超级军网1989年美国对m1a1ha的防护测试
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/30 16:43:06
The US ran many tests on the M1A1HA 's armor in 1989 . These tests were to show the quality of the whole package as well as the effect of DU toxic dust on the crew in case of penetration .
During these tests , the US fired different things at the Abrams HA front turret ~where the DU Layer is~ .
They fired :
# Hellfire missile Block 1 .
# 120mm APFSDS, KE Tungsten
# 120mm, Heat-MP
# 100mm AP-C steel rod
# 120mm APFSDS, KE DU rounds (M829A1)
Without going into details ~it would take pages and ages~ the results talk for themselves :
The Abrams M1A1HA front turret has ben penetrated by both ATGM and DU penetrators . The "armor values" that you can find on the net are well off the mark . As an exemple , it is reported that the M1A1HA turret has a resistance of 1080 RHA against CE (Chemical Energy : HEAT/ATGM) . WRONG !
The Hellfire Block 1 can only penetrate 900mm equivalent RHA ! But it DID penetrate and (quote) "caused a fire that consumed the vehicle" and "a penetrator might have been ejected from one of the storage compartments into the crew compartment and then completely oxidized during the test" :shock:
Same with KE values , It is reported that the front turret has 750mm RHA versus Sabots hits , but the M829A1 rounds did penetrate and the turret 's interior was severely damaged by fire due to the pyrophoric effect of the DU rounds . It has to be noted that the rounds were fired at almost point blank range .
The M829 Tungsten penetrators did NOT penetrate ...
When the results of these tests were shown to the US Military and to the US Congress , they decided to untake the developement of the M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2 which have a much better armor packages .
The HA version of the Abrams is almost 18 years old and it shows .
Similar tests conducted on the Leo2A5 and Leclerc demonstrated the opposite , both Tanks did withstand multiple hits from various ammunition .
The facts reported in this post come from Fliszar, Richard W., Edward F. Wilsey, and Ernest W. Bloore, Radiological Contamination from Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor, Technical Report BRL-TR-3068, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratory, December 1989.
I have the reports under my eyes and only copy/paste the results .
The "Invincibility" of the Abrams M1A1HA is a legend who does not stand scrutiny .The US ran many tests on the M1A1HA 's armor in 1989 . These tests were to show the quality of the whole package as well as the effect of DU toxic dust on the crew in case of penetration .
During these tests , the US fired different things at the Abrams HA front turret ~where the DU Layer is~ .
They fired :
# Hellfire missile Block 1 .
# 120mm APFSDS, KE Tungsten
# 120mm, Heat-MP
# 100mm AP-C steel rod
# 120mm APFSDS, KE DU rounds (M829A1)
Without going into details ~it would take pages and ages~ the results talk for themselves :
The Abrams M1A1HA front turret has ben penetrated by both ATGM and DU penetrators . The "armor values" that you can find on the net are well off the mark . As an exemple , it is reported that the M1A1HA turret has a resistance of 1080 RHA against CE (Chemical Energy : HEAT/ATGM) . WRONG !
The Hellfire Block 1 can only penetrate 900mm equivalent RHA ! But it DID penetrate and (quote) "caused a fire that consumed the vehicle" and "a penetrator might have been ejected from one of the storage compartments into the crew compartment and then completely oxidized during the test" :shock:
Same with KE values , It is reported that the front turret has 750mm RHA versus Sabots hits , but the M829A1 rounds did penetrate and the turret 's interior was severely damaged by fire due to the pyrophoric effect of the DU rounds . It has to be noted that the rounds were fired at almost point blank range .
The M829 Tungsten penetrators did NOT penetrate ...
When the results of these tests were shown to the US Military and to the US Congress , they decided to untake the developement of the M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2 which have a much better armor packages .
The HA version of the Abrams is almost 18 years old and it shows .
Similar tests conducted on the Leo2A5 and Leclerc demonstrated the opposite , both Tanks did withstand multiple hits from various ammunition .
The facts reported in this post come from Fliszar, Richard W., Edward F. Wilsey, and Ernest W. Bloore, Radiological Contamination from Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor, Technical Report BRL-TR-3068, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratory, December 1989.
