightly armored vehicles - an uparmored HMMWV should still be relatively well protected against it. Compared with a regular 7.62mm weapon, the only major difference is the cost of the ammunition, which will be notably higher.

For for a kinetic ATGM, Mach 1.5 is pathetically slow. Even a rifle bullet is faster, and kinetic penetrating weapons like the LOSAT, as well as tank rounds, exceed Mach 4. At Mach 1.5, IFVs will be shrugging it off, and don't even bother with tanks. The side and rear armor could likely stop it.

Beyond that, the vehicle is way too light. The only APCs with that kind of weight are four-wheel units with maybe 8-12mm of armor protection. I won't bother with the absurd RHA values, as I know you'll ignore anything I say, but if you want tank level protection, you get tank level weight, and tank level cost.

A 6 tonne IFV with armour 3 times that of any tank IRL and it costs 2,500,000. Right....

looking at his explanation on another thread, that's for CE (aka HEAT) protection only. That 18mm doesn't provide much help against KE weapons. In other words, all it is is a better option compared to ERA, but with its own limitations. However, that doesn't change the fact that there's too much armor on the thing for it to possibly remain in the weight class he insists, especially with the speed he states.

He also deserves extreme criticism for not expressly stating that high figure was for CE protection only, and is irrelevant to the KE rounds fired from most small and intermediate caliber guns. On tanks, it just means they might need to use an APFSDS round, which could be a victory in and of itself.

Protection even against HEAT is still way WAY overrated... that kind of protection against HEAT at that weight level requires mystery tech and is not MT. MEXAS is not that good

Also, anyone else find it kinda counter productive placing advanced and expensive sensor packages on what is a trumped up APC with only a crew of two? Who is responsible for managing all that data gathered? Why make it "stealthy" while it carries active sensors that will give it away anyway?

Hmm...

Anyway, protection levels they get hit by a big slap of IGNORE by me unless rectified (as in tuned down to less than 10% of current values, 150mm RHA equiv against HEAT is alot for so light a vehicle). Remember this one ain't small, it can carry 8 squaddies and their gear, and need buttloads of ammo for that mini.

So, this is a Stryker size vehicle at one quarter the weight, around 50 times the protection levels at less than 1/3 of the cost (Stryker unit price is around $8,7 million)...


Hell, you can make it cost a zillion, its still just not realistic.

[OOC: Ok, so Up the caliber on that chaingun or else it's not worth it? Sounds fine...I'll just make it 15mm or something because I really don't want the recoil a 30mm Avenger gives. On the ATGM, I don't know real life speeds, but I'll up it to Mach 4. I'll also up the weight. On the armor I follow what the pamphlet goes by and I don't plan to put this in the midst of a tank battle so heavy KE rounds I can care less about. This is more of a 'Iraq Freedom' type vehicle, where it faces RPG-7s and junk like that. Also, why the hell would I want to put it's only for CE..it's called marketing... anyways, Clan Smoke Jaguar thanks for the help..for the others thanks for points EXACTLY the same thing he said and just cluttering the thread.]

[OOC: Ok, so Up the caliber on that chaingun or else it's not worth it? Sounds fine...I'll just make it 15mm or something because I really don't want the recoil a 30mm Avenger gives. On the ATGM, I don't know real life speeds, but I'll up it to Mach 4. I'll also up the weight. On the armor I follow what the pamphlet goes by and I don't plan to put this in the midst of a tank battle so heavy KE rounds I can care less about. This is more of a 'Iraq Freedom' type vehicle, where it faces RPG-7s and junk like that. Also, why the hell would I want to put it's only for CE..it's called marketing... anyways, Clan Smoke Jaguar thanks for the help..for the others thanks for points EXACTLY the same thing he said and just cluttering the thread.]

I would REALLY wan't to see that "pamphlet" btw... because the protection level is retarded simply put.


1; Protection level is ludicrous.

2;Price is WAY to low, even "ordinary" APC's cost much more...

And for the "boo-hoo you meanies" stuff... by publicizing your "design" you are acknowledging outside scrutiny and criticism of it.

Suck it up and learn something. :)

[OOC:

Wow, you're just being a dick... you posted exactly the same criticism as Clan Smoke Jaguar and I accepted CSJs and I edited in. What I'm saying is that you should read what other's put before reiterating it again.

MEXAS:


MEXAS density is ~1.7g/cc and reactive elements are reported in the construction with a strenght of 2.5 GPa, not many materials are that strong but Boron Carbide could fit the bill.
B4C has a mass of 2.55g/cc and ME vs shaped charges of ~ 4.0...leading to a space effectiveness of ~ 1.3.

Now a mixture of CaCO/GAP and B4C should have a density of 1.7-1.8 g/cc [2.55g/cc+1.0g/cc ÷2]. Some thing with the density of CaCO/Gap should have an effectiveness of ~ 0.7 [space effectiveness] so a average of B4C & CaCO/GAP should be ~ 1.0 spaced effectiveness...

The ME should be 7.83/1.7= 4.6.

