Why Ceramic Armor? Hard but brittle!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
- Ceramics at first glance don't seem be a particularly good material for armor, especially not for tank armor, considering how brittle they can be. Of course, there is difference between our "household" ceramics and technical ceramics, still various properties like brittleness remain. In this video Professor Paul Hazell (UNSW Canberra) and I talk about how ceramic armor can be used against shaped charges, but also kinetic rounds. We also look at strength and weaknesses in comparison to steel.
Cover Photo by Cpl Tyler L. Main, Marines from 4th Tank Division, Twentynine Palms, Calif., roll down a dirt road on their M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank during a day of training at Exercise Africa Lion 2012. License Public Domain: www.flickr.com/photos/dinfos_... Modification by MHV: horizontal flip.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» UA-cam Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
Hazell, Paul J.: Armour: Materials, Theory, and Design. 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2022. routledge.pub/Armour
Crouch, Ian G.: The Science of Armour Materials. Woodhead Publishing: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2017.
Bird, Lorrin Rexford; Livingston, Robert D.: World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. Second Edition, Overmatch Press: Albany, New York, USA, 2001.
#CeramicArmor,#Armor101,#tanks
00:00 Intro
00:33 Disruptor & Absorber
01:30 Face Hardened Armor
02:09 Ceramics Basics
03:57 Layering of Ceramic Armor
04:15 HEAT Penetration Visualized Panzerfaust
05:03 Ceramic Armor how it would be used
07:10 How Multi-Layer Armor defeats a shaped charge
08:30 Cone Formation
09:01 Use of Ceramics versus Kinetic Rounds?
10:07 First wide-scale Military Use
10:47 Strength & Weaknesses compared to Metal
11:37 Summary
![[Tanks 101] Armor Protection 1920-1980 - Features and Characteristics](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f0IbZGfTgUM/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Tanks 101] Armor Protection 1920-1980 - Features and Characteristics](/img/tr.png)
For more information about Professor Hazell's book, go here: routledge.pub/Armour
He probably could have used Boron Carbide as his example as that is actually what the ceramic armor is made of . Which is an extremely hard Boron - Carbon Ceramic material. The formula for which is B4C. It's density is 2.52 g/cm3, solid. so yeah that's what tank armor ceramic is based on in most cases . Yes you can find this on google .
But knowing the materal is doesn't mean anything as the thinkness of modern tank armor is classified.
I’d buy the book if it wasn’t $128
Cant you check with google how to pronounce words properly ?
@@CFox.7 Make a video like that in your second language, so write the script, the design, record, edit, etc. and then ask that question again. Short answer you won't.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized im not a youtuber but if i were I would consult the plethora of resources out there. Diligence is diligence regardless and you didnt do any. You German ? I thought you would demonstrate more logic
That professor acted like a guy desperatley trying to NOT give away chobham armour in that interview
I Hope this professor do not teach...
I could not stand his laborious intervention for a single minute, can't imagine the hell it must be to be there for an entire lecture.
makes sense,the CIA probably said *targeting laser noises*
@@lucasfoldesi4265 Way too many UK lecturers, go on about this way, unfortunately.
I don't think he knows the answer. Should be simple for a professor to describe the role of microstructure, fracture mechanics, kinetic to surface energy conversion thru the crack propagation, increase in cap deformation, etc.
I would be so fucking tempted too.
Great video! I’m a senior year Mechanical Engineering major, and in my composites lab we had a class where we focus specifically on composite ballistic applications. My professor always likened them to the the idea of a “breaker” layer on top of a “catcher” layer. Weave these layers repeatedly (in the event a round breaks through the preceding catcher layer) and voilà, eventually the dissipated energy will be so small the projectile will not penetrate. Such an interesting field of study
This was a good one, I have to say. Some of the basic concepts are clearer now to me, not being a materials engineer.
A rather taughtological statement that can be applied to every inert material on earth.( Inert here in the sense it doesn't add energy to the situation, eg "Hey guys I made my armor by gluing together cases of dynamite!" , not an engineered ERA top layer)
Say homogenous steel: add repeating layers of steel in the event a round breaks through the preceding layer, eventually the energy dissipated will be so small the projectile is stopped. wood same, pillows same.
Tanks, death traps
Wow. I have a very basic understanding of armour but I was about to say almost the very same thing lol
That's why you have glass over perspex over laminate repeatedly for bullet resistant windows.