I have the reports under my eyes and only copy/paste the results .
The "Invincibility" of the Abrams M1A1HA is a legend who does not stand scrutiny .
During these tests , the US fired different things at the Abrams HA front turret ~where the DU Layer is~ .
They fired :
# Hellfire missile Block 1 .
# 120mm APFSDS, KE Tungsten
# 120mm, Heat-MP
# 100mm AP-C steel rod
# 120mm APFSDS, KE DU rounds (M829A1)
Without going into details ~it would take pages and ages~ the results talk for themselves :
The Abrams M1A1HA front turret has ben penetrated by both ATGM and DU penetrators . The "armor values" that you can find on the net are well off the mark . As an exemple , it is reported that the M1A1HA turret has a resistance of 1080 RHA against CE (Chemical Energy : HEAT/ATGM) . WRONG !
The Hellfire Block 1 can only penetrate 900mm equivalent RHA ! But it DID penetrate and (quote) "caused a fire that consumed the vehicle" and "a penetrator might have been ejected from one of the storage compartments into the crew compartment and then completely oxidized during the test" :shock:
Same with KE values , It is reported that the front turret has 750mm RHA versus Sabots hits , but the M829A1 rounds did penetrate and the turret 's interior was severely damaged by fire due to the pyrophoric effect of the DU rounds . It has to be noted that the rounds were fired at almost point blank range .
The M829 Tungsten penetrators did NOT penetrate ...
When the results of these tests were shown to the US Military and to the US Congress , they decided to untake the developement of the M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2 which have a much better armor packages .
The HA version of the Abrams is almost 18 years old and it shows .
Similar tests conducted on the Leo2A5 and Leclerc demonstrated the opposite , both Tanks did withstand multiple hits from various ammunition .
The facts reported in this post come from Fliszar, Richard W., Edward F. Wilsey, and Ernest W. Bloore, Radiological Contamination from Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor, Technical Report BRL-TR-3068, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratory, December 1989.
I have the reports under my eyes and only copy/paste the results .
The "Invincibility" of the Abrams M1A1HA is a legend who does not stand scrutiny .The US ran many tests on the M1A1HA 's armor in 1989 . These tests were to show the quality of the whole package as well as the effect of DU toxic dust on the crew in case of penetration .
During these tests , the US fired different things at the Abrams HA front turret ~where the DU Layer is~ .
They fired :
# Hellfire missile Block 1 .
# 120mm APFSDS, KE Tungsten
# 120mm, Heat-MP
# 100mm AP-C steel rod
# 120mm APFSDS, KE DU rounds (M829A1)
Without going into details ~it would take pages and ages~ the results talk for themselves :
The Abrams M1A1HA front turret has ben penetrated by both ATGM and DU penetrators . The "armor values" that you can find on the net are well off the mark . As an exemple , it is reported that the M1A1HA turret has a resistance of 1080 RHA against CE (Chemical Energy : HEAT/ATGM) . WRONG !
The Hellfire Block 1 can only penetrate 900mm equivalent RHA ! But it DID penetrate and (quote) "caused a fire that consumed the vehicle" and "a penetrator might have been ejected from one of the storage compartments into the crew compartment and then completely oxidized during the test" :shock:
Same with KE values , It is reported that the front turret has 750mm RHA versus Sabots hits , but the M829A1 rounds did penetrate and the turret 's interior was severely damaged by fire due to the pyrophoric effect of the DU rounds . It has to be noted that the rounds were fired at almost point blank range .
The M829 Tungsten penetrators did NOT penetrate ...
When the results of these tests were shown to the US Military and to the US Congress , they decided to untake the developement of the M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2 which have a much better armor packages .
The HA version of the Abrams is almost 18 years old and it shows .
Similar tests conducted on the Leo2A5 and Leclerc demonstrated the opposite , both Tanks did withstand multiple hits from various ammunition .
The facts reported in this post come from Fliszar, Richard W., Edward F. Wilsey, and Ernest W. Bloore, Radiological Contamination from Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor, Technical Report BRL-TR-3068, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratory, December 1989.
