Sectional armor. Military review and politics

Tank T-34E with additional armor screens

Mounted tank armor

Mounted armor - additional armor for tanks. It can be in the form of armor plates, stampings, castings, tracks, etc., hung using fastening devices (screws, bolts, studs, factory fasteners) on the hull or turret in order to increase their security. A similar type of protection is shielding. The most modern hinged armor can be attributed to Dynamic protection. The principle of operation of dynamic protection is that containers with explosives installed on top of conventional tank armor explode towards a projectile penetrating this armor. In itself, additional booking could be carried out by the artisanal method by the crew, in a field repair shop or in factory conditions (be officially adopted).

The purpose of mounted tank armor is to detonate certain types of projectiles (cumulative for example) in order to reduce or avoid damage to the main body. For effective use, anti-cumulative screens are installed at a certain, rather large distance from the tank.

Another reason for installing hinged armor plates is a way to strengthen the armor of the car, without a major upgrade. It was relatively easy to increase the armor of one or another part of the tank hull, bringing the armor to the desired total thickness. Similarly to hinged armor, welded armor was also used, for example, on the Ferdinand technique, where the forehead of the hull was protected by an additional armor plate weighing 4500 kg, mounted on 12 bolts. Projectile ricochet is possible from hinged sheets.

T-34-85 with mesh screens (nicknamed beds) in Berlin. End of World War II.

Interaction with projectiles

Mounted armor interacts differently with different types shells. Tank ammo in the game

Description of the interaction between projectiles and mounted armor in decreasing order of its effectiveness:

HEAT rounds Mounted armor most effectively protects against the action HEAT shells. A jet of melt escaping from the projectile easily penetrates the hinged armor, but dissipates between it and the main armor without causing any damage to the tank. Particularly effective against the cumulative jet are the side screens of hinged sheet armor and dynamic protection.

High-explosive shells Hinged armor plates are just as effective in stopping HE shells. They explode on it, causing much less damage to the main armor. Usually after hitting a fairly large HE of the projectile, as opposed to hitting cumulative, hinged sheets fly off. Because the effectiveness of mounted armor against HE shells slightly lower than vs. cumulative.

Armor-piercing shells The effectiveness of protection against chamber shells with hinged armor is very ambiguous. Depending on the thickness of the sheet and the fuze, the projectile may or may not explode. If the projectile explodes, then no damage is done to the tank, almost no damage is done to the hinged armor. If the projectile does not explode on the hinged armor, then it only slightly reduces its speed, and hence the armor penetration of the main sheet by the chamber projectile, which usually plays a small role.

Armor-piercing, sub-caliber shells Added armor effect applied to projectiles that do not respond to armor touch, such as sub-caliber and armor-piercing(empty) is to slightly slow them down and, possibly, change the trajectory of the projectile. The effect of hinged sheets on such shells is the smallest.

PZ.IVH with hinged armor screens

Application tactics

The main tactics of playing on vehicles with hinged armor is no different from conventional vehicles. If the opponent uses HEAT rounds, then it is worth putting under attack precisely the hinged elements that are on the sides, and not the frontal armor. However, this rule usually does NOT apply if against you, for example, SU-122. Shells with a penetration of 160 mm can penetrate the shielded side of the Panther and Tiger tanks, not to mention the PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV tanks. The penetration of the main armor will be, if after breaking through the screen there is enough penetration of the jet (and if the main armor is quite thin). But 5mm side plates can undermine early Soviet shells with an MD-5 fuse (it can burst between the additional armor and the main one).

The principle of the hinged side screen is to disperse the cumulative jet (reducing its penetration). In case of high-explosive fragmentation- after the first shot, you will lose hinged armor and, possibly, caterpillars or a barrel. Mounted armor takes the impact of the fragments (which usually do not usually have strong penetration anyway), after which the fragments may no longer be enough to penetrate the main armor.

ERA and side shields will protect against HEAT rounds and high explosives, but will hardly help against other projectiles. Because this protection was mainly developed against cumulative projectiles. That is, it is a highly specialized protection. Reactive Armor detonates even when hit by bullets. Powerful cumulative ATGMs can still penetrate dynamic defenses (if the residual penetration is enough to break through the main armor).

Fighting mounted armor

Based on the interaction with projectiles, there are two ways to deal with mounted armor.