But the CaCO/GAP is reactive and generates a considerable improvement in effectivenes because this reactive forces the steel plates apart...using the VM-11 paper as a guide the ME of steel foam is ~ 3.3 while the value for steel CaCO/GAP is ~ 10.0...meaning this reactivity tripled the effectiveness of the sandwich...

If this same reactivity is applied to the above B4C & CaCO/GAP sandwich we end up with ~ 14:1 Me.

Now in this paper there were reactive elements that were tested with thin explosive layers to enhance the bulging effect on the outer steel plates...these ranged from 4-6 times the base values and if these super reactive forces are applied to the MEXAS model thats 4.6 x 4-6 or ME of 18:1 -28:1.

The paper showed that MEXAS @ 15° offers as much protection as ERA @ 60-70°. If you take Blazer this is two 2-3mm steel plates and a couple of mm of explosives [density ~ 1.8g/cc?]...any way thats ~ 6mm steel mass @ 60-70° or 12-18mm steel...the ME of these ERAs are reported to be ~ 20:1 meaning this resistance is ~ 240-350mm. Thus MEXAS with a steel mass of ~ 7mm is as effective as >250mm RHAe or a ME of 36:1!!!!

Heres the crunch...studies of bulging plates show that plate speed is the key. Well if the above chemical reactive forces can 'bulge' a plate sufficently to tripple quadruple its effectiveness , image how effective they would be on a small ceramic [B4C ]nugget? Rosenberg and Dekel wrote several papers on the parameters of this bulging prossess...it was clear that if you increases the interlayer or reduced the thickness of the outer steel plate [mass], the plate bulging velocity shot up [going from 200-800m/s in some cases].

Could be that instead of tripple its 6-8 times the ME against shaped charges? That would be an ME of ~ 32-37 .

KE resistance would suck...incomparison but it could still be overall very effective against small diameter projectiles....

------------------------------


A recent paper in the Int.J.Impact Engng [Vol26,pp831-841] Webber et al ,examined the KE resistance of layered ceramics [AiN] with thin interlayers [PMMA] mounted on RHA. In these test the resistance of AiN compared to RHAe [~400BHN]was tested ....these targets had plate diameters to the subscale penetrator diameters of 9:1 to 14:1, which is very close to what I believe the approxiamte ceramic dimensions are in modern tanks armor.

In the tests the reference RHAe penetration was 90mm while the block of AiN resistance was 0.98 Te [thickness effectiveness]. That means 10cm of AiN could be expected to offer the equivellent of 98mm RHA. When the same thickness of ceramic was divided into thinner plates [change t/d from 7:1 to 0.6:1]. The resistance went from 0.98 Te to 0.9 showing that large reduction in t/d reduces resistance only by 9%. When the same target had thin plexiglas sheets added inbetween each of the 12 thin ceramic plates, the resistance was reduced to 0.86 T/d.

This is a reduction of 12%, but with the dilution of the target with lower density interlayers [ 3.26g/cc for AiN & 1.2g/cc for PMMA], the effective resistance over all didn't change much.Because thicker over all array could be constructed with the same armor mass.

If 10cm of steel mass was devoted to the insert effectives, a straight AiN insert would amount to 24cm thick, with a overall KE resistance of ~23.6cm RHAe. If the same armor mass was devoted to a AiN /Plexiglas multi layered target [2.98 g/cc average density], then the array thickness increases to 26cm .The effectiveness over all is reduced to 22.6cm RHAe...this is a reduction in resistance to ~96%.

So why is this practice reported to be done? Firstly the paper reports that constructing ceramics in blocks thick enough for heavy tank targets is very expensice. If the same thickness was composed of thinner plates this would reduce cost considerably. Since armor is secondary to firepower/FCS cost , this is not a small consideration.

In addition these targets where struck at normal impact angles, at angle the resistance may improve. In a paper from the institute @ Chobham [Hohler etal int.J.Impact Engng Vol-26 , pp 333-344] , layered ceramic targets @ 0° & 60° showed that atleast for subscale models, the @ 60° layered ceramic [Alumina AD-97] steel target resistance was higher than the same LOS target thickness @ 0° impact angle. In otherwards something in the layering at angle helps to defeat long rod penetrators.

However there may be another reason why multilayers with interlayers is practiced ,because it improves shaped charge resistance.

In a paper by Hornemann & Holzwarth [Int.J.Impact Engng Vol 20,pp375-386], various layered ceramic steel targets where fired on by 5cm subscale shaped charge warheads .In these tests at normal impact angle the reference penetration into RHA was 216mm while the optimum ceramic [AD-92]/steel resistance was 116mm suggesting an overall Te of 1.8 RHAe. Another target was the same construction with a rubber layer inbetween each ceramic tile [ ratio 1 rubber to 6 ceramic , similar to the AiN tests mentioned above].In this target the resistance worked out to 1.73 Te [125mm].The cross sectional density of the two different arrays was 3.5g/cc and 3.2g/cc, thus if we had 10cm of steel mass for an insert the straight AD-92 target could offer 22cm ceramic thickness for an effectiveness of ~40cm RHAe. The Ceramic Rubber target should have a thickness of 24cm and an effectiveness of ~42cm RHAe.Thats about a 5% improvement in resistance.