I have the reports under my eyes and only copy/paste the results .
The "Invincibility" of the Abrams M1A1HA is a legend who does not stand scrutiny .
有没有中文的版本~~~
楼主来错地方了，这里是中文论坛，麻烦你这个帖子发过英文论坛。
楼主给翻译下吧
rt12 发表于 2009-9-25 20:56 
很难懂吗？ 一下就看懂的简单文章吧
很难懂吗？ 一下就看懂的简单文章吧
鸟文看得难受，谁翻译一下吧
avaion 发表于 2009-9-25 22:05
这属于"显摆"不?:o
这属于"显摆"不?:o
即使能看懂，也不爱看啊
avaion 发表于 2009-9-25 22:05
既然一下就能看懂
那请楼主给我们这些一下看不懂的人翻译一下吧
既然一下就能看懂
那请楼主给我们这些一下看不懂的人翻译一下吧
作者的文章在摘录时一定有许多地方排版不清，好几个地方did和didn't不分，错词连篇，翻译的好累，凑活看吧 ;funk
==========================================
1989年，美帝对MIA1HA的装甲做了许多测试，这些测试用来显示整套装甲的质量以及贫铀粉尘的渗透对于坦克乘员的影响。在这些测试中，美帝向M1A1的前主装甲——贫铀装甲所在部位，发射了各种类型的弹药。
他们发射了：
1. 海尔法BLOCK1型反坦克导弹
2. 120mm稳定尾翼钨芯脱壳穿甲弹
3. 120mm多用途高爆弹
4. 100mm圆钢穿甲弹
5. 120mm稳定尾翼贫铀脱壳穿甲弹（M829A1）
具体的打击及防御细节无从得知，因为这需要调阅大量资料，花费大量时间，实弹效果就是最好的结论：
M1A1HA炮塔前装甲会被反坦克导弹和贫铀穿甲弹穿透。在网上传说的那些装甲防御能力那是相当扯淡。咱举个例子说吧，据路边社报导，M1A1HA的炮塔前装甲防御化学能弹的能力相当于1080mm厚的均质钢装甲。扯！虽然地狱火BLOCK1顶天了只能穿透900mm均质钢装甲，但是，它仍然能够穿透并引起内部渗漏并且”引起车辆因火灾的高温而熔化“，”可能导致从储物箱到战斗室的穿透，并在测试过程中被氧化“。换言之，对坦克仍然能造成一定损坏。
和动能弹的效果类似，虽则M1A1HA炮塔前装甲防御力面对sabots亦相当于750mm均质钢装甲，但M892A1贫铀穿甲弹仍然成功穿透并使得炮塔内衬装甲由于贫铀弹的发火效应严重受损。需要指出的是，几轮射击的距离都很近，相当于顶着脑门搂火，但M829钨钢穿甲弹仍然无法穿透。
这些测试结果使得GLA和元老院决定开发M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2等几种具备更强大的装甲防御能力的改进型号。
M1A1HA的装甲板已经是18年前的产品了，但在新锐的豹2A5和勒克莱尔上面的类似实验则表明， 和年龄正相反，两种坦克的装甲都没有承受住多种弹药的攻击。
本内容据Fliszar, Richard W, Edward F. Wilsey, 和Ernest W. Bloore等人的报导。
本段文字来自《放射性污染对艾布拉姆斯主装甲的影响》，技术报告BRL-TR-3068号，阿伯丁试验场弹道研究实验室，1989年12月。
本报告结果完全出自我眼睛看到的真实，完全是对现场效果的复制粘贴。
