Dorchester armor?

[Bfn42]

How well does dorhester armor do againt ke penetrators? Against HE? As well as the merkava mk4. what type of armor does it use?

[gf0012-aust]

How well does dorhester armor do againt ke penetrators? Against HE? As well as the merkava mk4. what type of armor does it use?

There's almost no public information about dorchester available on the net.

The only things that I can add are the following (and to all intents and purposes they're not able to be supported):


Brits state that Dorchester is stronger and more AP resistant than DU plate. If you look at the survivability of "Charlie One Two" in the run to Bagdhad - where it was post event attacked by another M1, Mavericks and Thermites (so as to render it useless to the Iraqis for technical evaluation) - then you can see how strong DU armour is.

I was peripherally involved with a project to upgrade the Leo1's with new german armoured panels and ERA. The Germans believed that their modifications gave the Leo1 structural and armoured integrity equiv to early Chobham, slightly less than DU but significantly less than Dorchester. But, big caveat - I was not privy to penetration data, only the summaries.

[Bfn42]

Ahh.....so do you beleive dorchester is better than DU plating? As i know DU is heavier...and if thats the case Dorchester would be preferatted right?


Chalie One two? is that an armoured div with abrams or something?

[gf0012-aust]

Ahh.....so do you beleive dorchester is better than DU plating? As i know DU is heavier...and if thats the case Dorchester would be preferatted right?

I can't exactly be specific. But Chobham and Dorchester are laminated armours as opposed to RHA and DU plate. The Leo2's use a laminate which also includes perforated layers within the laminate (as well as pockets between plates).


Chalie One two? is that an armoured div with abrams or something?

"Charlie One Two" was the call sign of that specific tank. It was also called "El Cojones"

[Bfn42]

I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this area, but what consequentlycuased the fraticides? m1 and another m1 or m1 and a chally 2?


edit: Nevermind i remember....it was when the abrams had an EAPU fire...then a thermite grenade, 1 sabot rd, and two mavs right?

[gf0012-aust]

I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this area, but what consequentlycuased the fraticides? m1 and another m1 or m1 and a chally 2?


edit: Nevermind i remember....it was when the abrams had an EAPU fire...then a thermite grenade, 1 sabot rd, and two mavs right?

there was no fratricide.

the iraqis managed to get an RPG into the rear of the tank - which is acknowledged as the most vulnerable area of attack. they also put a second RPG into the APU which caused a fuel fire that was assisted also by the crews external stowage in the racks.

because the fuel leakage couldn't be stopped by the halon extringuishers the commander of the column was worried about progress being held up and the rest of the column being made vulnerble to further attacks. so he ordered the tank to be destroyed and then abandoned for later recovery. policy up until then was not to leave any tanks in the field due to sensitive equipment issues etc, so he ordered its destruction byt local forces. they tried an assisted thermite destruction which failed, they then had one of their own tanks launch a 120mm round into the turret at the APU mounting point. That also failed, they then ordered an air strike which launched a pair of mavericks . The tank thus appears intact externally, but was completely destroyed internally.

So, there was no fratricide. There have been fratricide events, but not on this platform.

Its interesting to note that after the loss of this tank, that the policy was to make sure that crews did not stow their personal belongings on the external racks (this was during the actual run into bagdhad). all personal belongings were brought up by support units after the battle run.

thats because:
- personal items added to fire - although not contributing to platform failure they obscured the view of close assets
- they didn't want anything to assist in an APU fire.
- although they assisted in buffering RPG attacks, the gain was minimal

[Bfn42]

wow! that post....thanks! you explained it perfectly.....now i was wondering......if you were to toss a motolov cocktail..back there.... would it have the same effects? Fire ect.....

[gf0012-aust]

wow! that post....thanks! you explained it perfectly.....now i was wondering......if you were to toss a motolov cocktail..back there.... would it have the same effects? Fire ect.....

are you talking about a vehicle thats already mobility killed and needs its internals destroyed to stop enemy recovery of the sensitive items?

if yes - then it all helps, but its not as effective as a thermite. you don't get the advantage of blast effect, intense heat and concussive effects

if no, a molotov is highly unlikely to do much damage to a tank that is in NBC closed travel mode.

if you're talking about getting a molotov into the rear grille - highly unlikely as you need to be close and tanks don't go in unsupported. eg US, UK, Aust and NZ mil policy is to keep infantry close to support the tank and protect it from dismounts.

the "C12" kill was described as a "million to one" shot - still, all you need is that "million to one" shot to work once and you disable the tank.

I'm not an armour guy though, one of the other DefProfs in here could probably expand upon the doctrine side of things.

[Bfn42]

Well i came across this website




http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm





But i don't know accurate it is....

[gf0012-aust]

Well i came across this website

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

But i don't know accurate it is....

No offence, but I wouldn't trust the bulk of that data. eg M60 ratings are still classified - so the data is based on guess work.

the other thing is that mm thickness means nothing. thickness at an armour resistance level is measured against an atypical RHA thickness.

eg 450 Du thickness might be quiv to 720mm of RHA etc....

actual thickness means nothing - and the actual thickness on 95% of currently operating tanks is classified. even the US which has a working copy of basically every working russian armoured vehicle stored out at Aberdeen doesn't release those figures into the public domain - and they're notionally "enemy" platforms.

[Bfn42]

Oh stupid me....i thought that website had equivilant estimates......