A layer or two to shatter and dissipate energy then a layer to catch and hold the layers together 👍
I've no doubt that I have made glaring errors but I felt clever for a minute lol
@@mytech6779 sure but super hard, temperature resistant layers mixed with dense but ductile layers is much more effective than repeated layers of the same material over and over: the variation in hardness, heat performance and density begween the layers has a massive multiplying effect on the bsllistic resistance of the material.
The general idea is that the energy from the projectile has to go somewhere for the round to be defeated. This is either in the form of elastic dispersion (the armour bends under the impact and then springs back) or inelastic dispersion (the armour or projectile breaks).
The elastic dispersion capability of an armour is always less than it's inelastic dispersion capability (everything bends before it breaks). Therefore it is more efficient to use an armour that will absorb energy inelastically. You can stop a stronger projectile for a given weight.
Ceramic is harder than steel but also more brittle, a shot that might bounce off steel will shatter ceramic. But a shot that would penetrate the same steel might be stopped by a ceramic (that would break in the process). The best ceramic will crumble into dust and explode everywhere, with all that damage absorbing energy from the projectile.
You still require a backing layer as described though, partly to provide a structure to attach armour to, and also to absorb any stray fragments.
I am now very much more glad that I invested in Professor Hazells book. There is a lot that I dont yet understand fully about modern Tank armour and that I would love to do Videos on.
I would not have thought that the ceramic part of the armour packages is also a "dynamic" part. Seems counter intuitive, because it isnt normally flexible like the rubber, also sometimes used in NERA packages, like I think it is on the T-72B
Great, that you have access to such great partners for Interviews!
@SIby 🅥 Feeding animals video.
I some types of non-explosive reactive armor you use moving plates to disrupt wither formation or already formed penetrator. Like 2 steel plates moving in opposite directions through which penetrator is going might break it or at least disrupt it's path to a degree which makes it lose energy and also makes it go through even more armor. I get that those are basics and they don't necessarily apply to all types of NERA/NxRA/SLERA etc. Also it's probably simplified version of what happens, since most of more advanced reactive armors have more than 1 thing to make penetration harder.
@@jannegrey593 Must be the names of the animals :P
Such a gem of a channel. I’ve spent more of my time learning about “steel” tanks and as interesting as they are I had no clue how much goes into a MBT. Granted it’s obviously a lot but I gotta say I love the balance of old world war tanks and mbts this channel sticks with since I’m not fully committed to learning about the “newer” kids on the block lol
My theory is that you can make ceramic plates the like to break easily in a general axis. If you layer such plates that break into perpendicularly to each other, the amount of energy dissipation would be rather good. It’s also not about deflecting the projectile, so much as it’s about distributing as much of the impact into plates that break away from internal armor and components. Probably breaking into predetermined catch material that dissipates more energy away from the internal armor
Force dissipitation in breaking brittle materials like glass or ceramics is mostly done by creation of new surface area, so the trick will not be to just layer ceramic in certain angles to itself, at least if the trick is to constrict the projectile path. In my opinion it is far more likely that the design secret is to engineer the heck out of ceramic polymer interfaces, so that polymer uppon getting hit elasticly deforms and moves anjacent and the already broken ceramic tile/platelett parts back into the side of the projectile path.
@@philippmuller6377 That and dampening shockwave reflection on the backface of the ceramics. It is one of the main mechanisms by which damage to ceramic occur.
Which is where we see metal foams entering the market now.
@@philippmuller6377wut
Ceramic tiles are excellent as long as you don't take multiple hits in the same spot you can simply replace the broken ones rather than the entire armor. Even basic ceramics (coffee mug, back of your toilet) are hard enough that they can be used to sharpen very hard high end steels.
uhm, its pointed out that such ceramics, kitchenware and bathroom ceramics, doesn't posses such hardness. Aluminium Oxide, Silicon Carbide, OTOH, are hard enough to be such, in fact, they are used as armour.
Ah, so this is the missing piece from Bosnian Ape Society video on how to defend yourself from a Leclerc
We need to armor our gun with Toilets!
@@twddersharkmarine7774 why do you think the pentagon was paying so much for toilet seats? It was a clever ruse to hide the new ceramic armor beneath a veneer of corruption and incompetence
@@samuelmendoza9356 Stoneware is nearly pure aluminum oxide and has a high density due to high-temperature sintering. Thick stoneware tiles are probably extremely similar to the armor. But it is not qualified and someone wants to make a lot of money.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 as far as I know, ceramic armour works being tightly packed and no voids like bubbles. AFAIK, most ceramic ware that is not armour are porous and thus why they have to be glazed.