艾布拉姆斯M1A1HA的”无敌“确实是一个传奇, 毋庸置疑。
作者的文章在摘录时一定有许多地方排版不清，好几个地方did和didn't不分，错词连篇，翻译的好累，凑活看吧 ;funk
==========================================
1989年，美帝对MIA1HA的装甲做了许多测试，这些测试用来显示整套装甲的质量以及贫铀粉尘的渗透对于坦克乘员的影响。在这些测试中，美帝向M1A1的前主装甲——贫铀装甲所在部位，发射了各种类型的弹药。
他们发射了：
1. 海尔法BLOCK1型反坦克导弹
2. 120mm稳定尾翼钨芯脱壳穿甲弹
3. 120mm多用途高爆弹
4. 100mm圆钢穿甲弹
5. 120mm稳定尾翼贫铀脱壳穿甲弹（M829A1）
具体的打击及防御细节无从得知，因为这需要调阅大量资料，花费大量时间，实弹效果就是最好的结论：
M1A1HA炮塔前装甲会被反坦克导弹和贫铀穿甲弹穿透。在网上传说的那些装甲防御能力那是相当扯淡。咱举个例子说吧，据路边社报导，M1A1HA的炮塔前装甲防御化学能弹的能力相当于1080mm厚的均质钢装甲。扯！虽然地狱火BLOCK1顶天了只能穿透900mm均质钢装甲，但是，它仍然能够穿透并引起内部渗漏并且”引起车辆因火灾的高温而熔化“，”可能导致从储物箱到战斗室的穿透，并在测试过程中被氧化“。换言之，对坦克仍然能造成一定损坏。
和动能弹的效果类似，虽则M1A1HA炮塔前装甲防御力面对sabots亦相当于750mm均质钢装甲，但M892A1贫铀穿甲弹仍然成功穿透并使得炮塔内衬装甲由于贫铀弹的发火效应严重受损。需要指出的是，几轮射击的距离都很近，相当于顶着脑门搂火，但M829钨钢穿甲弹仍然无法穿透。
这些测试结果使得GLA和元老院决定开发M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2等几种具备更强大的装甲防御能力的改进型号。
M1A1HA的装甲板已经是18年前的产品了，但在新锐的豹2A5和勒克莱尔上面的类似实验则表明， 和年龄正相反，两种坦克的装甲都没有承受住多种弹药的攻击。
本内容据Fliszar, Richard W, Edward F. Wilsey, 和Ernest W. Bloore等人的报导。
本段文字来自《放射性污染对艾布拉姆斯主装甲的影响》，技术报告BRL-TR-3068号，阿伯丁试验场弹道研究实验室，1989年12月。
本报告结果完全出自我眼睛看到的真实，完全是对现场效果的复制粘贴。
艾布拉姆斯M1A1HA的”无敌“确实是一个传奇, 毋庸置疑。
M829顶着脑袋打都穿不了，还想怎么着?
目前除了美国自己，其他国家能超过M829的穿甲弹能有几个？2km穿深能超过接近炮口处M829的又有几个？
M829顶着脑袋打都穿不了，还想怎么着?
目前除了美国自己，其他国家能超过M829的穿甲弹能有几个？2km穿深能超过接近炮口处M829的又有几个？
11# huor
怨我话没说明白，水平太烂啦，千万别说我是什么大大，坦克方面就一白痴.........等我改改。
11# huor
怨我话没说明白，水平太烂啦，千万别说我是什么大大，坦克方面就一白痴.........等我改改。
11# huor
这事也怨我，不该先用谷歌翻译器的........一下子把整体思路搞乱了........
这事也怨我，不该先用谷歌翻译器的........一下子把整体思路搞乱了........
