Tanks of the world

Please state where is said it was unique i think you miss my point i was just giving a little information on the gunnery system of the challenger 2.

However thank you for letting me know the U.S tank uses the same system. I would compare this vehicle as an equal to challenger 2 however as for the soldiers who use it i can not compare them as equal as i once did an exchange program.

All the gear and no idea is the general consensus i think lol.

P.S BlackWidow your knowlege of armor is very high and i respect that you know so much about it more so the dorchester part for challenger. Have you ever been involved with tanks ?




[edit on 4-5-2007 by h3akalee]

Originally posted by Iblis
It'd be good to remember that you should not base the .. duration of a tank's in-combat life.. purely through armour. After-all, even if the absurdly incompetant commander where to face tanks face-on, thereby hitting only the tiled front and side-compartments, there's many more systems still to think about.

Further, RA does have its flaws. For one: Most tank commanders simply recommend striking at tiles wherever they are placed at the joints. It's remarkably easy to dismember a tank through its own explosive armour, as was referenced by U.S. tank commanders in another thread.

The real question, is the superior active defense. I'd think the best way to get hit, it to not be hit at all.
[However, despite Israeli claims, and our own assumptions of them, to think Iron Fist could decapitate a modern SABOT round from the Abrams would be laughable at best. Further, generalizations such as 'twice as effective' mean very little, especially when the referenced armour, as admitted, bears little resemblance to its former-generation. This means that the characteristics are different. It's not simply, 'Tank Armour +5!'.]

Cheers.

Further, RA does have its flaws. For one: Most tank commanders simply recommend striking at tiles wherever they are placed at the joints. It's remarkably easy to dismember a tank through its own explosive armour, as was referenced by U.S. tank commanders in another thread.

hmm, and One can round around in circles looking at all the chinks in armor for that one in a million chance in a reAL BATTLE .
the odds of a perfect hit between the ERA packages like you have said is too remote to plan around.
a diagram of what you say ...



thats the worst case scenario in k-5 ERA, which has a longer bulge , but this not so in case of relikt -5

the bulge in the joints is far lesser in relikt ERA
look :



look at the angle and then tell ,and bulge for relikt is 0.3 cm and angle is 60 degree connection with the blocks , thus its near impossible to achieve penetration w/w the tiles and bulge is 1.2 like for k-5
when penetarted in between the charges on both sidfes will go off , as the explosive charges are linked and and not separted like k-5


[edit on 4-5-2007 by vK_man]

This isn't a 'chink' persay -- As long as you're not facing the front armour -- Which, if you have a half-competant commander, you won't. [The Abrams is remarkable for having 'undefeatable' front-armour, much as the acclaimed Challenger. Even it's own APFSDS rounds cannot defeat the things, while the fourth layer takes care of HESH, and the third eliminates threats of kinetic penetrators other than the APFSDS. Otherwise, all-armour layers work incrimentally to defeat other AT-devices.]
The joints to the turrets, the curtain. Etc.]

Further, the wide arrangement of AT weapons in this era are designed, or, at least have the capability to defeat ERA armor to some extent. Whether it be Apache Hellfires', or APFSDS rounds, etc.

It has become the standard armor. Therefore, it is the weakest armor.
I have no doubt that Russia's latest round of heavy-ERA is dramatically stronger, though it's fighting a losing battle.

Ah, I see.

Can someone post various barrel lengths for the M1A2, Chally 2, leo 2 and T-90? That way we can get a better idea of range and penetration power.

I have not militarily been involved with tanks, just an enthusiast but I did get a ride in an Abrams a few years back in 2004 when I was 12 and ready to blow my life savings on a tank ride

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
...
Can someone post various barrel lengths for the M1A2, Chally 2, leo 2 and T-90? That way we can get a better idea of range and penetration power. ...

