Chance of Hit Theory

Prof James K Varkey

05 Jan 15
 Armour Protection

1. Steel Armour
2. Configuration of Armour
3. Aluminium Armour
4. Non-Metallic Composite and Spaced Armour
5. Explosive Reactive Armour
6. Active Protection System
 Armour Protection
1. Steel Armour
 Armour protection governs the ability of the tanks to survive under fire
and to a large extent makes them to immune to a number of enemy
weapons, enable them to move around the battle field more freely.

 For the first 40 years the armour of the tanks was designed almost only
to protect them against ballistic attack and solely consists of high
strength steels.

 Steels have contained 0.25 to 0.4 % of carbon and other alloying

elements like nickel, chromium etc.

 Steel armour is heat treated in order to increase its resistance to

penetration and then tempering to make it tougher to absorb KE of the
impacting projectile.

 During 1930s the thickness of the plates used was about 15 mm, during
second WW the thickness increased to 75 mm, 150mm, 185 mm, 250
mm and some of the German tanks had more thickness.
 Armour Protection
Steel Armour
 Machineable Rolled Homogeneous Armour (RHA) is the most widely
used which had 100 mm thickness and T-55, T-56, T-62 used RHA.
 After second WW cast turrets were very common. During 1930s, cast
hull was used in many tanks. Cast turrets had variable thickness as per
threat perception.
 Ballistic protection provided by RHA and cast armour were improved by
steel armour which is harder and were able to resist penetration.
 Later came homogeneous high hardness armour consisted of low alloy
steels heat treated to about 500 BHN.
 In 1960s dual hardness steel, consists of layers of two different steels
bonded together came. Outer layer has a relatively high carbon heat
treated to achieve 600 BHN, back plate had low carbon content and
was softer and ductile.
 Armour Protection
Steel Armour
 USA has further developed High Performance Armour and used in MBT
70. It had 9% nickel, 4% cobalt and was produced by vacuum arc re-
melting.
 Later in 1960s considerable attention was given to Electro Slag Re-
melted (ESR) steel which became most suitable for production of thick
armour plates of homogeneous high hardness armour.
 Metallurgical quality of steel produced by electro-slag remelting is better
than that of steels made by other remelting processes and it costs less.
 Typical armour of 4340 ESR steel has tensile strength of 2190MN/m²
and a hard ness of 550BHN.
 Better penetration
 Possesses high ductility and toughness.
 Eliminates the danger of large chunks of armour being thrown off
from back plates by stress waves caused by HESH ammunition
 Reduces spalling when armour is perforated (i.e. breaking up of
the armour to form a conical spray of small fragments.)
 Armour Protection
Configuration of Armour
 The amount of armour in an AFV is governed by its weight. Since attack
from small calibre weapons and shell fragments can come from all
directions, all-around protection is required against small arms.
 From the available studies it is clear that an AFV has to face more likely attack from
front and so more armour protection required at front than sides for survival.
 Light armoured vehicles are generally designed to resist 12.7 mm armour piercing
bullets fired from short range and sides are protected against 7.62 mm AP bullets.
More recently frontal attack protection has increased to 14.5 mm AP projectiles and
sides 12.7 mm AP bullets.
 The first of the studies to produce a distribution of probability of attack came from JM
Whittakar in 1943 and was based on a tank advancing against a line of anti-tank
guns.
 This study has led to the concentration of design effort on making tanks immune to
attacks coming over a frontal arc of 60°, since it showed that 45% of all attacks were
likely to fall within this arc.
 There have been arguments that in mobile warfare the distribution of the probability
of attack is likely to uniform than indicated by Whittakar/elliptical distribution produced
by other studies.
 Armour Protection
Configuration of Armour
 However it was generally argued that because of increasing range of engagements
made possible by more powerful guns and anti-tank weapons more attacks being
concentrated on frontal arc.
 To increase the effectiveness of armour, particularly in the frontal arc, vertical
arrangement of nose was given up for sloped armour. When well slopped, i.e. more
than 65° from vertical the armour offered advantage of causing projectile to ricochet
or to shatter than to penetrate the armour.
 Very highly slopped armour has also degraded the performance of shaped charge
war heads and also KE projectiles.
 Slopping of armour makes not much difference to penetration of it by jets of shaped
charge war heads. To overcome this the armour configuration changed to two or
more layers to make predetonation of shaped charge warheads thus protecting the
main armour.
 Armour using horizontal ribs welded to glacis plates also adopted in Swedish S tank.
The ribs deflect KE projectiles and also prevent small projectiles ricocheting off glacis
plates.
 Spall liners like laminates of resin bonded glass or fibers such as Kevlar are used to
reduce damage caused behind the armour. Liners of appropriate materials can also
increase protection against nuclear radiations.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and Design of Hull