M60A1 RISE (P) with hinged protection - dynamic protection units (DZ)

1. Use projectiles that do not react to mounted armor. Such projectiles are Armor-piercing and sub-caliber. Possible use chamber shells, but depending on the penetration thickness of the mounted armor (which depends on the mounted armor itself and the angle of attack), such shells can behave differently. This means that at an angle of attack of 10 degrees, a projectile may not explode on mounted armor, but at an angle of attack of 50 degrees, it may explode on it.

2. Shoot down mounted armor plates with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile. Almost all tanks have high-explosive fragmentation shells in their ammunition load. One of them can be used once to knock down the hinged armor from the enemy. No damage will be inflicted to the enemy from the HE shell, but the hinged armor will most likely fly off. This method of dealing with hinged sheets is most suitable for equipment with a sufficient rate of fire.

3. Shoot down dynamic protection with machine gun shots, after which already send a cumulative to an open place. Dynamic protection is very sensitive, because it is configured to respond when hit cumulative projectile(and in fact any large projectile, including bullets). But powerful cumulative ATGMs can still overcome dynamic defense (if the residual penetration is enough to break through the main armor).

Ways to help understand what projectile the enemy is using

1. Most opponents (but not all) know what to shoot at mounted armor cumulative or high-explosive fragmentation shells are not needed. But in order to change the projectile to the desired one, for example armor-piercing or sub-caliber, the enemy still needs to shoot a charged projectile. Let's try to find out what projectile the enemy has.

2. One way to find out what kind of projectile the enemy is shooting is to look at the effect of the projectile hit.

• High-explosive fragmentation projectile- when it hits the ground (location) a big explosion. If the tank is hit, the hinged armor and equipment fly off, the caterpillar and the barrel are often damaged.
• HEAT projectile- when it hits the ground (location), a medium explosion. When hitting a tank, a module located at a great distance from the hit point cannot be damaged. Most often, opponents use cumulative projectiles when firing at long distances, because. armor penetration of a cumulative projectile does not depend on distance.
• Chamber projectile- when it hits the ground (location) a small explosion. When hitting a tank, damage is caused not only to modules on the projectile flight line, but to neighboring modules / crew from the explosion of the chamber.
• Armor-piercing, sub-caliber projectile- when it hits the ground (location) there is no explosion, only clouds of smoke. Such shells are most often used by opponents when trying to destroy heavily armored vehicles, or simply to break through thick armor.

3. You can always ask your allies in the chat what projectile a particular player uses in battle.

4. You can see / learn the types of shells available to the enemy at this level. This will eliminate the possibility, for example, that they have HEAT rounds.

5. If the enemy cannot extinguish or repair, most likely he has not researched the main modifications of the equipment. Most likely, he also did not have shells from 3-4 levels of modifications open.

6. Some equipment that mainly uses high-explosive fragmentation, cumulative shells.

High-explosive fragmentation	Cumulative
Sturmhaubitze 42 Ausf. G	Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. A
KV-2 (1939)	Pz.IV C
ISU-152	Pz.IV E
SU-122	Pz.IV F1
M4A3 (105)	and many other machines.

Application history

During the Second World War, the issue of increasing the protection of armored vehicles became acute. As you know, the power of anti-tank guns grew much faster than the armor protection of tanks, new individual anti-tank weapons appeared (rocket-propelled grenade launchers, magnetic mines and grenades, etc.), so armor that is quite sufficient today could be too weak tomorrow. In combat conditions, it is impossible to completely remove obsolete types of tanks from service and replace them with new ones. The development of modifications to existing vehicles takes time, while good armor is needed all the time. Because of this, along with the development of new tanks, the armor of existing types of equipment was strengthened. The German military was the first to understand this almost immediately after the start of the campaign against the USSR. Majority German tanks had insufficient armor and low power guns. The T-34 and KV-1 were a real test for the German tankers, because it took much more time and shells to defeat them. Accordingly, the Germans themselves needed to be under fire longer. An urgent strengthening of the armor protection of tanks was required, and the Germans were the first to massively shield their tanks in the factory with side sheets of thin armor, against, as they thought, Soviet cumulative shells (which the Red Army did not have). And from ordinary shells, such shielding was almost useless. From that moment on, the race for armor protection in World War II began. All armies and individual tankers tried to strengthen their vehicles.

After the war, this evolution of additional armor grew into dynamic hinged armor and an improvement in the use of anti-cumulative screens. All these elements are still used and modernized.