谢谢斑竹翻译:D
yankee 发表于 2009-9-26 02:30
这句意思是不是说M829A1刚好能穿透贫铀层，靠高热烧毁内衬
这句意思是不是说M829A1刚好能穿透贫铀层，靠高热烧毁内衬
从这篇文章看，防穿基本上还是能达到750mm匀质钢的水平。但防破水分比较大，实际上顶多只有900mm
俄罗斯坦克喜欢忽悠 老美忽悠的也不少 比如M829
11# 幽灵传说
原文是这一句：
The M829 Tungsten penetrators did NOT penetrate
M829钨芯弹没有穿透
钨芯？？？829？？？
原文是这一句：
The M829 Tungsten penetrators did NOT penetrate
M829钨芯弹没有穿透
钨芯？？？829？？？
M829钨个鸟钢啊…
防穿你真给美国人面子，750…哈哈…不过按照黄毛的逻辑，大概真有这么多。反正就是M829顶着打也打不穿的水平。
防穿你真给美国人面子，750…哈哈…不过按照黄毛的逻辑，大概真有这么多。反正就是M829顶着打也打不穿的水平。
说人家防破灌水，还是查查地狱火的威力是不是真只有那么一点。
按照原文意思，对L2A5(A6同理)和勒克莱尔的防护不要指望太多，也就那个档次。
还是M
按照原文意思，对L2A5(A6同理)和勒克莱尔的防护不要指望太多，也就那个档次。
还是M
说人家防破灌水，还是查查地狱火的威力是不是真只有那么一点。
按照原文意思，对L2A5(A6同理)和勒克莱尔的防护不要指望太多，也就那个档次。
还是M1A2和挑2的防护王道啊…
按照原文意思，对L2A5(A6同理)和勒克莱尔的防护不要指望太多，也就那个档次。
还是M1A2和挑2的防护王道啊…
看起来96是打不穿的了
幽灵传说 发表于 2009-9-26 12:08
哈哈哈哈哈，其实吧。M829的威力也是一个玄妙的话题啊
哈哈哈哈哈，其实吧。M829的威力也是一个玄妙的话题啊
海尔法 Block 1和 M829A1 打穿了并使车辆着火了，M829 打不穿，应该是这个意思。
海尔法和829A1打穿了，M1A1HA也不过如此
15楼说的什么呢？刚刚穿透贫铀层的话，厚厚的基甲靠什么打穿？
烧掉的可不是穿孔处的内衬，实际上是炮塔内的内衬全烧了，谁让贫铀弹后效大？
M829不算多强，也就跟DM43差不多吧…
烧掉的可不是穿孔处的内衬，实际上是炮塔内的内衬全烧了，谁让贫铀弹后效大？
M829不算多强，也就跟DM43差不多吧…
25# C2的潘泽尔四万
说的好像地狱火跟M829A1很差似的，地球上有几辆坦克能挡住这两家伙？
说的好像地狱火跟M829A1很差似的，地球上有几辆坦克能挡住这两家伙？
估计现在也不比那时高多少，
好多年装甲都没啥发展了，大家都搞轮式战车，战场电子化去了
好多年装甲都没啥发展了，大家都搞轮式战车，战场电子化去了
我很欣慰地看到，至少从上次教训巴掌的那个豹2A6的帖子开始，几种一流主战坦克能互相击穿主装甲的说法已不再像以前那样主流了。
取而代之的、与形势配套的、符合论坛风向的“M829A3打不穿99A2炮塔正面”如预期般出现了。
取而代之的、与形势配套的、符合论坛风向的“M829A3打不穿99A2炮塔正面”如预期般出现了。
从M1A1HA的研制到轮式化之间的时间间隔还是蛮长的。
轻型化需要装甲的防护效率比以往更高。
轻型化需要装甲的防护效率比以往更高。
C2的潘泽尔四万 发表于 2009-9-26 10:32
M829有W版，米人是在105mm XM774， 150mm XM833/120mm XM829两代对W/dU对比后才确定自用dU的。
M829有W版，米人是在105mm XM774， 150mm XM833/120mm XM829两代对W/dU对比后才确定自用dU的。
作者的文章在摘录时一定有许多地方排版不清，好几个地方did和didn't不分，错词连篇，翻译的好累，凑活看吧 ;funk
正常，一看就是论坛的帖子。这些东西也就看看，当不得真，有机会还是找引用的原文看。
roach1234 发表于 2009-9-26 14:15