M1A2: 44cal....................=5.28m
Leo2A6: 55cal.................=6,6 m
Chal2: 55cal...................=6,6 m
T-90: 50.8 cal.................=6,35m

In case anyone wonders, gun barrel lengths are indicated by the barrel caliber. Muliply it with the actual caliber (120mm etc. ...) to get the real length.

But, the barrel lengths are not an indicator for range and penetration power. Example: the Brits have used 55cal rifled cannons since the Chieftain, still the much shorter L44 Smoothbores have a generally higher muzzle velocity because the rifled gun by design cannot handle such high pressures.

The Russian 2A46M gun takes this to the extreme: The barrel is worn out after not much more than 900 shots of the high-powered KE munitions. Each shot chips away around 50 grams of barrel"essence". The L30 (note: L30 is a name, unlike the L44 or -55 of the Rheinmetall guns tat indicates the caliber) of the Challenger2 suffers from the same problem, but not as severe. In general, the "energy on target" is defined by the weight of the penetrator, the power of the charge (given by what pressures the gun can handle) and the velocity at a given range. Note that energy-on-target doesnt equal penetration power:

As usual, the devil is in the detail of the design. The Russians for example use a very lightweight cage for their KEs, the round is further stabilized by the very large tailfins of the penetrator. This gives them, for a rifled gun, a very high muzzle velocity at a comparable penetrator weight to older western penetrators. The large fins however induce a lot of drag and, at about 1900+meters the velocity has dropped so much that the energy-on-target has fallen way below that of the western rounds.

Other important aspects of the penetration power are of course the mere shape of the pentrator, the materials used, the weight and flight stability. As a rule of thumb, the Rheinmetall smoothbores (for the lack of enough sources for the french or Israeli guns) are the best tank guns over all distances AND all versatility aspects.

I focus on the KE pentrators here because all other common tank rounds do not rely on hit energy to defeat their target.

Originally posted by Iblis
This isn't a 'chink' persay -- As long as you're not facing the front armour -- Which, if you have a half-competant commander, you won't. [The Abrams is remarkable for having 'undefeatable' front-armour, much as the acclaimed Challenger. Even it's own APFSDS rounds cannot defeat the things, while the fourth layer takes care of HESH, and the third eliminates threats of kinetic penetrators other than the APFSDS. Otherwise, all-armour layers work incrimentally to defeat other AT-devices.]
The joints to the turrets, the curtain. Etc.]

Further, the wide arrangement of AT weapons in this era are designed, or, at least have the capability to defeat ERA armor to some extent. Whether it be Apache Hellfires', or APFSDS rounds, etc.

It has become the standard armor. Therefore, it is the weakest armor.
I have no doubt that Russia's latest round of heavy-ERA is dramatically stronger, though it's fighting a losing battle.

Which, if you have a half-competant commander, you won't

every commander will try to take out enemy out of range , by using ATGM

This isn't a 'chink' persay -- As long as you're not facing the front armour -- Which, if you have a half-competant commander, you won't. [The Abrams is remarkable for having 'undefeatable' front-armour, much as the acclaimed Challenger. Even it's own APFSDS rounds cannot defeat the things, while the fourth layer takes care of HESH, and the third eliminates threats of kinetic penetrators other than the APFSDS. Otherwise, all-armour layers work incrimentally to defeat other AT-devices.]

chobham is not 'undefeatable' as you claim , even merkava uses chobham
AND light ERA ,it is effective in survival of troops in the tanks , but
read:

first verified episode of Kornet ATGM combat use occurred during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, where the missiles, reportedly supplied by Syria, were successfully used by Hezbollah fighters to destroy Israeli Merkava Mk4 tanks.

This episode occurred in the final stage of the conflict around Wadi al-Saluki and the village of Ghandouriyeh on August 11, 2006. With the UN-brokered ceasefire about to take effect, IDF made a poorly organized attempt to take control of Lebanese territory up to Litani river. Hezbollah was aware of Israeli preparations to cross Wadi al-Saluki for days, and had ample time to prepare, including the deployment of Kornet ATGMs. When the Israelis attacked, Hezbollah ATGM teams managed to hit at least 11 out of 24 participating tanks, inflicting significant casualties to tank crews.
en.wikipedia.org...