----------------------

VM-04 "Analysis of Active Protection system: When Athena meets Arena" Wey , Fleck & Chanteret.
Reportedly Arena was first introduced in 1992 and it incorperates
A MM wave radar for incoming missile detection
32 x'focused grenade' for hitting inbound missile
A control unit.
An accompanging diagram shows radar scanns 50m radius around tank from mast mounted MMwave radar and intercept occurs a few meters from the tank.

Simulation of this shows a 150mm grenade is needed to get sufficent 'spray of fragments' powerfull enough to destroy a missile.. In theory a single fragement hit should generate 70% kill while two hits should accumulate a 90% hit chance.

Further simulation reveals that % of hits as follows

narrow azimuth and wide azimuth simulations where tried with a grenade detonated with to cover a 10° azimuth angle with no repeats while the second grenade covered 20° allowing two grenades to cover each sector with drop in intercept probablity.

The results are below...

chance of a hit on a missile approaching


Hull Turret from the azimuth in question.

Single 10° 85%[4.8m 4 fragments] 90%[2.6m 10 fragments]
overlaping 20° 50%[5.5m 1 fragment] 90%[2.1m 6 fragments]

Clearly some precise detonation is needed since a change of detonation angle reduces the number of fragments dramatically [ ~ 3-4 fragments] and lower hit chance... 1 fragmemt = 50% over hull compared to 4 fragments resulting in 85% hit.

These are the results of lab simulations [controlled] and battlefield conditions should bring these figures down dramatically.For example its reported that this system doubles the effectiveness of the tank...which can be interpeted as 50% hit chance against incoming missiles.This is probably a good ball park figure to work with when estiamting the effectiveness of these active defence systems.

In WM-01 "Active Protection against KE-rounds and shaped charges at short distance" M- Held, reports that Droz only covers 40°either side of the gun while Arena covers 340°

VM-14 "Defeating Active Defence Systems by Double firing of missiles." M-Held, reports that Drost fragment covers only ± 0.5m meter area while Arena is ± 2m either side of the grenade direction.

Held also notes that the sensor will have dead time thats 1-3 seconds that can't get a detection so firing two missiles from the same launcher should be an effective way to ensure second missile reaches target.[Alternatively two launch systems within 10m of each other can diplicate this if some precise system can 'similtaneously fire' the missiles].Held estiamtes that if the system is automated it can place the second missile 20m behind the first giving enough seperation to clear the debri field before impacting the target, stationary or on the move.

Held suspects that BMP with 'Khrizantema' missile system may well already have this capability.



------------------------

In a paper recently published in the Int.J.Impact Engng [Vol-26 pp 735-744] A group of Russian researchers [Svirsky etal from Russian Federal Nuclear Center] studied the effects of spaced armor on 120mm 100mm & 46mm shaped charges....the results are quite surprising!

They analyse post penetration xrays radio graqphs of thin spaced plates and found the same large post penetration jet disruption zone that I reported about before [ the 14mm thick steel aluminum sandwhich causing a 28-30cm disruption zone in the jet]. They report this segment of the jet has very poor penetration.

Any way they tested 120mm shaped charge against a spaced armor target with 200mm steel in three plates @ 7 CD standoff and measured the residual penetration at 77-80% of the reference penetration. Which wasn't given, but it should have be 840mm, thus Pexp should be 65-67cm.So the array offer 19-17cm or 0.85 to 0.95 LOS thickness. Not very good idea!

The next test was a 100mm shaped charge fired at a 38mm spaced steel aluminum array @ 5.8 total diameters standoff, infront of RHA semifinite target . This resulted again in 80% reduction of penetration into the reference material. Again assuming 7 CD reference penetration, the spaced plates accounted for 132mm of RHA [ 132/35 ] , so the array was ~ 3.8 times as effective as its LOS/Te values suggest.Not bad at all and consistant with previous findinds [~ 3 x LOS for spaced a single steel plate].

Next target was a 100mm shaped charge fired at a 62mm two plate spaced steel array @ 6.8 total diameters standoff . This resulted about 70% reduction of penetration into the reference material. Again assuming 7 CD reference penetration, the spaced plates accounted for 204mm of RHA [ 204/62 ] , so the array was ~ 3.2 times as effective as its LOS/Te values suggest.

Finally they tested 46mm shaped charge @ 2.2 CD standoff into RHA and got a penetration of 157±7mm ( 3 shots) [ 70° copper cone 1mm thick liner , with a 6.6 km/s tip V and 350mm break up distance].Next the placed a 1mm plate 0.5d from the reference RHAe and this reduced the penetration to an astonishing 124±5mm penetration[ 3 shots]....again about a 20% reduction in penetration.

It seems that the average resistance offered by a spaced armor array -reguardless of its thickness - is about 22% average reduction in modern shaped charge penetration [20-30% range].Infact it seems to suggest that the thicker the spaced plate the less effective it is at defeating shaped charges.