Fascinating, I look forward to hearing more from this interview
Much awaited much appreciated excellent insights as always.
Really interesting, thank you!
This reminds me of Drachinifel's video on battleship armor.
MHV - See the Paul Harrell video from 5 years ago "Improvised Body Armor" and the one from 2 years ago "Personal Protection: Bulletproofing your book bag" for some of these principals in action. Both make use of ceramic tile has the hard face followed by energy absorber layers.
Just regular ceramic tiles? Would it work against modern HEAT? What if Russia starts looting ceramic tiles from swimming pools and puts it onto their side armour?
@@edward9674 Regular ceramic tiles against bullets? Sure, it can work when overbuilt enough to compensate for material selection. Against the HEAT missile warheads or AP projectiles fired by autocannons? It needs to be engineered for the purpose.
The Patreon section has the 'Top Secret' parts of the interview where he describes the armor of the new M-1A4 Abrams Tank! J/K, that would be cool for us but bad for the tankers.
That Challenger tank looks mighty sexy in that ceramic armor with green camo🔥 🔥
Good stuff Professor!
The best body armors are ceramic or composite because most steel plates weigh twice as much and send a lot of fragmentation into the neck and chin which can easily be fatal. Most steel plates are over 9-10 pounds where as most good ceramic plates are usually 6 pounds or less
Informative as always.
This is the best video on UA-cam fam!!!! You’re a true 🐐!!!!
Good video man keep it up
That Bob Semple tank is indestructible!
Very interesting, thank you
Could you do a video on the upgrades Egypt has done on many of its older Soviet tanks.
gutes Video, sehr lehrreich
I love the humblebrag disclosure about being invited to the Tank Museum. Awesome!
Local law requires him to make those disclosures on nearly every video
love your channnel bro 👍
Very interesting
Wish you made a video about Localised Interaction Models of hypersonic penetration dynamics. It would be super cool to watch the explanation of 'Interface defeat' and maybe sum of the reaction forces acting on the penetrator .
Just an additional point, ceramics can absorb a huge amount of heat - it is the best material for insulation. So, unlike steel, say, you cant hit it with massive energy and cause molten slag to fly off from the hit.
Impressive library behind the SME. I imagine it's all about TANKS.
reminds me of a commercial i've seen about bulletprofe walls that were filled with ceramic ball bearings to defeat high caliber rifle ammo.
Nice video, but it would be really great if you talked some physics of this, like how exactly brittness, hardness and density are combined in material and that those are separate characteristics.
That would take a lot longer to go into. So as much as I love that sort of thing, it would likely just disrupt the pacing of the video.
it's important to note that hardnesses and density generally do *not* go hand in hand. a great example of this is pretty much all pure metals: they're heavy, but they're soft.
Industrial Ceramics like boron carbide are still used in bullet proof wests for same old reasons. Additional in that use, boron carbide compared to other "brittle material2 is very light.
And in helicopters.
for shaped charges there are non ceramic solutions that works well, generally based on "bulging plate" type sandwiches with steel and rubber.
ceramic si more suited for body armor and small AFVs (where you don't have the physical space to use a bulky nera-type array)
I suspect that depleted uranium and armor spacing may be a factor is dealing with both charge and AFDPS rounds. I found an interesting patent paper, "High strength and ductile depleted uranium alloy." I suspect you can be seen strength and ductility that makes such an alloy useful for penetrator would also make it useful and countering a penetrator.
Depleted uranium was a component of armour back during the first gulf war, I recall it was either removed or the type of armour has changed significantly since then.
Edit: Further research and i find the DU was used on the cheek plates of M1A2 as the hard deformation component.
A few major issues with using depleted uranium as armour:
1) Uranium is incredibly difficult to work with, inherently so. You can't just cut and weld it like steel, or form it like ceramics, the same properties that make it useful for armour make it highly resistant to being manipulated, so have you have to acquire specialised equipment to work with it. Furthermore, there's a lot of issues with radioactive isotopes in dust and other material discharge, as even DU is never fully inert, which adds more complications.
2) To even acquire DU in a reasonable manner, you have to be a nation with major nuclear capabilities, beyond just simple enrichment and power generation.
