Path: spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!nf3.bellglobal.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!wesley.videotron.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!gemini.tycho.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Approved: sci-military-moderated@retro.com Return-Path: news@google.com Delivery-Date: Fri Feb 22 21:48:11 2002 Delivery-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:48:11 -0800 for <sci-military-moderated@retro.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:48:10 -0800 (PST) for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:30:17 -0800 (PST) for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:30:16 -0800 for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:30:15 -0800 for sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:30:13 -0800 To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org From: psl@interchange.ubc.ca (Paul Lakowski) Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated Subject: Re: Effectiveness of HESH against modern armor Date: 22 Feb 2002 21:30:10 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <de5bf54f.0202222130.50cc4d86@posting.google.com> References: <3c672d5.0202201603.64165060@posting.google.com> <a545le0224l@enews1.newsguy.com> <da4a16f.0202220937.768221f1@posting.google.com> <t7ad7uo8q0i30bg785n1itb3ln6gsrue7e@4ax.com> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.23.94.69 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com X-NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Feb 2002 05:30:12 GMT Content-Length: 2926 Lines: 59 NNTP-Posting-Host: 96d17025.newsreader.tycho.net X-Trace: 1014447110 gemini.tycho.net 79557 205.179.181.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tycho.net Xref: spln sci.military.moderated:43021 Colin Campbell <colinc@linkline.com> wrote in message news:<t7ad7uo8q0i30bg785n1itb3ln6gsrue7e@4ax.com>... > On 22 Feb 2002 09:37:10 -0800, Psl@interchange.ubc.ca (Paul Lakowski) > wrote: > > > >Whats the URL to view this discussion group.....I must say that claims > >about the M-1A2 armor being the best or most ,are usually flag waving > >contest! > > Just remember that nobody knows the truth for certain. Every country > that uses composite armor keeps the recipe a tightly guarded secret - > and do not even tell their allies. 'Export' versions of these tanks > will have an armor package that is different from the domestic > version. (Not necessarily a less effective package, but different > enough that weapons optimized to penetrate the 'export' armor will not > have the same effectiveness on the domestic version.) > > All this aside (gotta wave the flag myself) the armor on the US M1 > series is the only version proven to stop enemy penetrators in combat. Yes no one knows for sure ....but:-) I have scores of open source research papers from APG, Rafeal [israel], DERA [chobham facility], EMI and many more locations [Including China and Korea and Russia] that all study long rod impact of modern armor .....And guess what , the're modern armor is all the same, and all the projectiles are the same...so unless theres some massive multi cultural conspiricy going on around the world , I suggest these are the real thing. This is even more likely ,when one realizes that each of these many many test shot cost $10,000 dollars and a single data point cost > $100,000 to generate. Again if these are not 'real targets' then alot of governments around the world are wasting millions upon billions of reseach dollars on a cleverly concocked conspiricy. I doubt the M-1 or LEO-2 front turret contains any spaced plates...more likely there sandwich construction.Infact LEO-2 front turret cavity has been photoed and has no spacers at all [normally associated with spaced armor]. Turret of M-1 is 23 tons and the internal volume is 5.5m^3, while the LEO-2 turret weights 19.4 tons and has a volume of 4.5m^3 ...thus to a first approximation the LE0-2 turret has slightly more armor mass than M-1A1 turret. This advantage is multiplied by the fact that LEO-2 front turret occupies a smaller profile than M-1A1 front turret [~1.67mē for LEO-2 compared to ~2.5mē M-1A1].Thus the LEO-2 front turret has ~ 50% more armor mass than M-1A1 and the estiamted armor values are 60cm KE for LEO-2 and 46cm KE for M-1A1.In addition the LEO-2 front turret thickness is ~ 83cm LOS thickness with ~ 80% insert, while M-1A1 turret is ~ 75cm LOS thickness with ~ 75% insert thickness. Its true that M-1A2 front turret is ~ 80cm KE resistance [from 30° offangle] which is ~ 90cm, from straight on...but the LEO-2A5/6 front turret armor with the wedge armor is estimated to be ~ 100-110cm KE resistance from straight on.