This effect is confirmed by Hornemann & Holzwarth [ Int.J.Impact Engng- Vol 20 pp 375-386]. The reference penetration against a straight RHA target was 215mm while penetration into spaced target with 72mm thick spaced plate was 200mm and a similar target with 20mm spaced plate resulted in a penetration of 195mm ...in other words the 72mm spaced plate accounted for 87mm resistance [1.2 x LOS] , while the 20mm plate resulted in 40mm resistance [ 2 x LOS].

So all those thin boxes and side skirts placed on the sides and rear of AFVs do offer a considerable increase in resistance. Check out Chieftain tank, by Mk 13 the side profile is >80% covered in boxes and side skirts and Still brew... Thus even the side turret [ 15cm RHA ] should be able to boost the resistance against basic RPG-7 , by 6cm to ~ 21cm....assuming those boxes are empty.The above test figures are for modern jets where increase in the standoff alone should not reduce penetration atall. But early RPG -7 was 'none precision jet' so with the standoff this should increase resistance by ~2 diameter or + 15cm , bringing the average side turret resistance to ~ 36cm.

Against a 'precision charge' [RPG-7V],the resistance should be down ~22cm due to lack of any significant standoff reduction at this level. However if the storage boxes are full of material with an average density of plastic that should bring the total side turret resistance to ~ 35cm . Only difference is that it should be equally effective against both 'precision and none precision' jets .


Despite the impressive reduction in penetration provided by the most energetic armour, the residual penetration is still enough to penetrate the underlying hull armour any of the APC/IFVs out there. So RPGs will be able to penetrate MEXAS type targets with 73mm warheads (a mere 365 mm basic penetration in this case, right?), let alone the many generations of improved grenade that followed.

Damage will be mitigated, compared to the unprotected vehicle, but it will happen nonetheless, and it doesn't take very much residual RHA piercing power to kill a soldier, or detonate stowed ammunition in the path of the jet.

Definitely looking forward to those papers!

I agree with you premise how ever the way I understand it the current armor is probably resistant to most RPG-7V strikes...thats to say if Herr Diesenroth figure are to be taken at face value , the 20mm Mexas applique @ 10-20o is as effective as ERA @ 60o. In the other paper the 14mm ERA @ 60o offered > 11 times the LOS resistance so this suggest MExas @ 10-20o offers at least the same.

Thats LOS 21-22mm x 11.25 = 24-25cm...add the base armor [~ 15mm RHAe] = ~ 26cm RHAe. From the other paper on liners a simple thin PE liner should reduce kill % 10%, while other papers in that symposium suggest better materials will do better [ ~ 20%?] thats an additional 4-7cm possible resistance. This brings the potential side hull resistance up to 30-33cm from straight on ....from 30o off angle [ more likely case] thats 35-38cm effective RHAe.

OK I realize this is mostly calculation, but if this is totally correct it means a 16,000-17,000kg AFV can have the allround protection of a 55 ton Chieftain [ with all those lovely storage boxes and skirting plates]....any way you cut it thats a considerable increase!


----------------------

In another paper on various energetic armors [TB61 Combination of inert and energetic materials in reactive armor against shaped charge jets . Holzwarth & Weimann] , they test fired 73mm jets into various energetic armors mounted ahead of a 230BHN semi infinite target and the following figures where generated.All arrays were 2mm steel 10mm interlayer 2mm steel and the angle of array was 60°, thus the array LOS was 28mm.

Preference DOP = 365mm thus difference /28mm = array RHAe
S-rubber-S = 280mm = 3 x LOS thickness
S-GAP-S = 280mm = 3 x LOS thickness
S-Gap+R-S = 250mm = 4.1 x LOS thickness
S-Gap-exp-S = 190-120mm = 6.2- 8.8 x LOS thickness

S=Steel
GAP=polymer
Gap+R= GAP + CaCO3 or GZT
Gap+exp = GAP + explosive

Now it was shown that the GAP material is forced to undergo a additional chemical reaction when a small layer [1mm] of explosive is involved resulting in P of 150-170mm or a thickness effectivness of 6.6 to 7.7. This is much more than the GAP with the CaCO3 , which generates some gas bubbles in the array, which under the pressure of impact enhance the distruption of the jet.

I can only conclude that the Mexas must have found a way of doing this same kind of thing without the thin explosive layer!

Its becoming apparent that in addition to the bulging of the plates ,the expanding gases in the ERA sandwich maybe interfering with the jet as well.


------------------------

American 76mm M-32 gun with M464 APFSDS round ; This is 1.63 kg tungsten alloy penetrator with a MV of 1400m/s with a Vdrop probably similar to M-500 round of 76m/s/km with an L/d of 15:1 and a diameter of 20.6mm or 309mm length . Such a rod would be 103cc volume or 1.80 kg @ 17.5 g/cc density, but if the nose and tail had a ‘truncated form’ the volume could be reduced to the 93-95cc volume that a 1.66kg , close to the 1.63 suggest weight . Using Andersons the values are – 0.74 [ L/d effect] , x 1.16 [scaling] and plus 1. 2 d semi infinite conversion @ 0° and 2.4 d @ 60°….that’s + 24mm & + 48mm and the 60° penetration is a line of sight penetration. Going on these imputes the penetration should be …


Muzzle [ 1400 m/s] = 0.84 x 31cm = 28 cm ± 4cm @ 0° & 31cm ± 4cm @ 60°
1000m [ 1324 m/s] = 0.745 x 31cm = 25cm ± 4cm @ 0° & 28cm ± 4cm @ 60°
2000m [ 1248 m/s] = 0.65 x 31cm = 23cm ± 3cm @ 0° & 25cm ± 4cm @ 60°
3000m [ 1172 m/s] = 0.56 x 31cm = 20cm ± 3cm @ 0° & 22cm ± 3cm @ 60°


So the T-62/55 tanks and the lighter armor of most early model T-64/80 Russian tanks, can be dealt with @ 1-2km unless covered by ERA elmemets.