3) Unlike most other materials that could be used in armour, uranium is very rare and difficult to source. The supply of it can be difficult to secure and is very likely to be controlled by another nation, making you dependent on them.
4) The previous three points obviously make the entire process extremely expensive, which is why you only see the US being the only real user of DU for military applications. (Yes, I know many NATO members have used depleted uranium in APFSDS rounds before, but these were pretty much only for specialised roles and aren't normally deployed)
@@Marc83Aus The issue was with DU 30mm armour piercing rounds from both Ah-64's and A-10's where the companies that made the ammunition hadn't used just depleted Uranium they had wrapped DU around a core of not so depleted Uranium! Their rounds were a little "Hot" Pretty typical of Corporate Greed endangering peoples lives.
@@jackdbur We're discussing the depleted uranium armour that was added on to the turret front face, but I havent heard about this depleted uranium ammunition issue before, though I honestly dont think using natural uranium instead of depleted would have been too much worse, its only 40% more radioactive, both are bad especially when compounded with the toxic effects of the metal itself.
@@Marc83Aus It's much worse when that ammunition has hit a tank or rock and creates nano particles of toxic radioactive dust! I have seen a video that discussed the Australian army buying Abrhams tanks and it commented that the US version with DU armour was different to the export version being purchased ( lots of rabid anti nuclear types here on Australia)
Between the disruptor and absorber, perhaps deflectors in the form of Kevlar spheres? The deflectors rapidly redirect energy away & reducing forces...
They have flexible (up to a point) ceramic plate armor with multi hit capabilities these days. At least for personnel body armor. It’s not cheap either lol. From what I recall, each little ceramic plate is housed in its own cell, so if shot, the entire integrity of your vest isn’t compromised
This really makes me wonder how this sort of armor would react to higher diameter and higher mass projectile, moving at lower velocity.
Would it have been possible during WW2 to make steel sideskirts with glass layered in between to defeat panzerfaust from the side?
9:52 like specifically shaped ceramic particles that close in once hit similarly to jacks. These jacks for example would be pushed inwardly while the back closes in behind thus 'abrading' the rod causing high frictional force to further deform the penetrator. Thats my guess. Lol.
I wish to know more about face hardened WWII armor.
another term/acronym for anti armor/vehicle shape charge is EFP explosively formed penetrator. During my time in Baghdad these were all the rage with the popular kids.
Hard and soft armor have always made a good combo, whether it's kevlar under a plate or as a spall liner. or a coif under a helmet.
A gambeson under a chainmail or brigandine
applicable to body armor also. Interestingly, some Steel Body armor use a thinner ceramic strike face as the disruptor, while the steel is used to absorb the round.
Look into ceramic cutters for machine tools, very similar properties.
Face hardened armor has proved its value since the day it was introduced in the late 19th century
Damn, Australia must be developing some hyper advanced armour if we’re getting into the classified area.
He's from the UK so I suspect he might be straying into Official Secrets Act territory...
@@dogsnads5634: cool even more badarse
Steel's protection for a given depth pr ton is an exponential curve.
Crazy question: would this work on a battleship? Like against wwii naval shells?
So do dual off route IED defeat most armour types?
Offset times that shatter then penetrate?
EFP's*
@@scrappydoo7887 Off route mines is mostly aimed at the side of tanks so there are not much that the side armor can do to stop it due to thickness.
@@xendk ok. Thank you for the reply 👍
I think I learned from Prof's Harzell's book that ceramic armor does not benefit from angling due to its brittleness. too bad he can't talk about how ceramics protect against kinetic round in detail but an intresting video nontheless.
2:20 don't forget that expensive brake pads are sometimes made out of ceramic
The armor protection of my coffee mug is clasified🤫
MHV: sure, Professor Hazell, I'd love to meet but unfortunately I'm in Austria
Paul: Great, chap! We can meet at the Canberra campus!
MHV: No, not the -alia one!
