The weight of armor vs the performance (RHA equivalent protection) is the volumetric efficiency of these types of ceramics. The armor being tested in 1991 by BRL had efficiency approaching 1.8:1… meaning that the ceramics could provide 180mm worth of protection for the weight of 100mm of RHA. These materials, combined with the placement of the plates such as to disrupt liquid jets of metal or kinetic energy long rods further enhances the efficiency of the armor. Backed by heavy metals like depleted uranium or tungsten, provides sufficient protection.
I’m going to continue using the same terminology I have been using, if you don’t like it that’s tough. They were able to do this without using more space than the equivalent RHA as well.
These are not the only changes / upgrades provided over the years. These aren’t even the proper names for them.
No, volume refers to the amount of space that a substance or object occupies, or that is enclosed within a container. Directly correlating to our argument… the efficiency of the armor in an enclosed container (the armor is enclosed within the turret, container). There is the mass efficiency of the armor, then there is the volumetric efficiency of the armor. Do not confuse the two, as the Abrams utilizes materials that both reduce the weight and increase the armor RHA equivalent provided in a certain volume of space.
Okay, so stop using the wrong terminology.
It is totally relevant. We are talking about the frontal armor of the M1 Abrams Series… terminology is important after-all.
There was no changing the goalpost. You said that what I was discussing was off topic, the thread title clearly dictates that all M1 Abrams Series can be discussed.
No, there are two different points of discussion. The mass efficiency is useful for determining the effectiveness of the armor in comparison to RHA. The volumetric efficiency is different, as NERA is not just solid chunks of ceramics. The placement of these ceramics within the armor scheme is very important, and the Abrams does this QUITE well. The VOLUMETRIC efficiency is high.
The thread’s title isn’t important here, I made it clear in my opening statement that the variants would range from M1A2 to at best M1A2 SEPv1, what you’re doing is quite plainly attempting to change the goal that I established, and extending the timeline to include newer variants (they aren’t important in the sub-discussion I started, as pointed out already).
The mass efficiency is useful for determining the effectiveness of the armor in comparison to RHA.
The weight of armor vs the performance (RHA equivalent protection)
I’m discussing M1A2 to M1A2 SEPv1, is there some goalpost being moved that I am not aware about? I think if that is the case it is you who is moving it.
The ceramics used have mass / weight efficiency. The method in which they are arranged within a container provides volumetric efficiency.
Yet you wrote 2 entire pargraphs talking about armour development that happened years after those two? M’kay.
These are not the only changes / upgrades provided over the years.
^ Also this, man talks about BRL upgrades, is told they were never implemented due to X, Y, Z reasons - > “uhh, no, it isn’t true, here’s an essay on unrelated stuff”.
The ceramics used have mass / weight efficiency.
It’s still mass efficiency, period. If you wanted to talk about the ceramics’ efficiency compared to RHA in terms of thickness, just use TE then - or just use ME & TE at the same time, it’s that simple.
(Aside, you didn’t even name drop ‘ceramics’ until much later, your response was only about “the armour”, no idividual layers, parts etc - just armour, in which case ME is the only correct term to use).