Not sure why the website has different name than JANES but they got the ammo figures wrong

Projectile weight.....................52 Kg (5.54 lb)

52kg????, even if its 5.2kg , that should be ~ 11.44 lb.

But NATO Triple heavy plate @ 57° is a different target, usually its @ 65°.

NATO Triple heavy targets Vs 21mm diameter APFSDS should be
x 10mm [ @ 412-438 kp/mm² ]+330 air +25mm [@ 100-122 kp/mm² ] +330 air +80mm, [@ 308-353 kp/mm² ] .

Thats 1cm SHS [ 1.2Te x 0.6 (t/d)] + 2.5cm Mild steel [0.8 Te x 0.88 (t/d)] + 8cm Heavy RHA [1.1 Te x 0.95 (t/d)] ...0.72+1.76 +8.36 = 10.84 @ 57°[/0.5446]= 19.9cm plus spaced plate effect. This should be an average of 1 rod diameter per spaced plate or + 41mm [ ~ 24cm]....

But with such a health air gap between plates the yaw of the attacking rod should be a factor. What little data I have suggests the yaw will be about ~ 1/COS² of the impact angle [57° ~ 0.5446 or 1/0.5446² = 3.4 times] .Since the average impact yaw 0.5 to 2° , this suggests 2-7° Yaw through the spaced plates. Given a 15:1 L/d thats a 'critical yaw' of ~2.3 or 1-3 times the Critical yaw, for a loss of 3-20% or additional 0.5-3 rod diameters. [Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-12 pp 281-292]


Thats about 24.5-30cm approximate resistance for the NATO triple heavy plate @ 57° or an average of 27± 3cm RHAe against that projectile.



--------------------------


If a steel spaced plate is 0.2 t/d [5/8 inch = 2 inch] of a steel attacking AP type projectile, then this will decap the APC/APCBC projectile. This will end up offering 1.2 times the LOS resistance for the spaced plate arrangement, thus a 5/8 inch spaced plate and a 1.87 inch LOS thickness of plate should offer 2.25 inches of RHA resistance. If the threat is a WC core APDS/HVAP with a steel sheath this should offer ~ 1.5 times the LOS resistance while aluminum sheathed WC cores appear to result in 1.7-1.8 times the LOS resistance.

2 inch Steel APC = 1.2 x 1.87 inches or ~ 2.25 inches armor. [+ 0.2d] 1 x t/d .
2 inch Steel-WC HVAP/APDS = 1.5 x 1.87 = 2.8 inches armor. [ + 0.5d] 2 x t/d .
2 inch Aluminum-WC HVAP/APDS = 1.7-1.8 x 1.87 = 3.2- 3.4 inches armor. [+ 0.66-0.76 d] 3.3-4 x t/d.


1 inch Steel APC Vs t/d 0.625d [x 1] + 1.87 inches x 1.33 ~ 2.5 inches armor.[ + 0.6d = 1 x t/d]
1 inch Steel-WC HVAP/APDS Vs t/d 0.625 [2 x ] = 1.66 x 1.87 inches or ~ 3.1 inches armor.[+ 1.23d = 2 x t/d]
1 inch Aluminum-WC HVAP/APDS Vs t/d 0.625 [4 x] 2.35 x 1.87 inches or ~ 4.4 inches armor.[+ 2.0d = ~ 3.3 x t/d]

The above is interesting because the sharp tip of a ogive penetrator only appears to add 0.5d to the projectile L/d, so clearly the damage to the penetrator goes far beyond the disintegration of the tip.


Looking at modern APFSDS work , the spaced plate will offer a certain amount of rod shortning since its reported that at least one rod diameter is lost due to exiting the rear of each spaced plate. "When the target 'fails', that is there is perforation,the projectile no longer encounters and further resistance but projectile erosion continues some microseconds because of the large residual stresses in the plastic zone". [2001 Int Symp on Ballistic- TB-16].

In a test shot 16.5mm diameter 30:1 L/d WHA where fired at 1.8kms per second @ a spaced plate series of 6 x 19mm [340 BHN] RHA spaced plates infront of a witness plate. When the penetrator struck this arrangement it penetrated ~ 444mm of spaced plate and back up armor set back at an angle of 65°.

Had the penetrator struck a straight single block of 340 BHN RHA @ the same angle this should have generated a LOS penetration of ~ 533mm . Thus the difference [444-533 = 99mm/6= 16.5mm per plate], was an additional +1d [rod diameter] resistance for each spaced plate in the armor array.