I have some tungsten carbide rods from a large furnace and they are not like regular ceramics, lol.
some ceramics are used as cutting inserts for milling (sandvik is a well known manufacturer), these ceramics are a mix of powder that is compressed and "cooked"
video of how inserts are made (ua-cam.com/video/0QrynzJ_lZ4/v-deo.html)
I am surprised at the armor systems the videos on armor penetration of the M1 portray. It has been well documented that "Chobham" armor and the systems developed from it incorporated silicate tiles in a polyurethane matrix. The US Army was experimenting with silicate armors in the early 1950s, the TAACOM report having been declassified. The issue was cracking. HE shells of sufficient size would not penetrate but they would cause cracks in the plate that could be exploited. The same with KE projectiles. The cracks would travel outward from the point of impact. Amazingly, the experiments showed that using "quickcrete" to fill the cracks returned the plate to its original effectiveness against HESH and HEAT rounds, but not against HE shells and KE projectiles. Also the higher the angle of strike (ie. the farther the plate was from vertical) reduced the resistance of the silicate armor. Maximum effectiveness was reached at vertical. Despite the cracking, the silicate armor basically performed as well as a similar thickness of high hardness steel or against the face of cemented or face-hardened armor plates. Another way of reducing cracking was to 'cement" a silicate plate of a plate of steel with higher ductile characteristics. Thus the usual array was face-hardened armor on silicate on RHA plates. By reducing the size of the silicate plates to tiles in a flexible matrix, the damage or destruction of a tile by a hit by an HE shell or KE projectile does not compromise the rest of the armor array. Chobham armor was designed as a series of boxes welded to the frame of the hull and turret, allowing the boxes to be upgraded, such as when the US added a DU mesh to the M1A1 (Heavy Armor). It is an interesting comment on the armor array itself, featuring the different plates, matrices and such along with spaces, that the original armor design is still classified. What we know about the armor array is what has been released through "open" sources, such as Hunnicutt and Zaloga, which emphasize the silicate matrix. So, the exact distances, size of the tiles and plates, composition and alignment of plates of different materials are classified. But given the depth of the boxes on an M1, the optimal spacing and laminating of the plates and material to resist APDSFS and HEAT rounds allow some assumptions can be made. Which can be matched against the resistance claims in certain "open" sources for such armor. It should be noted that the US Army has found no reason to add ERA to the front quarter of the M1's hull and turret.
Going back to that TAACOM report, the results indicated that the costs of ceramic plates of suitable size and thickness were not immediately available from commercial sources, but a funding effort by the Army could generate the necessary supporting industry. It cannot be determined if the ceramic array was used with the T95 series of tanks, but it was intended to use the array on the glacis of the M60 (one reason the glacis was welded not cast) and the turrets were to be cast hollow and silicates injected into the hollow. It turned out the cost was too much even for the JFK administration's new focus on conventional forces. The Army also experimented with silicate armor "boxes" as applique armor for the M48 glacis and turret in the mid-late 1950s.
BTW, the claim that the M1's armor array was compromised in 2003 is not sustained. What IS interesting is the upper and lower glacis plate on T-64s and early T-72s which used arrays much like the ones described and illustrated in the TAACOM report from 1952. And that while ceramic balls and other methods were used in the turret of the T-64 and T-72, the exported T-72s had a simple system of plates and rubber or polyurethane.
I think that the armor composition of the M1 Abrams as it was first introduced didn't incorporate ceramics. However, the upgraded armor package in the early 1980s found on the M1IP and M1A1 seems to have it incorporated.
Heard about aluminium bricks
with preassurisied CO2. Is there
automatic fire extinguiser in modern
tanks today?
Yes, modern tanks have automatic fire extinguishers in them, because a fire inside a tank is very, very bad news for its crew.
If you want an expert on tank armor, New Zealand, home of the Bob Semple tank, is the best place to go
Good explanations in layman's language
I think a good way to think about this is to look at the baffles of a silencer. The gas from the barrel rapidly expands into a larger volume and becomes turbulent reducing the amount of energy it has when it leaves the barrel making the shot far quieter. In some cases the energy is reduced enough to make a round sub-sonic.
For multi-layer armours that use ceramics or other brittle materials it seems like a similar principal but in reverse.
I've been wondering... just purely out of personal curiosity. Why isn't this being used with soldier's body armor? For example a thin layer of ceramic, with polyethylene armor underneath. (or layers of ceramic and steel, for a more cheap option.)
Ceramics are needed to defeat level IV threats.
Thanks for the brief clarification on shaped charges. My education is in explosives and it bugs me that even US Army engineer courses get the shaped charge concept wrong.
Is it engineer as in field engineer that rig up explosive and stuff or engineer that work in lab to develop stuff?
Because grunt on the ground only need to know enough stuff to kill the other side and not kill their own side. "Burning throught stuff like a blow torch" is easier to convey than "high velocity superplastic jet pumching throught armor similar to water jet cutter".
So has anyone tried Water as the interspace absorber? against HEAT charges?
