Chance of Hit Theory

Prof James K Varkey

29 Dec 14
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
1. Design of Hull as per Whittaker’s DPV
Theory
2. Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and
Design of Hull
3. Optimization of Armour layout and Hull Design
4. Design of ICV hull as per Aluminium based
Armour
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of Hull as per Whittaker’s DPV Theory

The first known study to produce a distribution of the probability of attack

has been carried out in Briton by JM Whittaker in 1943.

It was a theoretical study based on one tank advancing against a line of

anti-tank guns.

Anti-tank Guns
Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of Hull as per Whittaker’s DPV Theory

Whittaker's DPV Curve

 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of Hull as per Whittaker’s DPV Theory
Analysis of DPV Theory
 It is an analysis of attack probability from any given direction.
 Based on theoretical attack by anti-tank guns against a single straight
advancing tank.
 Curve plotted based on the finding of the study.
 Findings confirmed during world war II and even subsequent operations
such as 1973 Arab – Israel campaign.
Assumptions
 Anti-tank guns fire as soon as the target is observed at a range possible
to engage.
 Anti-tank guns do not change their position and fire is not biased.
 Tank drives forward at a steady speed, upto and through the enemy
lines of anti-tank guns.
 Anti-tank guns are located in line.
 The anti-tank guns do not have any knowledge of the target tank armour
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of Hull as per Whittaker’s DPV Theory
Findings:-
 In the frontal 600 arc, number of expected attacks are 45%.
 Beyond that the number of attacks reduced considerably.
 In the frontal 450 arc, number of expected attacks are 33.3%.
Calculation of Armour as per DPV Theory
Used as a basis for distribution of armour during design
Armour distribution at 600 frontal arc to cater for 45% of
attacks and further increase in 450arc wherein 33.3% attacks
expected.
Designing an armoured fighting vehicle immune in 600 arc
makes its probability of survivability to 45%.
Making the armoured fighting vehicle immune in 3600 arc is
impractical due to exorbitant weight penalty.
High protection at 600 arc is preferred.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of Hull as per Whittaker’s DPV Theory

Drawbacks
 The directional probability variation is valid for main armament only.
 The DPV theory is applicable to hull only. It does not caters for
turret.
 The attack from short range weapons is not catered for.
 DPV theory does not cater for attacks from all directions.

 In spite of the drawbacks, Whittaker’s theory is still valid as

basic tactics remains same.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of Hull as per Whittaker’s DPV Theory

 Since the days Whittaker’s DPV theory was made public the
considerations for distribution of armour stayed geared to horizontal
frontal arc of 45 deg to 60 deg.

 With the advent of compound armour and attack helicopter calls for new
approach.

 The modern hull fronts with upper plates sloped at 70-75 deg, the
probability of hit estimated to 45 to 50%.

 A threat pattern which imposes considerable extension of frontal arc will

force armoured vehicle designer to limit the frontal arc protection.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and Design of Hull
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and Design of Hull
The actual thickness of armour plates has advanced much from the
second world war form 150 mm to more than 500 mm with effective
thickness exceeding 1000mm

The effective armour thickness is calculated by dividing the nominal

armour thickness with the cosine of the nominal impact angle. For
example, the nominal armour thickness of 100mm and an impact angle of
60°as shown above, have an effective armour thickness of 200mm
(cos60° = 0.5) that the shell needs to penetrate.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and Design of Hull

Effect of inclining armour plate

 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and Design of Hull

Impact Angle Effective Armour Thickness

0° 100%
10° 101.54%
20° 106.42%
30° 115.47%
40° 130.54%
50° 155.57%
60° 200%
70° 292.38%
> 70° Ricochet

The effective armour thickness increases exponentially with the impact angle.
For shells impacting at 60° on armour is effectively twice as thick and at 70°
nearly three times as thick. For angles higher than 70° all AP and APDS shells
will ricochet regardless of armour thickness.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and Design of Hull

M1A2 Abrams SEP MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002 - 2004)

Against Kinetic Energy Against Chemical Energy

M1A2 SEP
(in mm of RHAe) (in mm of RHAe)

Turret 940 - 960 1,320 - 1,620

Glacis 560 - 590 510 - 1,050
Lower Front Hull 580 - 650 800 - 970

RHAe = Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent; an equivalent RHA thickness of a

given armor type against a given armor piercing ammunition or missile (i.e. Kinetic
Energy penetrators, like APFSDS DU long-rod penetrators or Chemical Energy
projectiles, like HEAT ammunition and ATGM's). Modern composite (Chobham)
armor may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy than RHA of the
same thickness.
 Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and Design of Hull
Armour Layout and Hull Design

Front & side armor Laminated front, side and top armor behind Kontakt-5 ERA
vs APFSDS: 550 mm + 250-280mm with Kontakt-5 = 800-
Front armor rating, 830mm
mm RHA vs HEAT: 650 mm + 500-700mm with Kontakt-5 = 1,150-
1,350mm
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Effect of Sloping of Armour on Layout and Design of Hull

as
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Optimization of Armour Layout and Hull Design

A- Base plate, B- Burster plate, C- Array, D- Stopper, E- Polyethylene liner,

F-Fuel, O- Oil, PT- Power Train, W- Coolant
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Optimization of Armour Layout and Hull Design
 The armour layout optimization with an objective of reduction in
armoured volume which can be achieved by rearranging the layers with
different thickness without compromising protection.

 The base plate (A) replaces the burster Plate (B) outside the array (C) to
maintain balanced protection.

 The Burster (catcher) plate (B), generally a mild steel plate may be
redundant.
 The boronated polyethylene layer (E) inside will reduce the lethality of
marginal attack and a useful measure for neutron attenuation and
thermal insulation.

 Using the space within the protective system to house expendables like
fuel and even power train. This is done in Merkava and S-Tank. The
array(C) is reduced. The back plate (stopper) (D) is divided D1 and D2

 We can expect a battle between attack and protection , with advances

in penetrators and mode of attack one hand and improvements in
armour materials and layout.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of ICV Hull as per Aluminium Based Armour

Requirements of ICV Hull

 Facilitate convenient, quick and safe entry and exit to and from ICV
 Troop compartment should be located at hull rear and door at rear
 Generally the crew is 10-12 infantry personnel armed with 20-30 mm
rapid fire gun, coaxial machine gun, anti-tank grenade launcher and
other armour piercing weapons.
 Suitable Habitability
 Bullet proof armour
 Light weight (below 20 tons) high mobility, amphibious and air
transportable.
 Easy to manufacture (machinability / weldability)
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of ICV Hull as per Aluminium Based Armour

Aluminium Armour

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

1956; production of the first aluminium-hulled carrier, M113; production
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.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of ICV Hull as per Aluminium Based Armour

Aluminium Armour

 Its hardness is only 75 BHN and has lower strength, hence the plates
have to be considerably thicker than those of steel armour for a given
level of ballistic protection.
 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.
 Later another Aluminium alloy 7039 with 5% zinc, 2.5% magnesium
which is much stronger and heat treatable (Hardness 150 BHN)
 5083 (7039) density is only 2660 kg/m3 (2780), 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.
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of ICV Hull as per Aluminium Based Armour
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of ICV Hull as per Aluminium Based Armour
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of ICV Hull as per Aluminium Based Armour
 Armour Layout and Hull Design
Design of ICV Hull as per Aluminium Based Armour
Armour Layout and Hull Design