Does Chobham armour resist multiple hits?

Jeffrey wrote:

GP wrote:

Jeffrey wrote:

None of that is true.

 

I think it is, atleast DU rounds are dangerous when they have exploded... so whhy isn't the Abrams DU armor not dangerous when destroyed?

 

I fully admit that this is not my area of expertise, but I always understood that DU rounds penetrate rather than explode, if the tank hit subsequently explodes and burns that is more down to the damage caused once the round has got through the armour. :-?

Depleted Uranium is basically a very dense penetrating round, not a mini-nuke.

 

Maybe it won't explode, but it would break, there where cases of T-55's that where surrounded by radio-active stuff because of the DU rounds it was hit with.

 

They don't explode, however, tiny even minute dust particles do 'break off' and hang around in the air, eventually landing on the ground or other surfaces.

Not going into too much detail, but I am sure I have painted the correct picture.

 

Taken from the federation of american scientists.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

The M1 series tank is equipped with a 1500 horsepower Lycoming Textron gas turbine engine coupled to an Allison hydrokenetic transmission with four forward and two reverse gears. It's tactical crusing range is approximately 275 miles. Despite it's weight, the M1 can attain a top speed of nearly 45 miles per hour. The main armament is a 120mm smooth bore cannon, which replaced the 105mm gun on the initial M1 version. It has day/night fire on the move capability which is provided by a laser range finder, thermal imaging night sight, optical day sight, and a digital ballistic computer. Both the fuel and ammunition are compartmented to enhance survivability. The hull and turret are protected by advanced armor similar to the Chobam armor developed by the British Ministry of Defense. When required, the Abrams may be fitted with "reactive armor" to thwart armor-defeating munitions.

and

In the survivability area the Army is working to develop and field a contingency armor package that is thin and lightweight, but with a high level of protection. These armor packages can be applied to either the side or front of Abrams tanks to provide additional protection as required by the mission. The Army is also seeking to fundo resource upgrades to the M1A1 fire control system with the same 2nd Gen FLIR package on the M1A2.



If they can add reactive armour as the Challenger then I assume it is possible to bolt on sheets of Chobham type armour.

 

They are referring to reactive armor which is always applied over the existing armor. There would be no reason to apply Chobham armor (which the US doesn't use) over the armor that is in place inasmuch as there have been no instances of the frontal armor of an Abrams being penetrated. None of the things in that article contradict my remarks. Similar to Chobham armor is not the same as Chobham armor. I indicated that it was similar since it's development was based on what was learned from the Chobham armor.


You have taken the "none of that is true" remark and placed it out of context. Look again and you will see I was referring to the comments made about the alleged radioactivity and danger of DU armor.

 

DU rounds do not "explode". They do burn (Partially).
Are they dangerous to those whom you fire them at? Of course.
If not what would be the point? If you are in a tank that is being penetrated by DU rounds the least of your worries will be whether or not you develop cancer in 30 years

 

But then to those who come along & clean up the battlefield, or more importantly those civilians who return to live & work where battles took place...

Oh, and as to the Abrahms, could we agree that it uses 'Chobham-type' armour?

 

As Ricky said Grieg, and ofcourse, than a bad thing of US army comes along, when in urban firing DU rounds at enemy objects they don't think of the civilians in the area, they just don't care if they get cancer or something, another bad point of US army.


''They are referring to reactive armor which is always applied over the existing armor.''

Not true, the Challenger has sandwiches explosive packages between the armor...

And the Abrams armor is just the same as CHallenger's army... they just gave it another name, thats the difference :lol:

 

Ricky wrote:

I do not agree to that statement. Actually the armor on the latest model Abrams was developed from the lessons learned from Chobham armor.
There the similarity ends. There is no steel encased DU in Chobham armor.

Are you saying that DU puts these folks at risk? Risk of what? Where are you getting that data from? Everything I have read (that is based on science, rather than hysteria) confirms that the risk from DU is minimal. Much lower than from getting a yearly dental X-ray for instance.


Jeffrey wrote:

Untrue. How do you explain the lack of DU in the Challengers armor then?

Isn't this thread about Chobham armor? Why are you making statements about what YOU think is "bad" about the US Army?
I'm not sure how it is you can continue to make insulting, poorly informed and biased posts regarding the US military without comment from Mods
**shrug**
think as you like.

 

Its true, they wannet to design a round that outmatches all other tank rounds, they don't care if the civilians get cancer from it, they won't say it but its true. It was not in my intention to insult you in any way.


''How do you explain the lack of DU in the Challengers armor then''

As far as I know, the Challengers Chobam armor has DU in it.

 

You are not insulting me. Your statement is very clear. You are making negative comments regarding the US military as "bad" in a thread about another topic. Why?
Do you think the same thing about the British?
Are you aware that the Brits used DU rounds also or is this opinion reserved specifically for the US?

There are no reports of this AFAIK whereas it is common knowledge that the Abrams does use DU. If you have a source for that idea I would like to read it.

 

Same for the Britisch if they use DU rounds.

 

First up - some of the Abrahm's armour (ie: not the front glacis) seems to be an American development of Chobham, using the same technique of layers of various materials. I think 'Chobham-type' armour is an appropriate description.

DU rounds has their own topic. Please let us discuss them there.
Jeffrey: yes, they are possibly a risk (this is not something I have researched), but please don't get too carried away with using this as an excuse to bash the Americans. Please don't forget us Brits too! And surely other nations use DU ammo by now...

 

Weren't there a number of M1's that suffered blue on blue hits in GW1 that were sitting out of the way in a storage depot for some time while the threat from the DU powder residue was assessed?

 

Other NATO members then US+UK using DU ammo are : France, Greece and Turkey.
Also used by Israel and Russia.

 

Most dangerous thing about DU is that it is still Uranium which is very poisonous metal.

 

Alright I do take this very seriously. Grieg, I think you should keep in mind that everyone can speak his mind here, as long as he or she has (true) arguments. there's no moderator needed to tell everyone that, I thought. You don't have to feel assaulted when someone speaks is mind about the US army.
To the others: keep in mind that you don't talk prejudiced opinions, try to keep opinions and facts seperated from each other. Otherwise noone will be able to check on reference material and discussions will get very nasty. In that case I shan't be there just to warn all of you.
thank you.

Now, where were we? Did someone say this armour causes cancer? that's not too good, I'd say...

 

"true" arguments? His opinions about the US Military are not data or "true" arguments..they are merely his opinions. Furthermore the opinions stated have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic being discussed in this thread which makes them unwarranted and irrelevant. What does "another bad point about the US Army" as he puts it have to do with whether Chobham armor resists multiple hits?

You know of any scientific data to support that claim? I have not seen any.