Further, the wide arrangement of AT weapons in this era are designed, or, at least have the capability to defeat ERA armor to some extent. Whether it be Apache Hellfires', or APFSDS rounds, etc.

ahhaa, so you are refering to the tandem round ATGMs , by the way Heavy ERA such as K-5 can be more insensitive to precursor charges due to the thicker plates as opposed to light ERA.....

while the kornet managed to destroy the chobham armour of merkava 4 (reputed to be the best tank of the world ) by hiiting on lower hull but .... it could not destroy a ERA equipped T-90 , though it did DESTROY t-80u , one of the reasons penetrated t-80u with ERA becasue it did not use improved k-5 as the t-90 ,
kornet is the one of most powerful ATGM's ( penetration claimed by russian sources is 850 mm behind ERA , but western sources have verifed after testing that IT HAS A PENETRATION OF 1200 MM BEHIND ERA , READ ON KORNET PENETRATION :

Engine solid-fuel rocket
Launch mass 27 kg
Length 120 cm
Diameter 15.2 cm
Speed
Range 0.1 - 10 km
Warhead shaped-charge HEAT tandem warhead, with armour penetration of about 1200 mm of RHA behind ERA. Thermobaric anti-personnel/anti-material warhead is also available.
en.wikipedia.org...

it could not destroy a ERA equipped T-90 , though it did DESTROY t-80u , one of the reasons penetrated t-80u with ERA becasue it did not use improved k-5 as the t-90 DID have improved ERA ,
this is the effectiveness of ERA...
read on :

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot

ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
The trials yielded the following outcome:
ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target
ATGMs

T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.
APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
armor.kiev.ua...

while RPG-29 penetrated it ... but kornet did not and its Kornets inability to penetrate is the most interesting as it is both a dual tandem charge and the highest penetration of all the weapons used,

what i am trying to explain is the effectiveness of Heavy ERA , and not saying that it is best or better than chobham as chobham is not hazardous for the nearby troops when shell hits the armour, ERA is dangerous as it explodes when hit , thereby it can injure nearby troops or that russian tanks are better ,


as for ERA fighting a losing a battle that is disagreeable for many older tanks like t-64,t-62 or surprisingly even t-55 could be made immune to sabots with ERA .... and as ERA is extremely cost effective ,
though it is more hazardous to handle than chobham armour , but then DU plates used by Abrams are also equally problematic

Ah! Forgive me, I was a bit too vague and generalized in my prior post.
Two quick fixes:
'Undefeatable' was in quotations to provide that it was not necessarily true, though by and large touted as such by some members of this board and of the military world relative to other tanks respective armour.

Secondly, you are very right. ERA is extremely cost-effective, and still works to a remarkable degree. What I meant to portray is that, by becoming the most widely proliferated tank armour, consequently, the most effort will be made to combat that type of armour specficically, whereas other weapons , directed at other armour-types such as Chobham, Durchester, or the Abrams', will either receive lesser attention, or addressed as a side-thought.
I'm simply using basic logic here, though considering how many AT-devices will remark 'ERA-penetrating-capability', I'll stick with it.

True again! Merkava does use such armour, and it believed to me the most defense-oriented armour in current use today. Because of the engine and fuel-tanks relatively unique arrangement, and because of the unique 'crew-bubbles', it'd be a good 'test-bed' for most weapons effectiveness at maximum difficulty.
Let me make a brief stance here: I have no doubt in my mind that any tank armour is able to be crippled. Regardless of how strong it is touted to be.

Next question: Perhaps Kornet is simply most-effective against Chobham? How about its effectiveness vs. other armours? I noticed it didn't fair too well against the K-5, relative to its earlier performance.

