Многослойная броня ~700mm третья поколение равна уровню защиты Т-55? интересно

и модули прикреплены к крыше тоже.

Отредактировано Великий Зук (2017-05-01 15:29:48)

Какой- то новый информационный повод - "про Меркавы"? Знаю только отсюда Ссылка (стр.28) что воздушные фильтры и аккумуляторы переместили за двигатель, а их место заняла дополнительная лобовая броня.                                                                                                                                                                                                       

(I'll type in English because I don't have a Russian keyboard, and google translate is just unreliable). Tell me if you can't translate something I said.

1)~700mm is the armor thickness. Not protection estimates. Merkava 3 has been at least known to protect against Kornet type missiles in numerous occasions near Gaza (2000-2005) and in Lebanon (2006), which gives the turret a protection level of at least 1,200mm CE. I don't know about KE estimates, but it's safe to assume they were built to handle the latest 125mm APFSDS at the time.

2)Tech transfer of Chobham is unlikely to have occurred. Neither was it needed. Israel developed and produced its own armor, and by the time the Merkava 3 entered service, Israel was already exporting a large amount of armor, including to the UK.
The first Merkava tank to feature indigenous composite armor was the Merkava 2. And first to have ERA were Sho't and Magach (supposedly also Merkava 4 has ERA).
Israel had a long history of partnership in tank development with the USA and (West and Unified) Germany, who had their separate armor development programs.

thats...magic...

yes yes, thats why they asked british mod during 1978 and 79 and later to sell Chobham 

USA get first info about Chobham in 1965 and cooperated with brits to 1980s...

Germans... well they have their own armor, 15+30 spaced armor and so on, after that idiotic schemes didn't work against CE  they also get info and speifications from brits about Chobham. France did it, Korea, Switzerland and many other countries...

Отредактировано Wiedzmin (2017-05-01 16:59:22)

700 mm? Where, in your dreams?

That made my day, thank you.

Feel free to do your own measurements then. There are Merkava tanks in the Latrun museum. Open to the wide public for all the measurements one can dream of.

Of course they asked. But even if there was a technology transfer, it never stayed the same way. The Americans, Germans, French, all have improved vastly upon this rough concept. Americans started with the BRL (Ballistics Research Lab, also confused with Burlington) series and quickly advanced to the HAP series (Heavy Armor Package). By the time the Merkava 3 entered production the HAP armor was well in production as well. So even if they got the tech transfer, it had evolved by then greatly.

Keep in mind the Merkava 3 was only introduced for the first time in 1989, and in production until 2003. Its armor, by the way, is modular and thus upgradeable. It was upgraded at least once during its service, and the Merkava 4's armor was also upgraded at least once, without anyone really noticing it.

Oh and you can have your doubts about the protection estimates for the Mark 3, but actual combat experience shows mine to be trustworthy. Whereas you haven't provided any piece of evidence as to why these aren't true.

Однако изначальная задумка дальше демонтраторов не пошла.

Отредактировано Blitz. (2017-05-01 17:29:27)

please keep this BS for people who believe in  "great israeli armor revolution"

if you don't have any proof then do not even start writing something about "withstood kornet/deathstar" etc.

ну чифтен 5/2 довольно долго обсуждался как вариант модернизации, да и далее до определенного момента ничего особо не менялось, защиты от кинетики первые версии почти не давали(особо отмечалось мол демонстрировать стрельбу 105мм БПС и 120мм БПС можно(просто потому что Л28/52 разрушаются хорошо, а от 120мм  Л15 для Чифтена защита получалась по лбу только с 1.3км) , а 105мм ОБПС лучше говорить что пакет мол оптимизирован только для работы по КС), а оптимизация от кинетики началась уже после 80го судя по всему.

Отредактировано Wiedzmin (2017-05-01 17:24:41)

The closest Merkava to me is in Musée des Blindes in Seumur, France, and it's permanently locked. You can't enter it, you can't climb on it, you are probably better off not touching it, either.

You've given a photo that purportedly shows the frontal armour, and it's not 700 mm. You might have a problem with spacial reasoning, so here's a quick conversion for you: 700 mm are 70 cm, or 0.7 m. That would be about the length of the soldier's entire arm.