-----------------

Light weight armor is being developed that can proof most AFVs against 7.62mm & 12.7mm AP shots that hardly adds much to the vehicles mass. The armor against 7.62mm would be 1/6 inch steel mass while armor mass needed to proof against 12.7mm is ~ ¼ inch steel mass. In the Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-19,pp 361-379 thin plates of aluminum and ABS sheets are sandwiched between ultra thin sheets of aluminm arranged perpedicular to the outer sandwich plates in a honey comb and wave pattern ‘flexcore’. This sandwich arrangement is shown to boost resistance 15-70% over the sum of resistance the individual elements show.


outer sheets
12.7mm vs 2x 1.5mm ABS 2x 0.8mm AL 2x 1.6mm AL
Flat 20m/s 50m/s 60 m/s
Conical 20m/s 50m/s 50m/s

6.35mm Vs 2x 1.5mm ABS 2x 0.8mm AL 2x 1.6mm AL
Flat 45m/s 60m/s 130 m/s
Conical 50m/s 65m/s 140m/s


While the insert 16mm insert offered

12.7mm Flexcore Honeycomb
Flat 15-20m/s 20- 30m/s
Conical 10-20m/s 30-40m/s
6.35mm Vs Flexcore Honeycomb
Flat 30m/s 20-30m/s
Conical 10-15m/s 10-15m/s


Thus the sum of the parts and the actual ballistic limit with the noted increase in effectiveness is below.
12.7mm conical AP shot vs 2 x 1.6mm AL & 16mm flexcore = 70-80m/s , when BL is 90m/s = + 20-30% density = 0.49g/cc
12.7mm conical AP shot vs 2 x 0.8mm AL & 16mm flexcore = 70-80m/s , when BL is 50m/s = - 30-40% density = 0.39g/cc
12.7mm conical AP shot vs 2 x 1.5mm ABS & 16mm flexcore = 35-40m/s , when BL is 39-41m/s = same density = 0.2g/cc


The sum of the parts and the actual ballistic limit with the noted increase in effectiveness is below.
12.7mm flat AP shot vs 2 x 1.6mm AL & 16mm flexcore = 75-80m/s , when BL is 119m/s = + 50-60% density = 0.49g/cc
12.7mm flat AP shot vs 2 x 0.8mm AL & 16mm flexcore = 65-70m/s , when BL is 62m/s = - 05-10% density = 0.39g/cc
12.7mm flat AP shot vs 2 x 1.5mm ABS & 16mm flexcore = 35-40m/s , when BL is 40m/s = same ; density = 0.2g/cc
A similar mass 3.8mm thick steel target should offer a BL of ~ 170m/s to a 12.7mm flat steel shot.


Thus the sum of the parts and the actual ballistic limit with the noted increase in effectiveness is below.
6.35mm conical AP shot vs 2 x 1.6mm AL & 16mm flexcore = 140-145m/s , when BL is 195m/s = + 35-40% density = 0.49g/cc
6.35mm conical AP shot vs 2 x 0.8mm AL & 16mm flexcore = 75-80m/s , when BL is 114m/s = + 40-50% density = 0.39g/cc
6.35mm conical AP shot vs 2 x 1.5mm ABS & 16mm flexcore = 60-65m/s , when BL is 67m/s = same density = 0.2g/cc


6.35mm flat AP shot vs 2 x 1.6mm AL & 16mm flexcore = 160m/s , when BL is 180m/s = + 12% density = 0.49g/cc
6.35mm flat AP shot vs 2 x 0.8mm AL & 16mm flexcore = 80m/s , when BL is 110m/s = + 37% density = 0.39g/cc
6.35mm flat AP shot vs 2 x 1.5mm ABS & 16mm flexcore = 75m/s , when BL is 68m/s = - 10% density = 0.2g/cc


So inorder to stop a 12.7mm Sharp AP at point blank range you would require > 11 times the 0.49 density thick array ~ 5.5g/cc or 21cm thick array or a 7mm steel mass. A similar penetration against RHA should result in armor of ~ 35mm , which gives the armor a mass efficiency of ~5 . [Te of 0.17]

To stop a 12.7mm flat head Shot , would require almost 9 times the thickness or 16cm thick array with a steel mass of 4.3g/cc or ~5mm steel mass.

So in order to stop a 6.35mm Sharp AP at point blank range you would require > 5 times the 0.49 density thick array ~ 2.6g/cc or 10cm thick array or a 3mm steel mass. A similar penetration against RHA should result in armor of ~15- 16mm , which gives the armor a mass efficiency of >5. [Te of ~ 0.16]

To stop a 6.35mm flat head Shot , would require almost 6 times the thickness or 11cm thick array with a steel mass of 2.8g/cc or ~4mm steel mass.


It seems the bigger the diameter of the shot the more efficient the armor becomes and it seems that from studies of the damage around the impact point the array displaces the impact energy along the flexcore members. Truth is this should also be a fairly mass effective armor against continuous jet shaped charges.In studies of shaped charge penetration of low density materials a density should result in the 21cm array offering ~13cm HEAT , while 16cm array should offer ~10cm HEAT resistance and a 10cm array should offer ~5cm HEAT protection against semi particulated jet.