Effect of inclining armour plate

 Armour Protection
Aluminium Armour

 Development of Aluminium alloy armour began in the United States in

1956; production of the first aluminium-hulled ICV, M113 started in 1960.
 Other aluminium armoured vehicles, such as the M114 reconnaissance
vehicle, the 105mm M108 self-propelled howitzer and the 155mm M109
self-propelled gun, which has been produced in quantity not only for the
US Army but also for several others.
 The M113. M114, M108 and M109 formed the first generation of aluminium
armoured vehicles with armour based on Aluminium alloy 5083.
 This alloy of aluminium with about 4.5% of magnesium and 0.75% of
manganese which has a tensile strength of 300 to 350 MN/m2 and was
strain hardened to improve its ballistic characteristics.
 Its hardness was only 75 BHN and had lower strength, hence the plates
have to be considerably thicker than those of steel armour for a given level
of ballistic protection.
 Armour Protection
Aluminium Armour
 For example, for protection against 7.62mm AP bullets at close range plates of
5083 aluminium armour have to be 48 mm thick, compared with 14.5 mm of
conventional, rolled homogeneous steel armour (RHA) of 380 BHN. Its density is
only 2660 kg/m³ compared with 7850 kg/m³ of steel armour.
 Later another Aluminium alloy 7039 with 5% zinc, 2.5% magnesium which is
much stronger and heat treatable (Hardness 150 BHN) was adopted during
1960s.
 The density of Aluminum alloy 7039 is 2780kg/m3, compared with 7850
kg/m3 of steel armour, nevertheless the areal density of its plates, that is
their mass per unit of area, is greater at 128 kg/m2 than the areal density of
114 kg/m2 of the RHA plates which provide the same protection against the
hard-cored high velocity bullets. Zinc and 2,5% of magnesium are heat treatable
and hence more stronger.
 Aluminium alloy 7039 has superior ballistic characteristics and less weight and
good machinability.
 Its disadvantage is its welding problems, which have called for careful control of
heat to safeguard against stress corrosion in heat affected areas. Corrosion and
stress cracking has been a major problem with hulls and turrets welded from
7039.
 Armour Protection
Non-Metallic Composite and Spaced Armour
 With the arrival of anti-tank munitions based on shaped charges which
is capable of perforating relatively thick monolithic steel armour led to
research into use of other materials and configurations of armour.
 Attempts to use low-density non-metallic materials to increase
protection against shaped charge weapons began towards the end of
second WW.
 Many combinations like a mixture of quarts gavel and a mastic consists
of asphalt and wood were tried. During 1950s another combination tried
was siliceous cored armour consisted of fused silica typically of 64mm
thick embedded in cast steel armour. This was used in few US tanks.
 Later in 1971 Briton developed composite armour called “Chobham”
armour. This offered much grater protection against shaped charge
weapons than conventional steel armour.
 Chobham armour was adopted by US for the XM1 tanks. Germany
also developed similar composite armour and used in Leopard 2 tanks.
 Since then almost all new tanks have been built with some form of
composite or multi-layered armour instead of monolithic steel armour.
 Armour Protection
Non-Metallic Composite and Spaced Armour
 Details of armour used in the new tanks have been a closely guarded
secret.
 However it is known that very hard materials such as ceramics and
glass offer grater resistance to penetration by shaped charge jets.
Aluminium oxide which is too brittle is combined with steel or
aluminium alloys to form layered or laminated armour.
 Such armour consists of an outer layer of aluminium oxide tiles and
inner layer of steel or aluminium. This may also contain alternate layers
of ceramic and of metal.
 Composite armour with multiple layers of non-metallic materials,
Aluminium oxide, aluminum alloy and high strength steel can provide
better protection against shaped charge warheads.
 Armour consisting of spaced layers is bulky and increases the overall
dimensions of tank. This sets limits to the amount of spacing that can
be incorporated in multilayered armour.