So, please, as told by est. Wiedzmin, keep this BS to yourself. Here nobody would believe you unless you give a photograph that actually shows those 700 mm of armour plate.

Ну не надо же так сразу на физику переходить, дайте человеку разобраться со школьной геометрией сначала 

Edit: подозреваю, что Вы могли чуть неправильно прочесть последнюю строчку предыдущего моего поста. Est. = esteemed = ув.

Отредактировано outlander (2017-05-01 17:37:33)

Чтобы получить доступ к двигателю, нужно поднять краном тяжелую надмоторную крышку.
Для доступа к аккумуляторам такая процедура неприемлема.

I understand how anti-KE protection works. But looking at merely the backplates will not do you any good. The protection is the result of the initial plate, internal array, and backplate. The internal array is yet unknown for the Merkava 3. Only the Merkava 4. But it's known that the array is better optimized for KE protection than it is for HEAT protection. During Eurosatory exhibitions in 2010 the armor protection was also generally described, with the 4th gen armor, the one on the Merkava 2D, 3D, and 4, as being able to defeat Kornet type missiles with 1,200mm penetration.

The cover-plate of the Merkava 3's basic armor (not 3D), is a thick steel plate. If the internal array is NERA/NxRA, then it's an ideal anti-KE protection scheme that definitely wouldn't merely equate to the T-55 as you suggested.

It's been over 11 years since all the press releases of the 2006 Lebanon War. I don't keep them around. I will try to find them, but I can't promise anything yet.

In the pictures above I have shown it. In answer to Outlander I believe. You can measure it yourself, as did I, in the museum.

I am also aware of how much a 700mm array could weigh. But the fact is that the Abrams and Leopard could afford a similar thickness of armor. Even slightly greater, yet they weighed less than the Merkava 3. Abrams and Leopard have started at low-mid 50's class, grown to 60 tons, and only recently have gone up to 62-67 tons. The Merkava 3 started out with a 65 ton weight.

и откуда это известно ?

ух ты, в ходе оружейной выставки где нужно продавать, кто то в рекламных целях заявил что то, вот уж действительно железный аргумент, то что корнет пробивает 1250 и более, мы конечно пока что опустим.

20мм это не толстая плита, особенно когда таких плит не много в составе пакета, и они являются просто внешней плитой модуля, но как я уже и написал подобная броня вполне может работать против устаревших 100/105мм и даже 120мм БПС(APDS)

NERA в большинстве своем не работает от кинетики, никак(или вы может опишите физические принципы по которым 2-5мм стальные плиты между которым резина/полимер существенно влияют на снижение пробиваемости ОБПС(именно ОБПС(APFSDS), не БПС(APDS)) ? в Т-72Б первая плита пакета не просто так сделана 21мм, и вся башня при этом массивная стальная отливка, на Челленджере опять же не просто так башня стальная массивная отливка, абрамс не просто так имеет 100мм плиты итп итд), поэтому американцы и ушли от Чобхема к своим эксперементам с ураном.

я говорю про отчеты боевых повреждений, а не про то что кто то сказал на брифинге что бы оправдать собственную безалаберность.

вы видимо просто не понимаете что измерили, да ?

меркава весит так много только из за ее размеров, с броней это никак не связано, яркий тому пример Леопард-1 и Т-64.

Отредактировано Wiedzmin (2017-05-01 18:48:13)

You've shown a picture of Merkava 3 with the engine compartment hatch opened. It has a soldier on the photo, sitting right on top of the engine. I don't have to measure anything - I can clearly see that it's not 0.7 metres of armour. 300 mm max, give or take.

Now, if you were talking about armour equivalent due to sloping, then yes, it would be higher due to the extreme slope of the Merkava. If you were talking about the turret armour on the very front that's covering the gun, then it might be rather thick indeed.

But then you need to be more specific - like, 'xxx mm at YY angle, giving equivalent of zzz mm of armour on the foremost part of the turret'. Making sweeping generalisations like 'Merkava has 700 mm of frontal armour' is pretty unscientific, and quite obviously wrong.