[Editing later]

Originally posted by Iblis
Ah! Forgive me, I was a bit too vague and generalized in my prior post.
Two quick fixes:
'Undefeatable' was in quotations to provide that it was not necessarily true, though by and large touted as such by some members of this board and of the military world relative to other tanks respective armour.

Secondly, you are very right. ERA is extremely cost-effective, and still works to a remarkable degree. , whereas other weapons , directed at other armour-types such as
I'm simply using basic logic here, though considering how many AT-devices will remark 'ERA-penetrating-capability', I'll stick with it.

True again! Merkava does use such armour, and it believed to me the most defense-oriented armour in current use today. Because of the engine and fuel-tanks relatively unique arrangement, and because of the unique 'crew-bubbles', it'd be a good 'test-bed' for most weapons effectiveness at maximum difficulty.
Let me make a brief stance here: I have no doubt in my mind that any tank armour is able to be crippled. Regardless of how strong it is touted to be.

Next question: Perhaps Kornet is simply most-effective against Chobham? How about its effectiveness vs. other armours? I noticed it didn't fair too well against the K-5, relative to its earlier performance.

[Editing later]

What I meant to portray is that, by becoming the most widely proliferated tank armour, consequently, the most effort will be made to combat that type of armour specficically

a good possibility , because , everyone is developing light or heavy ERA,
even germany has developed MEXAS heavy ERA for its Leopard 2 tanks to improve protection dramatically , along with its chobham armour ...

Next question: Perhaps Kornet is simply most-effective against Chobham? How about its effectiveness vs. other armours? I noticed it didn't fair too well against the K-5, relative to its earlier performance

well, kornet has ERA penetrating capability as it uses a dual tandem charge warhead .... but the results against k-5 are surprising but

, well something, RPG-29 was able to penetrate the k-5 ERA as well as the merkava chobham and light ERA combination(merkava uses chobham and light ERA both ) also .......

Once they'd provoked the massive attack they hoped for, Hezbollah assumed the defensive, sticking to their bunkers and launching an incredible number of guided and unguided missiles against the Israelis. The most devastating weapon they have is the RPG 29, the newest Russian version of our old friend the RPG 7. The RPG 29 seems to be able to knock out the IDF's MBT, the Merkava 4. That's a big, big blow to the IDF, because the newer Merkavas are supposed to be invulnerable to anything but huge shaped charges laid as mines. They're equipped with all the latest tricks in anti-missile defenses, like reactive armor and screens that are supposed to make the warhead detonate prematurely -- kind of like premature ejaculation for RPGs. ("Oh jeez, sorry honey, I guess I just got too excited, your turret's so damn sexy....") The RPG 29 has a simple but effective counter for all this last-ditch defensive stuff: a tandem warhead, where the first warhead blasts the reactive armor or screen and the second, the really deadly shaped-charge one, has a free path right into the tank. By sticking to their bunkers, where they could fire from safety at the Merkavas, the Hezbollah antitank teams destroyed the Merkava 4's rep in a few weeks.
www.exile.ru...

results of rpg-29 against T-90, T-80 ,

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, .
The trials yielded the following outcome:

ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target
armor.kiev.ua...

conclusion on RPG-29 is RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it.
and even so the merkava was vulnerable to it despite being reputed as the best tank in world
read more:

The warhead is extremely powerful, and in tests conducted against T-80 and T-90 tanks it penetrated the tanks over their frontal arcs.[1] If these reports are true about frontal penetration, the Russian HEAT (shape charge) weapons engineers have made an astonishing advance as a 105mm warhead is considered inadequate. The French with their ERYX short range antitank weapon stated that a HEAT warhead had to be at least 135mm in diameter to defeat the newer Russian main battle tanks frontally
en.wikipedia.org...-2
--
Israel's Haaretz daily quoted intelligence sources Sunday as saying that Israel's ground troops casualties mostly resulted from special anti-tank units of Hizbollah using modern Russian-made RPG-29 that had been sold by Moscow to the Syrians and then transferred to the organization
en.rian.ru...
-----
Even more alarming for Israel is the fact that the Russian RPG 29, which can destroy an Abrams tank at 500 meters, costs a grand total of $800. The Iranians are reportedly making copies of Russian anti-tank weapons, which would make it a lot easier for Hezbollah or the Palestinians to buy such weapons. The tank has been a symbol of oppression from Stalin’s tyranny to Israel’s many brutal forays into Arab neighborhoods. Evolving technology may be making the tank –even the most advanced heavy tank with multiple layers of explosive reactive armor– obsolete.
www.whitecivilrights.com...
---