I think it might be in the Merkava, at least they used fuel: ua-cam.com/video/xW8cvel5G1w/v-deo.html
The details of Chobham armor have been leaked in 2003 and apparently, to everyone's surprise, there actually aren't any ceramics in it. It is just steel plates and rubber and a special way of mounting those steel and rubber plates so that when they get hit, they move and push more material into the path of the projectile.
Do you have a source on where I can get this information?
@@nemesisobsidian Not sure whether the blog still exists. It has been dead since 2006 or so, but there was a blog called "Below The Turret Ring" which was pretty well known among tank nerds back in the day. If it does not exist anymore, I can't help you.
@@TrangleC A "blog" that no longer exists. Compared to Jane's, Brassey's, Zaloga and Hunnicutt, et al?
@@michaelsnyder3871 How about you rub some of your brain cells together and google this shit before embarrassing yourself trying to start a fight with non-arguments like that?
I just googled and to my surprise I found that the blog doesn't only still exist, but has been updated recently and isn't as dead as I thought.
On the new blog you can find a "old blog" link and when you click on it and then search for "chobham", boom, you get the article.
Not that hard.
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you can't even be bothered checking and googling something before you start accusing people of being wrong or lying?
What kind of schmuck are you?
I mentioned that blog not because it was the only source. Back then those leaked documents were all over the military nerd community and tons of forums and other sources. I just brought up that particular blog because that is where I remember first getting the information.
And are you claiming Jane's or those other sources say anything contrary to the leaked documents? Do they say "Chobham armor definitely has ceramics in them."?
@@michaelsnyder3871 The blog still exists (use Google) and it details that all modern tanks use some form of NERA sandwiches as armor (Chobham, Dorchester, Abrahams, Merkava, etc.).
does anyone know nanoceramic in blind holes
A video about the use of uranium as tank armour would be interesting.
I remember seeing a documentary which depicted the disruptor and absorber principle being applied in protecting spacecraft from high-velocity debris impacts. It works even better in that application because at those energy levels projectiles generally turn into ionized gas or plasma upon impact, further spreading out the force. The example shown used several aluminium plates separated by large "air" gaps.
So i can't cover my tank in some ceramic dishes?
Your tank? What about my superhero costume?
@@kit888 😂😂😂😂😂
The Javelin finds this video very informative!
just as an fyi put more emphasis on the e in homogenous. its pronounced more like gene not gin (deeper e). not being judgy I no 0 german. but if you want to sound a bit more fluent that would help ya. great content btw. u should do an update on where germany stands now. what was promised what was delivered and where the german coallition govt is on their support for ukraine. Also a cool vid would be one on what germany's economic policy and politics are. I thought of looking for a job there but this winter seems like it will suck. be cool to have an idea if yall will be sorted this time next year.
add very dense materials like DPU and titanium and you get modern tanks...the key is understanding your battlefield because you cannot have separate fleets for different threat models.
Titanium isn't dense
@@alexdunphy3716 I think he confused tungsten and titanium. :)
The best armor is lead and the best HEAT liner is gold, But
@@xendk I've never heard of lead being used for armour; it's too soft. As for gold being used for the liners in HEAT shells, it has been tried, but the premier liner actually seems to be a copper-tantalum alloy, or so I've heard. Gold is way, way too expensive to be used in those munitions, especially in the quantities that would be needed.
@@Schwarzvogel1 Come on.... only an idiot would believe that lead have been used as armour!!!!! or gold applied as ammo but in "theory" they are the best for a shape charge and as armour again it.
*"With high hardness comes less ductility."*
~Uncle Ben~
My first thoughts here are, "A Bull in a China Shop"!
Does this mean will will get a new batch of German Tanks named after types of Bulls ?!?
I bet it will be another cat. The Germans have a theme.
Don't think so there's a lot more of cats left
@@Panchoproductions2069 we simply re-use the names.
First time learning about technical ceramics lol
I've always wondered why a Charlie 2 has one of those plastic pizza things on top of it. I know what it does. just don't know why it's designed like that.
Britains next generation Armour should be named 'Don't worry Beharry' in Honour of Johnson Beharry VC, A Warrior with a Head so tough he eats RPG's and has a MILAN for Dessert ;-)
good video, but that one was not a HEAT round. A HEAT round is different from a shaped charge round. A HEAT round does not do penetration of the armor but has the effect of spalling. It is a different concept. A HEAT round is just a a high explosive round which comes off in contact with the armor, causing it to splinter on the inside face, disabling the crew and equipment.