Additional reservations were made in several cases:

• when it was necessary to urgently strengthen the armor.
• to bring the tank or self-propelled guns to the required indicators at the level of armor protection at the level of a new modification.
• when additional armor was in itself a constructive solution against a specific type of weapon or ammunition (for example, an anti-cumulative screen).
• when the complete re-equipment of parts with new types of equipment was either impossible or too expensive

There are several types and methods for installing hinged tank armor:

• Hanging additional armor plates over the main ones

The most common method of additional armor, which became widespread during the war.

On the German technology additional sheets were screwed on with bolts (often at a certain distance from the main armor). Such fastening can be explained in two ways - on the one hand, the properties of armored steel deteriorated at the welding point, and on the other hand german armor generally very poorly welded. But for non-permanent protection, designed to withstand the attack and save the tank, this was not critical.

The artisanal increase in armor was not at first welcomed by the German authorities at the beginning of World War II, but already on September 28, 1941, at a meeting with Hitler, the issue of urgently strengthening the armor protection of tanks and self-propelled guns was considered. As a result, modifications of vehicles with thicker armor appeared, and old vehicles began to be gradually equipped in field workshops with bolted armor plates. And later in the factory.

The Soviet army also resorted to additional armor by attaching additional armor plates. It should be noted that on Soviet tanks, additional armor was usually welded by electric welding, and not bolted.

The Allies often put additional bolted plates, but did not refuse welding either.

• Hanging caterpillar fragments

Hetzer, the weak side of which is additionally protected by a roller.

Almost any tank caterpillar is made of fairly strong steel, and if you hang a fragment of it on the armor, you get good protection. The Germans hung their tanks with caterpillars especially actively, since mounted tracks were considered a regular means of enhancing protection and were located in the most affected places. Wherever possible, not only caterpillars were hung, but also road wheels. Protective tracks even hit the heavily armored Royal Tigers tanks.

The Allies did not disdain to cover the tanks with caterpillar fragments. Many, many American Shermans were hung with tracks and road wheels in search of protection from both enemy tanks and individual anti-tank weapons.

In the Soviet army, trucks began to be hung only at the end of the war. For example, on the SU-100, a caterpillar fragment was officially supposed to be mounted on the front plate.

• Bulwarks (diversity shielding)

Running gear is the most vulnerable spot, therefore, bulwarks were used to protect it. The bulwark was used to protect against sub-caliber cores, cumulative projectiles, grenades and varieties of faustpatrons. The bulwarks were initially protected by the chassis, and then they began to cover the rest of the tank. The principle of operation was that the running gear was covered with a steel sheet on the side. When hitting a protective sheet, a sub-caliber projectile or armor-piercing bullet could change the trajectory or decrease energy. As a result, the blow to the running gear turned out to be weakened or at an unfavorable angle of attack.

American tanks were rarely shielded by bulwarks, unlike the British. For example, at English Matilda and the Churchills, the shielding of the undercarriage was provided constructively. However, in addition to additional protection, additional problems appeared. Often in the cold season between the screens and the road wheels, the clogged dirt froze and made the tank immobile. The shielded undercarriage required careful maintenance on the European theater of operations.

In the USSR, the undercarriage was shielded from pre-war T-35s. In 1942, they also tried to shield the T-34. Nearly 60 T-34s were shielded at factory #112. Then the tanks were reduced to a separate brigade and experimentally sent to the front line. However, the T-34s were fired not by sub-caliber and cumulative shells, but by conventional armor-piercing ones. Naturally, the screens could not prove themselves, besides, the brigade suffered big losses, which is why they decided to abandon the screens.

The appearance in the German army of all kinds of faustpatrons forced us to turn again to the screens. Re-shielding Soviet tanks came running only when Soviet army involved in stubborn urban battles. In the cramped streets, the tanks turned into easy prey for the Faustniks and suffered unreasonably high losses. Before entering the city, special mesh screens were mounted on the tanks. There is a popular belief that even bed nets were sometimes installed. There is no documentary evidence of this, but it is known that there were regular specially designed mesh screens. Often put trophy screening, which was in abundance. Kurchatov developed rod screens, but things did not go further than experiments.

The most popular shielding was in the German army. They covered not only the chassis, but the entire side projection, including the tower. Mostly light (Pz III) and medium tanks and self-propelled guns were shielded. At the same time, because of the screens, it became very inconvenient for tankers to use the numerous onboard evacuation and landing hatches.