rpg-29, is a very small and potent , and yes i had seen a vid in which merkava gets heavily damaged by rpg-29 on lower front hull ,but the crew survives , but a hit on the sides will guarnteed destroy it
rpg-29 is a allround weapon

vK_man
ERA doesn't stop KE(sabot) it stops shaped charges. Ceramic stops KE because the KE penatreter turns into plasma because of the density and velocity of the round.
Chobham isn't the best armour any more. Dorchester is the best, but you won't be able to find any info about it because it is classified

Originally posted by SKUNK2
vK_man
ERA doesn't stop KE(sabot) it stops shaped charges. Ceramic stops KE because the KE penatreter turns into plasma because of the density and velocity of the round.
Chobham isn't the best armour any more. Dorchester is the best, but you won't be able to find any info about it because it is classified

ERA doesn't stop KE(sabot) it stops shaped charges

heavy ERA like k-5 does stop KE .... read PLEASE YOU ARE NOT READING MY SOURCES:

Kontakt-5 is a type of third-generation explosive reactive armour originating in the Soviet Union. It is the first type of ERA which is effectively able to defeat modern armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds.

Introduced on the T-80U tank in 1985, Kontakt-5 is made up of "bricks" of explosive sandwiched between two metal plates. The plates are arranged in such a way as to move sideways rapidly when the explosive detonates. This will force an incoming KE-penetrator or shaped charge jet to cut through more armour than the thickness of the plating itself, since "new" plating is constantly fed into the penetrating body. A KE-penetrator will also be subjected to powerful sideways forceswhich might be large enough to cut the rod into two or more pieces . This will significantly reduce the penetrating capabilities of the penetrator, since the penetrating force will be dissipated over a larger volume of armour.

The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans confirmed that in tests, the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, 'shattered' their 120mm DM-53 penetrators, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time." This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it.

Newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2 and now M829A3, have been improved to defeat the armor design of Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well; see T-84 and T-90) . The M829A2 was the immediate response, developed in part to take on the new armor bricks. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well and designed to fight future armor protection methods. As a response to M829A3 russian army produced new type of ERA, Relikt, most modern russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5.
en.wikipedia.org...

To be effective against kinetic energy(KE) projectiles, ERA must use much thicker and heavier plates and a correspondingly thicker explosive layer. Such "heavy ERA," such as the Soviet-developed Kontakt-5, can break apart a penetrating rod that is longer than the ERA is deep, again significantly reducing penetration capabilityen.wikipedia.org...

Chobham isn't the best armour any more,Dorchester is the best,

DORCESHTER IS A 2ND GENERATION CHOBHAM ARMOUR OKAY , which involves partial use of silicon carbide tiles....
READ:

The latest version of Chobham armour is used on the Challenger 2 (called Dorchester armour), and (though the composition most probably differs) the M1 Abrams series of tanks, which according to official sources is currently protected by silicon carbide tiles.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 6-5-2007 by vK_man]

The M1A1(and A2) does NOT use Dorchester , they use Chobham , with DU plates inserted in key points - so wiki is once again wrong.

the Egyption M1A2 do not use the DU inserts (and yes they build them)


K5

According to reports there were 5 K5 equipped tanks at baghad airport which engaged the charging cav units - and to the horror of the american tankers- these very same T-72`s (they had been blowing up for weeks) actually bounced DU shots.

ok they were then killed after taking more hits - but they fired back (and hit)

K5 is underated

and the Leo2 achieves better penertration than the M1 with tungsten ammo not du load

The Leo2 has a longer barrel which results in a higher muzzle velocity, but I'm curious to see where you found such sensitive information about penetration capability of tank rounds...