------------------------

Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA)

The traditional flyer plate explosive filled ERA. Its main CE jet defeat mechanisms are jet erosion, jet deflection, and jet rotation (i.e. in the pitch and yaw axes, not the roll axis). Against KE rounds its performance varies depending on the number of plates. If it only has a front flyer plate and an immobile back-plate it defeats by deflection, rotation, and fracture of the rod. An X-ray shows a medium caliber rod broken 1/3 of the way along its length, and bent at a 20-30 degree angle around that point. However, if the ERA has front and rear flyer plates the defeat mechanisms also include erosion. X-rays of this configuration show the rod being reduced to an angled stream of crushed fragments on the far side of the rear flyer-plate.

Upside: Of all the types they describe they rate it as the "most effective proven technologies against CE and KE munitions". It's inexpensive, easy to make, and has good multi-hit capability in modular configurations.

Downside: It's full of explosive, which leads to user uneasiness, and high costs of storage, logistics, security, etc. It has a high weight burden if the vehicle needs reinforcement to handle the explosion.

Self-Limiting Explosive Reactive Armour (SLERA)

Apparently flyer-plate type armour, like ERA, but with less violent explosive material.

Upside: Comparable performance to ERA, but with less effect on vehicle, "extremely insensitive explosive material", good modular multi-hit configuration, inexpensive and easy to fabricate.

Downside: Still has explosive in it, with all its bad PR, and it's not as effective as fully detonable explosives. Considered unproven technology.

Non-Energetic Reactive Armour (NERA)

These are the plate-bulging armours. Defeat mechanisms are jet erosion, deflection, and rotation.

Upside: "Very effective against CE munitions", pasive, easy on vehicle structure, excellent multihit capability vs CE, easy modular integration, and inexpensive and easy to make.

Downside: "Configurations tested to date not effective vs. KE rounds", although they are trying to make them work against medium caliber KE. (i.e. autocannons)

Interestingly, they show a picture of an array set up for testing, composed of 6 double layered plates held apart by impromptu spacers. They label it "Khafji Armor".

Non-Explosive Reactive Armour (NxRA)

Apparently a slightly more violent version of plate-bulging NERA-type armours. Defeat mechanisms are, once again, jet erosion, deflection, and rotation.

Upside: "More effective than NERA vs. CE munitions", good multi-hit capability vs CE, easy modular integration, inexpensive and easy to fabricate.

Downside: Believed to be not effective vs KE rounds (implying they haven't checked yet, it seems).


I find it interesting that despite the desire to find safer, milder forms of reactive armour, the best performance is still given by the explosively driven versions. It seems that nothing substitutes for a fast, violent, massive interaction with the incoming threat.

[OOC: Ok, so Up the caliber on that chaingun or else it's not worth it? Sounds fine...I'll just make it 15mm or something because I really don't want the recoil a 30mm Avenger gives. On the ATGM, I don't know real life speeds, but I'll up it to Mach 4. I'll also up the weight. On the armor I follow what the pamphlet goes by and I don't plan to put this in the midst of a tank battle so heavy KE rounds I can care less about. This is more of a 'Iraq Freedom' type vehicle, where it faces RPG-7s and junk like that. Also, why the hell would I want to put it's only for CE..it's called marketing... anyways, Clan Smoke Jaguar thanks for the help..for the others thanks for points EXACTLY the same thing he said and just cluttering the thread.]
You should put that because, unlike IRL, this thing works how people think it works, not how the laws of physics dictate. This means that either people go with the misconception, godmoded view because they dont know better (which is unfair on the opponent of whoever is using this) or they spend ages arguing about it's ub3rarm0ur 'o d00m. Personally I'd prefer you just told the truth and saved a lot of time in RPs.

You just need to make it very clear that MEXAS isn't that effective against KE rounds (I would't find it suprising, though I am not an engineer, for a .50 calibre weapon to pierce the skin of this vehicle, or at least a 25mm cannon like the Bradley has.)

[OOC: I did so, it's in parentisis. Again, this wasn't designed to be in armored battles or the such, just to transport infantry... in my RPs I would most likely give it some type of armored support, even if I use the light TIoR tanks.]

Okay, this is getting pretty good, and I'll just add a few things:

1) As stated, you must always state exact things. You can emphasize the information as being OOC, but you cannot leave it out completely, or you could be promoting godmodding as in this case. If a player will refuse to purchase your vehicles because of an OOCly noted weakness, then that's a person you don't want using your vehicle. All it takes is one foolish godmodder to leave an irreperable stain on your unit, which you don't want.

2) Regarding the gun, the penetration of the M903 12.7mm SLAP round is stated as being 19mm at a range of 1500m, compared to 11mm for a standard AP round at the same range. That in mind, a 15mm gun should probably manage somewhere in the range of 35-50mm of RHA penetration, or sufficient for engaging most IFVs and APCs. That would make it an effective weapon.
However, remember that this will still be bulky, equivalent in size to a shorter-barreled 40-45mm gun in overall dimensions. The turret needed and the complexity of the gun will increase cost to a notable degree as well.