You mean HESH.
lol
lmao
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized you are right, I apologize, I got it all wrong.
@@virgilrusuyou are a humble man, you will learn better than other ignorant people
It dont liquify on impact ?
No, it explosively forms a solid perpetrator that punches through the armor using the kinetic force imparted by the explosive.
👍👍👍👊👊
Technical
Cool cool
Technical
Technical
What if they used manmade diamonds?
Depleted Uranium Composite Ceramic Tungsten Armor
Keramic?
UNSW in ACT? Yeah, why not?
"Face Harden Armor" is not a good term.
There are many way of manufacturing non homogeneous steel plate.
The existence of capped projectile change the dynamic.
In general, for the purpose of tank, overwhelming amount of the times, homogeneous armor is better.
Ceramic type armor works against non erosion penetrator, we all know. But how does the dynamic changes when we are dealing with erosion based penetrator?
For the purpose of a modern Main Battle Tank, only composite armor can provide sufficient protection against anti-tank rounds and missiles. Using homogeneous armor would be completely impractical due to weight (we’re talking battleship-level steel armor to even dream of stopping a modern APFSDS round).
I don't know where you get the idea that homogenous armour is better than composite. Homogenous steel armour is very vulnerable to shaped charge rounds and has to be incredibly thick to stop kinetic rounds: meanwhile, homogenous ceramic armour would simply shatter every time a tank goes over a bump. Composite armour (layered ceramic and metallic) is superior in all regards.
@@MaxIsStrange1
The part of homogenous armor is about face harden steel vs homogenous steel.
My question regarding composite is how ceramic based armor perform against erosion based projectile?
@@jintsuubest9331 I’m not sure what you mean by ‘erosion based’. I thought you were talking about APFSDS rounds since they do erode during penetration, and which is why these days they are a single-piece rod about a meter in length, and are made from either a tungsten alloy or a depleted uranium alloy (like the staballoy).
In terms of how well a steel armor would hold up against an APFSDS round, to the best of my knowledge the answer is not well at all (just look at the estimated penetration numbers of these rounds, measured in Rolled Homogeneous [steel] Armor).
@@jintsuubest9331 And if you’re curious, you can look into UA-cam channels like SY Simulations which try to simulate how different types of projectiles interact with different types of armor.
Well, the simple answer is it's not just ceramic. It's composite.
How long after you being invited to a museum will u no longer be required to say that you were invited in 2019
Forever if I use the material.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized So like a deal with the Devil? Forever
Bureaucracy.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized xD the bane of us all
5:20: you make it sound hypothetical to mix ceramic with various steels. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but the label on the Leopard clearly says "do not weld, ceramics included, will create toxic gasses". I paraphrase, but you see the point: we already have ceramic and steel mixed.
Not to mention the armor on the Abrhams is top secret, so we have no idea what they're doing. Surely they're using ceramics and steels too?
Quite likely, yes. But exactly how the M1 tank's armour is constructed is highly classified information.
Abrhams armour has a depleted Uranium layer in it! Probably ceramic layer as well.
Is the heavy accent on purpose at this point?
> Is the heavy accent on purpose at this point?
Do you ask stupid question like this on purpose or do you lack any real life experience and basic understanding about language? There are people that lived years or even decades in English speaking countries and still have strong accents. I still live in Austria and never lived in an English speaking country.
Energy dissipates on cracks. Cermaics technological school.
I mean a good interview, but unfortunately the expert was unable to really comment in a meaningful way.
Don't let a New South Welshman hear you say the University of New South Wales is in Canberra!
Awesome video.
Just a heads up, since English is by farrrr the most bestest language with absolutely no arbitrary pronunciation rules which have no rhyme or reason.
In Ceramic, the C is like an “S” like “Sierra”
Homogenous, the G is a “J” like “Juliet”
Confinement? It is just constrained ceramic armor, lots of open source papers to find.
Loved the vid but that professor explaining ceramics explained nothing other than ceramics are designed that way
When you know any kind of classified stuff, it becomes much harder to talk about that topic because you have to be very careful not to say anything that might give away a secret.
First half was ok then it got smart
first time hearing someone pronounce it as "Keramic"
German slipped in, it is Keramik in German.
Fully densified ceramics = ceramics with low void space volume after sintering.
Think >98% theoretical density.