The DM63 when used with the L55 has about 20 megajoules of energy at optimum range - which is right on the money for the L44 firing M829 , but of course without the issue of DU dust - hence why i say its better.

vK_man
You don't know what your on about.
You do know that even a monkey can write what ever they want on wiki, try it!!! Alls you have to do is register, then you can put what ever you want on wiki. Look at Challenger2 on wiki, it says it has a range of 342miles!!! In reality it's range is much higher but it is classified.
Dorchester is completely different armour to Chobham, how do i know??? Well i'm in the armed forces, Dorchester is also classified which means you won't find any information on it. It's much more than silicon carbide(Carbon fibre inter woven with silicon strands).

Removed double post

[edit on 6-5-2007 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by SKUNK2
vK_man
You don't know what your on about.
You do know that even a monkey can write what ever they want on wiki, try it!!! Alls you have to do is register, then you can put what ever you want on wiki. Look at Challenger2 on wiki, it says it has a range of 342miles!!! In reality it's range is much higher but it is classified.
Dorchester is completely different armour to Chobham, how do i know??? Well i'm in the armed forces, Dorchester is also classified which means you won't find any information on it. It's much more than silicon carbide(Carbon fibre inter woven with silicon strands).

You do know that even a monkey can write what ever they want on wiki, try it!!! Alls you have to do is register, then you can put what ever you want on wiki

YOU ARE LAUNCHING PERSONAL ATTACKS HUH...

shows your level of ignorance , what are you ????

so you are demanding other links on k-5

members.rediff.com...
another one:

Kontakt-5 is a Russian type of third-generation explosive reactive armour. It is the first type of ERA which is effectively able to defeat modern APFSDS rounds. Introduced on the T-80U tank in 1985, Kontakt-5 is made up of "bricks" of explosive sandwiched between two metal plates. The plates are arranged in such a way as to move sideways rapidly when the explosive detonates. This will force an incoming KE-penetrator or shaped charge jet to cut through more armour than the thickness of the plating itself, since "new" plating is constantly fed into the penetrating body. A KE-penetrator will also be subjected to powerful sideways forces, which might be large enough to cut the rod into two or more pieces. This will significantly reduce the penetrating capabilities of the penetrator, since the penetrating force will be dissipated over a larger volume of armour.
www.fprado.com...

The Kontakt-5 EDZ is the explosive reactive armour (ERA) currently installed on Russian MBTs. It is often referred to as 2nd generation, heavy-duty, or integral ERA.

Where the conventional ERAs are only capable of defeating shaped-charge jets, Kontakt-5 can also defeat APFSDS rounds. Because of Kontakt-5, long-rod penetrators can lose over 30% of their penetration potential and the protected vehicle becomes immune to them.

This type of ERA can be easily recognized as it gives the vehicle outfitted with it a distinct 'clam-shell' appearance.
armor.kiev.ua...

Look at Challenger2 on wiki, it says it has a range of 342miles!!! In reality it's range is much higher but it is classified.
Dorchester is completely different armour to Chobham, how do i know??? Well i'm in the armed forces, Dorchester is also classified which means you won't find any information on it. It's much more than silicon carbide(Carbon fibre inter woven with silicon strands).

another one of those so -called top secret miliatry who claim that what they say is classified...

nonsense , if you were in the military you would have known about the capability of russian heavy ERA like k-5,KAKTUS OR RELIKT AND ITS TEST BY GERMAN AND US MILITARY, you know nothing ON K-5 OR EVEN WHAT DORCHESTOR IS AND SING NONSENSE ....

anyways dorchestor is uprated version of chobham ,

The turret of Challenger 2 is a totally new design. Armour is an uprated version of Challenger 1's Chobham armour. The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10) incorporating Chobham second-generation armour plating.
64.26.50.215...