I guess i'll never know, but i'm asking this question becuase i was considering joining the army and working with an abrams......I had a question of how "safe" it really is....even tho war itself, is not safe or pretty. To sum it up i basically wanted to ensure i was in the one of the best protected tanks in the world..

[gf0012-aust]

Oh stupid me....i thought that website had equivilant estimates......

I guess i'll never know, but i'm asking this question becuase i was considering joining the army and working with an abrams......I had a question of how "safe" it really is....even tho war itself, is not safe or pretty. To sum it up i basically wanted to ensure i was in the one of the best protected tanks in the world..

Its certainly the safest armoured platform in the US Army - and the only tank that I've heard of that is regarded as better protected is the Chally2.

The germans certainly regard the Leo2A6 as being close to M1A2 DU glacis protection levels - if not superior (in their opinion).

[Bfn42]

any idea how it stands up to russian/chinese 125 mm guns? I know in the 1st gw their was some encounters with iraqi t-72's when abrams tanks deflected incoming rounds......but of course license built copies built by iraqis isnt quite the same as being up against a russian one..

[gf0012-aust]

any idea how it stands up to russian/chinese 125 mm guns? I know in the 1st gw their was some encounters with iraqi t-72's when abrams tanks deflected incoming rounds......but of course license built copies built by iraqis isnt quite the same as being up against a russian one..

The russians went to 125mm as they could never get the same efficiencies as the german 120mm guns. ballistically they're still regarded as inferior calibres.

as for a T-72, it can still kill an abrams under certain conditions. thats where issues of doctrine become important.

edit: fixed typo error

[Bfn42]

when did the germans switch to 125mm? i thought the L55 was 120?

What's the approx kill range....of a chally 2 and an abrams with a russian 125?

Also, I appreicate all the questions you have answered.

[gf0012-aust]

when did the germans switch to 125mm? i thought the L55 was 120?

What's the approx kill range....of a chally 2 and an abrams with a russian 125?

Also, I appreicate all the questions you have answered.

oops, typo on my prev and now corrected.

as for long range kill, my understanding is that a Chally2 holds the record at 5km. typical engagement distance for an M1 is supposed to be 2-4km, but in 73 Easting they were engaging in hundreds of metres - and well within the kill range of a T-72.

[Bfn42]

5km? wow.... thats pretty damn good....chally 2 uses an l30 right? Thats a british made gun....how is it on par with the l44, l55 guns of germany?


(btw feel free to not answer any of the questions of i'm asking to much)

[gf0012-aust]

5km? wow.... thats pretty damn good....chally 2 uses an l30 right? Thats a british made gun....how is it on par with the l44, l55 guns of germany?


(btw feel free to not answer any of the questions of i'm asking to much)

The UK uses 120mm. The german gun (as on the Leo2A6) is generally regarded as the more superior gun.

but, you're better off getting answers from guys like aussie digger on this. my main exp is in subs and electronic warfare/systems issues

[Bfn42]

did i say 130? Err i meant L 30.....oh if only Aussie Digger would look in to this topic

[LancerMc]

The L30 is the rifled 120mm barrel that the Challenger 2 uses. In general may nations have completely moved away from rifled barrels for their MBT's. The new L55 Germany far superior to any new type of cannon being developed for MBT's.

I believe in another post on the site it was pointed out that the UK is testing L55 on a Challenger 2, and plans to replacee the L30 in a few years.

[Bfn42]

Anybody know why the L/30 was chose over the l/44 for the chally 2?

[Wooki]

Anybody know why the L/30 was chose over the l/44 for the chally 2?
The L30 is a rifled gun and therefore gives you greater HE shell capacity than a smooth bore gun, so as a general rule, a rifled gun is superior to a smooth bore for taking out "soft" targets.

Using a rifled gun also allows you to get the most out of the (design and use) of HESH rounds.

HESH rounds have the advantage that they do not use KE to defeat armor and as such their performance does not taper off at longer ranges.

I think someone mentioned the Chally holds the record for the longest ranged defeat of an armored vehicle. That is why.

It is truly an awesome tank, especially once the commander's site is/was upgraded.

The disadvantage of the rifled gun is maintenance. You get more shots with a smooth bore as a general rule (less thermal stress) and this also makes it less complicated to maintain your desired accuracy.

The 2nd disadvantage is that KE penetrator rounds are a lot more complicated than a smooth bore round and that is needed to even approach the same penetration performance of the smooth bore APFSDS.

New developments in Supersonic Ram jet technologies will make the rifled gun redundant for the short term until some bright spark comes up with something better.

cheers


W

PS re Dorchester, M1A2, Leo 2, LeClerc and Merkava 4 survivability suites... The M1A2 uses DU for a specific reason that is attractive to the US Army and The British use Dorchester for different reasons again. Normally the "shopping list" for an army buyer is:

1) protection
2) weight
3) maintenance
4) ease of repair
5) cost, both for initial purchase and life of armor
6) upgrades, the ability to meet future threats
7) size or bulk (will this increase my silhouette?)

You will find that in the above tanks that these factors have been given different degrees of importance, resulting in different designs. But as a whole the survivability suites are all top notch with no single suite standing out above the rest when all the above factors are taken into consideration.

Its a bit like asking what is the most poisonous land snake? The answer is the The Australian Fierce snake, but as I understand hardly anyone ever encounters one, so it doesn't present a high threat. Then you have the common brown snake which is very venomous, they are more frequently encountered, but it might have small fangs, etc, etc.

The same with talking about armor. It really depends on what the army in question is trying to achieve with a MBT as to what armor package it ends up with.