Russian and Chinese Armour - Page 2

zraver · 05-07-2008, 13:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

Zraver, I spoke about the area of a target (i.e. a face-to-face projection) am is the area which you see in a sight. The area less, the it is more difficult to you to get in it.

Inclined sheets give more resistance APFSDS and to hollow-charge shells. At identical thickness of sheets, at an inclined leaf of the armour - thickness for penetration of shells
L=Li/sin A
Where: Li - true thickness of a leaf
A - corner of an inclination

Look at tower Merkava:

Thus, you have lacks at direct sheets of the armour.

NO and let me repeat my self NO

Cermaics do not use angling to increase thickness as this exposes more tiles to impact force. The point of each tile (about 10cm) is to take all the force before failing and passing the remaining energy on to the tile behind it. Angles allow the shot to skip across the surface of several tiles damaging them creating a wider area for follow on shots to hit. Each tile is individually packaged with both a reinforcing cage and an absorbing material to prevent breakdown via road shock.

The Merkava uses a hybrid armor of both ceramics and German/French style appliqué alloy weaves.

lastdingo · 05-07-2008, 13:22 PM

"ground pressure is function of weight divided by on the gorund track length and width"

I mentioned "MMP" for a purpose. Mean maximum pressure is a much better, widely accepted indicator for the ability to negotiate soft terrain. It does not like nominal ground pressure depend on track area and weight only, but on the mean maximum pressure peaks below the wheels. The quantity of wheels is important.

And btw, the Russian tanks have significantly lower nominal ground pressure as well. They CAN negotiate softer ground and that's what I mentioned.

Weight limits of bridges are also no the same as military bridging classes like MLC70. Many bridges in difficult terrain (like mountains) cannot support heavy tanks - and cannot easily be replaced/upgraded by engineers.
One tank design parameter of the 30's was that many European bridges weren't able to carry heavier than 26 ton tanks. Tanks became heavier in WW2, and many bridges weren't up to the pressure.
The difference between a 40 and a 65 ton tank's road mobility is significant in many countries.

zraver · 05-07-2008, 20:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lastdingo

"ground pressure is function of weight divided by on the gorund track length and width"

I mentioned "MMP" for a purpose. Mean maximum pressure is a much better, widely accepted indicator for the ability to negotiate soft terrain. It does not like nominal ground pressure depend on track area and weight only, but on the mean maximum pressure peaks below the wheels. The quantity of wheels is important.

And btw, the Russian tanks have significantly lower nominal ground pressure as well. They CAN negotiate softer ground and that's what I mentioned.

T-90 .91kg.sqcm 6road wheels
Challenger II .9kg.sqcm 6 road wheels
M1A2 Abrams 1.08 kg.sqcm 7 road wheels
you were saying?

isn't MMP usually used for wheel vehicles? track laying vehicles effectively have just 1 wheel per side.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments	oneman28	International Defense Topics	95	05-07-2008 20:39 PM
Most needed in US NAVY	Praxus	Naval Forces	343	05-05-2008 04:00 AM
For all those stuck in the Cold War..	rickusn	International Defense Topics	2	02-11-2007 02:05 AM
Bangladesh plays the China card	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	136	10-17-2005 10:14 AM
World Naval Rankings	rickusn	Naval Forces	66	03-04-2005 01:11 AM

05-07-2008, 13:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
lastdingo Banished Regular Join Date: 04-29-08 Posts: 48	"ground pressure is function of weight divided by on the gorund track length and width" I mentioned "MMP" for a purpose. Mean maximum pressure is a much better, widely accepted indicator for the ability to negotiate soft terrain. It does not like nominal ground pressure depend on track area and weight only, but on the mean maximum pressure peaks below the wheels. The quantity of wheels is important. And btw, the Russian tanks have significantly lower nominal ground pressure as well. They CAN negotiate softer ground and that's what I mentioned. Weight limits of bridges are also no the same as military bridging classes like MLC70. Many bridges in difficult terrain (like mountains) cannot support heavy tanks - and cannot easily be replaced/upgraded by engineers. One tank design parameter of the 30's was that many European bridges weren't able to carry heavier than 26 ton tanks. Tanks became heavier in WW2, and many bridges weren't up to the pressure. The difference between a 40 and a 65 ton tank's road mobility is significant in many countries.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)