西方坦克都停产有年头了，棒子生产几十辆K2都成生产“大”国了，土鳖年产个100多辆就当了坦克生产老大，去年毛子乌拉尔183靠着三家的单子才把土鳖超过。
西方坦克都停产有年头了，棒子生产几十辆K2都成生产“大”国了，土鳖年产个100多辆就当了坦克生产老大，去年毛子乌拉尔183靠着三家的单子才把土鳖超过。
幽灵传说 发表于 2009-9-26 12:08
不存在，LeoIIA5/6和挑2/M1A2的炮塔防护设计指标是一样的，实际可能小有出入，但不会差太多。
不存在，LeoIIA5/6和挑2/M1A2的炮塔防护设计指标是一样的，实际可能小有出入，但不会差太多。
感谢版主翻译啊
avaion 发表于 2009-9-25 22:05
一日,一只老耗子和一只小耗子在房间里闲逛,突然一只猫出现在它们面前,于是它们转身就跑,猫就追,就在它们山穷水尽无处可逃时,跑在后面的小耗子回过头冲着猫大叫两声:汪.汪. 猫被这两声吓跑了.老耗子拍着小耗子的肩膀夸道:行啊,还会狗叫.小耗子擦着汗说道:掌握一门外语是多么重要啊! [:a4:]
一日,一只老耗子和一只小耗子在房间里闲逛,突然一只猫出现在它们面前,于是它们转身就跑,猫就追,就在它们山穷水尽无处可逃时,跑在后面的小耗子回过头冲着猫大叫两声:汪.汪. 猫被这两声吓跑了.老耗子拍着小耗子的肩膀夸道:行啊,还会狗叫.小耗子擦着汗说道:掌握一门外语是多么重要啊! [:a4:]
31# trytry
受教:handshake
受教:handshake
M829有W版，米人是在105mm XM774， 150mm XM833/120mm XM829两代对W/dU对比后才确定自用dU的。
trytry 发表于 2009-9-26 14:43
终于把您盼到了。
怎么记得M735的时候就有W和DU两种做对比了？
海湾前后出口那批GD 120是不是直接拿M829 W版去骗钱了？
这个是在发展的时候用两版对做比吧？装备的时候只用DU吧？
M829有W版，米人是在105mm XM774， 150mm XM833/120mm XM829两代对W/dU对比后才确定自用dU的。
trytry 发表于 2009-9-26 14:43
终于把您盼到了。
怎么记得M735的时候就有W和DU两种做对比了？
海湾前后出口那批GD 120是不是直接拿M829 W版去骗钱了？
这个是在发展的时候用两版对做比吧？装备的时候只用DU吧？
不存在，LeoIIA5/6和挑2/M1A2的炮塔防护设计指标是一样的，实际可能小有出入，但不会差太多。
trytry 发表于 2009-9-26 14:53
这几种坦克的设计都是在80年代后期完成的吧？
勒克莱尔加强了侧面防护，正面防护是不是要比那三大低一些？
某些人说冷战后德国通过从毛子那边获得的穿甲弹，验证了己方的防护力不足，豹2A5/6的防护也升级过了，假如设计时候指标就跟挑2/M1A2一样，那后面换了英国装甲岂不是比挑2/M1A2更强。
重量略轻，还要装更重的炮，用防护效率更低的装甲的Leo2A5/6是如何在防护上更M1A2相当的,您以前一直不支持这样的观点的啊？
从M1A2到SEP到SEP V2，M1A1HA到AIM 到AIM2，防护上难道都没改进的吗？
不存在，LeoIIA5/6和挑2/M1A2的炮塔防护设计指标是一样的，实际可能小有出入，但不会差太多。
trytry 发表于 2009-9-26 14:53
这几种坦克的设计都是在80年代后期完成的吧？
勒克莱尔加强了侧面防护，正面防护是不是要比那三大低一些？
某些人说冷战后德国通过从毛子那边获得的穿甲弹，验证了己方的防护力不足，豹2A5/6的防护也升级过了，假如设计时候指标就跟挑2/M1A2一样，那后面换了英国装甲岂不是比挑2/M1A2更强。
重量略轻，还要装更重的炮，用防护效率更低的装甲的Leo2A5/6是如何在防护上更M1A2相当的,您以前一直不支持这样的观点的啊？
从M1A2到SEP到SEP V2，M1A1HA到AIM 到AIM2，防护上难道都没改进的吗？
所谓防护上的改进更多的是对聚能弹药上的，针对地方武装们的东西，还有这个所谓的M1A2SEPV2也就是流传的M1A3，主要的改进是在装备自动装弹机和号称射程12公里的MRM炮射直到武器，并不在防护上~~~