Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Advanced Modular Armor Protection (AMAP) is modular composite armour concept, developed by the German company IBD Deisenroth Engineering, since 2019 part of Rheinmetall Protection Systems. According to IBD AMAP is a 4th generation composite armour, making use of nano-ceramics and modern steel alloy technologies. [ 1 ]
The U.S. Army's M1 Abrams MBT with TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) upgrade uses composite, reactive and slat armour. Military vehicles are commonly armoured (or armored; see spelling differences) to withstand the impact of shrapnel, bullets, shells, rockets, and missiles, protecting the personnel inside from enemy fire.
The VPAM scale as of 2009 runs from 1 to 14, with 1-5 being soft armor, and 6-14 being hard armor. [1] Tested armor must withstand three hits, spaced 120 mm (4.7 inches) apart, of the designated test threat with no more than 25 mm (0.98 inches) of back-face deformation in order to pass.
A Chinese publication lists 30MnCrNiMo "685" steel as the material used in Chinese rolled armor plates, with a Brinell Hardness of HBW 444-514 (thin) / 429-495 (thick). According to the same publication, older vehicles use a 22SiMn2TiB "616" steel with a hardness of HBS ≤ 219.
Combination K is a three-layer composite armor consisting of an outer and inner layer of steel and a middle layer of fiberglass glass-reinforced plastic ("steklotekstolit") and a pack of ceramic (allegedly corundum) plates.
An illustration of why sloped armour offers no weight benefit when protecting a certain frontal area. Comparing a vertical slab of armour (left) and a section of 45° sloped armour (right), the horizontal distance through the armour (black arrows) is the same, but the normal thickness of the sloped armour (green arrow) is less.
Army secretary nominee Daniel Driscoll questioned whether Army helicopters should be flying training missions in one of the nation’s most congested flight paths after Wednesday's tragic ...
Body armor is always a compromise: mobility and comfort (and with it speed and stamina) are inevitably sacrificed to some degree when greater protection is achieved. This is a point of contention in the U.S. armed forces, with some favoring less armor in order to maintain mobility and others wanting as much protection as is practical.