3) For the missile, the LOSAT, which is a kinetic kill missile I expect to be somewhat comparable to this in many ways, has a maximum speed of around 1500 m/s, which is about Mach 4.4 at sea level.

4) According to the information you've given, I can see in the range of 750-800mm protection for 18mm of MEXAS (which falls close to what's noted on that first paper), but many players probably won't accept too much beyond that, considering the nature of the armor. However, that much protection is sufficient for the vast majority of infantry-fired antitank systems, with only certain ATGMs exceeding that. If you want better, tweaking the thickness should help a bit, and a more suitable composition will boost it a bit, but I still wouldn't put it past 1000mm of CE protection, when it's all said and done. Of course, there's also the armor underneath that, which will bring it to the point that only the best ATGMs would stand a chance of penetrating successfully. There are few weapons that exceed 1000mm.

5) The weight and price are pretty solid with the updates, and hold up well against other IFVs. The cost here is in the range of very high-end units, and about where it should be. Simple APCs only cost a few hundred thousand, and most IFVs are in the $2-3.5 million range.

[Although I don't want to help clutter up the thread for this little weapon, I feel I must explain what I intend to use this thing as. Though The Macabees may or may not use it for the same purpose, my intention is covert-ops. Drop a couple behind enemy lines and exterminate whatever targets I feel neccesary. Generals, the President, the Secret Research Project, whatever. It's not meant to fight a tank, really. Not really even other IFVs. It's main mission is just getting its team to the location and operating as a moving heavy machine gun. When the team achieves its objectives, it gets the heck out of there via whatever means possible.]

(OOC: You do realize that half of NS doesn't even know what you're talking about, including me.)

Alright, so I think I got everything down..I put down the armored rating and I understand the repurcussions of the 15mm gun.

STILL 2.5 meters of CE RHAe in some places... since the coefficient described in the text was 20 at most (exaggerated value using partial and incomplete algorithms to make a "point" btw), this would lead to a mass equivalent of 125mm of steel.

That is comparative thickness and mass requirement to T-55 glacis armour...

Since the volume that need to be protected is larger than that of a T-55 I'd say that the area protected by the "high" value is really small, such as one hub-cap, while the average is a lot closer to the lower value.

Just go on pretending to understand your "pamphlet" and armour, its quite amusing actually.

As for me being a "dick", well, I'm not the one resorting to Ad Hominem, so I'll let other decide. ;)

But hey, to each their own. I'll let you pretend you "you got it down", know what you're talking about and drive around in your imagined dream-APC that won't work due to faulty specs and crew overload.


Just some advice you'd be better off learning.

1; Accept criticism for what it is instead of getting all puffed upp and whiney, thats immature.

2; Can the Ad Hominem, they're immature.

3; Kill your darlings.


Cheers! ;)

"Dick" signing out. :rolleyes:

I agree that 2.5m is a bit much, and won't cover much of the vehicle. However, if you read the first paper he quotes off, you'll note that it says that the coefficient of 20 is for Blazer (aka ERA) armor. The coefficient for MEXAS is about twice that, being 36+. Thus 18mm of MEXAS should provide protection of at least 650mm at optimum angles. This means that any area covered by MEXAS should have an RHA value of somewhere in the range of 650-700mm against HEAT warheads (when counting the armor underneath), even on the sides and rear. That will render it essentially impervious to most infantry ATGMs; many aircraft and vehicle fired ATGMs; and virtually all rocket, recoilless rifle, and tank-fired HEAT warheads. That alone is a major achievement, though traditional vulnerable points such as the gun, turret ring, and drive system will still be potential mission kill points.

However, on the other hand, the KE armor protection, as I'm reading it, will leave the vehicle vulnerable to many heavy machine guns and anti-material rifles, especially nastier units like the KPV, BRG-15, IWS-2000 and the 14.5mm version of the NTW-20. Grenade launchers, including the Mk.19, AGS-17, and OCSW automatic, and the multitude of single shot and revolving weapons, would also be capable of sending in serious hurt. All of those weapons are employed by infantry, use kinetic penetration, and can easily be found even in rear areas.


In the end, this strikes me more as a counter-insurgency unit, where the opponent may get cheaper RPGs and recoilless rifles, as well as some ad-hoc light armored vehicles (ie armor plates on latched onto a truck or bus), but is unlikely to have many grenade launchers and large-caliber weapons, for reasons not only of cost and logistics, but weight and bulk.



And Footpads, I understand The Macabees reaction to some of the criticism mentioned here. He has little that's wrong with constructive criticism, but just saying something's wrong without saying why is quite annoying, as is repeating the same thing over and over. It's for those reasons that I try to give explanations and alternatives, and either hit things that others missed or failed to properly explain.
The Macabees also tends to be very protective of his armor schemes and their nature, as he does an extensive amount of research and puts a lot of effort into them. For that reason, I tend to let things go a little further than I might otherwise. At least he's making a genuine effort. And he's certainly come a long way from what I saw in his earlier units so long ago.