 The ability of ceramics backed by a layer of aluminium oxide or
reinforced plastics can give effective protection at lower weight than
equivalent steel armour.
 Armour Protection
Non-Metallic Composite and Spaced Armour
 The use of aluminium oxide to increase the protection of light
armoured vehicles against small calibre projectiles has the problem of
difficulty in attaching ceramics to the metallic armour of vehicles.
 This issue has resolved by attaching tiles of aluminium oxide outside
the hull by US in 1985.
 Aluminium oxide in the form of relatively thick blocks has been
incorporated in armour systems of AFVs for protection against KE
projectiles fired from tank guns as well as shaped charge projectiles
and missiles.
 Armour Protection
Explosive Reactive Armour
 During 1970s an additional form of protection made up of modules
with a layer of an explosive sandwiched between two metal plates
appeared in Israel. Later similar modules appeared in Russian tank T-
64 also.
 This is known as Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA), which reduces the
penetration capability of shaped charge jets. Its explosive layer
detonates when penetrated by a jet and driving its plates apart at
about one tenth of the velocity of jet.
 If the jet strikes the ERA sandwich at an angle, the bottom plate
material is fed continuously into its path causing lateral disturbances
which reduce its ability to penetrate the armour located behind ERA by
50 to 90%.
 The choice of the explosive which is sandwiched between the two
plates is very important:
 t must detonate only when struck by a shaped charge jet.
 Should not detonate by hits of bullets or shell fragments
 Should not detonate due to a fire, or welding.
 Detonation should confined to the module struck by jet and
 Armour Protection
Explosive Reactive Armour
 To be effective, the ERA sandwich needs to be at an angle to the
shaped charge jet. (at least 25 degrees from the normal to jet)
 The ERA plate should be located at a distance in front of the main
armour to provide room for the movement of back plate, which causes
more disturbances to jet than front plate, as it moves in the same
direction as jet.
 Typical example of ERA can be steel plates of 3 or 5 mm thick
separated by 3 mm of sheet explosive.
 ERA is also effective against long rod APFSDS projectiles.
 Armour Protection
Active Protection System
 Active protection system involves the use of sensor systems to detect
the approach of an attacking projectile or missile and the firing of
explosive charges or counter missiles to destroy or disable before it
reaches its target.
 One of the system experimented by US involved the use of a Doppler
radar to detect the incoming projectile and computing its velocity to set off
a bank of linear shaped charges at appropriate time to destroy it before it
could strike its target.
 Another system studied in US again involved Doppler radar to search and
acquire attacking missiles and firing suitable weapons capable of
exploding in the path of the incoming missile.
 Using radar has many disadvantages:
 Difficulty in detecting missiles against back ground noises of
battle field
 Radar systems are active which could make vehicles fitted with
them easier to detect by enemy.
 They can also be jammed by enemy and is very costly
 Armour Protection
Active Protection System
 Alternate method of detecting missiles by electro-optical system was
considered in Israel. This has advantage of being passive and not
vulnerable to radiation homing missiles. Also less expensive than radar
detection system.
 It relies for detection of missiles on the thermal and optical signatures of
the hot and luminous exhausts of the sustainer motors. However missiles
like US TOW do not use such motors and approach to target is free flight
mode.
 Radar remains the most promising basis for a detection system. In
addition there has to be a control system with microprocessor to analyze
the signal from the detection system and to decide what to fire and when
to fire.
 However the development of suitable countermeasures has to pose
major problems.
 Countermeasures such as high energy lasers may be suitable.
Armour Protection

Questions
and
Clarifications