The turret and hull are protected with second generation Chobham armour (also known as Dorchester) the details of which are still classified
www.answers.com...

The turret is protected with second generation Chobham armour.
www.army-technology.com...

----
ANYWAYS YOU PROVED IT THAT YOU ARE A LIAR, WHO KNOWS NOTHING

harlequinn posted:

The M1A1(and A2) does NOT use Dorchester , they use Chobham , with DU plates inserted in key points - so wiki is once again wrong.

no , many places , i have read something similiar:

Agressive, the only armour that has dU in it is the American version of British dorchester chobham
www.irandefence.net...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 6-5-2007 by vK_man]

[edit: removed quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link




vK_man
You must be felling very insecure using caps and all
1/I never said anything about K-5
2/I said any one can edit Wiki, which means me or you or even a monkey!
3/I said Dorchester isn't Chobham and i never said i knew what it is other than what is rumoured, i'd like you to show me what i said, as it is all quoted in this post.
4/Just grow up your nothing more than a so called "keyboard warrior"
5/I don't understand how you can call me a liar
6/Whay do you have to do with the military?? key board warrior.

EDIT: LOL @ your editing too!!!
Your editing contardicts each other. One link says only the turret has Chobham when it's a fact the entire Challenger is fitted with it!!! Much like another link you edited says.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by SKUNK2]

[edit on 6-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by SKUNK2


vK_man
You must be felling very insecure using caps and all

1/I never said anything about K-5
2/I said any one can edit Wiki, which means me or you or even a monkey!
3/I said Dorchester isn't Chobham and i never said i knew what it is other than what is rumoured, i'd like you to show me what i said, as it is all quoted in this post.
4/Just grow up your nothing more than a so called "keyboard warrior"
5/I don't understand how you can call me a liar
6/Whay do you have to do with the military?? key board warrior.

EDIT: LOL @ your editing too!!!
Your editing contardicts each other. One link says only the turret has Chobham when it's a fact the entire Challenger is fitted with it!!! Much like another link you edited says.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by SKUNK2]

/I said any one can edit Wiki, which means me or you or even a monkey!

a number of times i have tried to edit and it does not edit the info unless there are relevant sources provided ...

Just grow up your nothing more than a so called "keyboard warrior"

okay , some more personal attacks

EDIT: LOL @ your editing too!!!

except that they are not like your funny claims that dorchestor is different from chobham armour , my point is that its 2nd gen chobham

The turret and hull are protected with second generation Chobham armour (also known as Dorchester) the details of which are still classified
www.answers.com...

The turret of Challenger 2 is a totally new design. Armour is an uprated version of Challenger 1's Chobham armour. The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10) incorporating Chobham second-generation armour plating.
64.26.50.215...

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Challenger 2 is arguably the best MBT in production in the world today.
Chobham armour and 62.5 tonnes with a 1200hp Perkins multi fuel Diesel.

The M-1 A1 Abrahms is of similar ability, but has a fuel thirsty and dust vulnerable gas turbine engine.

Actually I heard it was the other way around. The Challenger being the heavier tank was the thirstier tank and plus since the Challenger had its intakes on the sides it suffered dust issues. I even saw a documentary of Discovery that showed a Challenger division commander talking about how the Challengers had difficulty in the dust and what they did to rectify the problem vis-a-vis the Abrams.

The Germans tested DM-33 APFSDS rounds on the K5 covered T-72 tanks , but these were both the 105mm and 120mm DM33 APFSDS rounds. The reports are vage and don't specify which gun is used in each shot, so its not clear which rounds penetrated and which didn't. Apparently the tests confirmed the known performance of both the 105mm & 120mm DM-33 APFSDS and the superiority of the 120mm DM-53 APFSDS.