The use of screens by the Germans was rather unintelligible and chaotic. For example, sheet screens protected well from armor-piercing cores and cumulative projectiles. But for some reason they were abandoned in favor of a purely anti-cumulative grid. But the threat of getting a sub-caliber on board has not decreased. It is possible that the shortage of armor steel, which began to be especially acute from the middle of 1944, was forced to switch to grids.

• Sandbags and boxes with sand, logs

This method was used by all armies. Bags were an emergency and short-term measure, since the fabric was easily damaged in battle by fragments and bullets - the sand spilled out. More often, the bags were wrapped around the tanks standing on the defensive. Shell boxes looked preferable, because they were filled not only with sand, but also with gravel. Bags could protect against cumulative faustpatrons, grenades, shells, and boxes of gravel from armor-piercing ones. Such protection was never placed above the engine compartment, so that sand would not get from the punched bag onto the mechanisms.

Logs could serve both for additional protection and for self-pulling.

• Concrete

Concrete as an additional protection was used mainly by German and American tankers. Concrete blanks were usually cast in the field and fastened to the most threatened places.

AT Soviet troops they gravitated towards concrete in the first half of the war, when there were serious problems with the quality and quantity of armored steel. In the USSR, the option of replacing armor with concrete was studied, but these developments did not go beyond prototypes.

M48 Patton "Magah" with remote sensing "Blazer"

• Dynamic protection (DZ)

The first examples of dynamic protection were developed in the USSR at the end of the 1950s by the research institutes under the leadership of Academician Bogdan Voitsekhovsky. But they were not implemented in the USSR because the scientist fell into disgrace in the 1970s-1980s. In addition, some doubted this method of protection - they did not understand how they could hang explosives on the tank themselves (and the tank was often used as a means of infantry transportation). For a number of reasons, such as an adequate level of protection Soviet armored vehicles by the time the dynamic protection was created, its production did not begin until the mid-80s. And in the mid-60s, similar developments were carried out in Germany by research engineer Manfred Held - the MBB-Schrobenhausen concern. For the first time, dynamic protection, created on the basis of German experience, was installed on Israeli tanks during the 1982 Lebanon War. DZ is still used in many armies of the world, and has already gone through 4 generations of improvement.

Armor is a protective material that is characterized by high stability and resistance to external factors that threaten deformation and violation of its integrity. It doesn’t matter what kind of protection we are talking about: whether it is knightly armor or the heavy coating of modern combat vehicles, the goal remains the same - to protect against damage and take the brunt.

Homogeneous armor is a protective homogeneous layer of material that has increased strength and has uniform chemical composition and identical properties throughout the cross section. It is this type of protection that will be discussed in the article.

History of armor

The first mention of armor is found in medieval sources, we are talking about the armor and shields of warriors. Their main purpose was to protect body parts from swords, sabers, axes, spears, arrows and other weapons.

With the advent firearms there was a need to abandon the use of relatively soft materials in the manufacture of armor and move on to more durable and resistant not only to deformations, but also to conditions environment alloys.

Over time, decorations used on shields and armor, symbolizing the status and honor of the nobility, began to become a thing of the past. The form of armor and shields began to be simplified, giving way to practicality.

In fact, the entire world progress has been reduced to a speed race for the invention of the latest types of weapons and protection against them. As a result, the simplification of the shape of the armor led to a decrease in cost (due to the lack of decorations), but increased practicality. As a result, armor became more affordable.

Iron and steel continued to find use when the quality and thickness of the armor became paramount. The phenomenon found a response in shipbuilding and mechanical engineering, as well as in the strengthening of ground structures and inactive combat units such as catapults and ballistae.

Armor types

With the development of metallurgy in historical terms, improvements in the thickness of the shells were observed, which gradually led to the appearance of modern types of armor (tank, ship, aviation, etc.).

AT modern world the arms race does not stop for a minute, which leads to the emergence of new types of protection as a means of counteracting existing types of weapons.

Based on the design features, the following are distinguished:

• homogeneous;
• reinforced;
• hinged;
• spaced.

Based on how to use:

• wearable - any armor worn to protect the body, and it does not matter what it is - the armor of a medieval warrior or the bulletproof vest of a modern soldier;
• transport - metal alloys in the form of plates, as well as bulletproof glass, the purpose of which is to protect the crew and passengers of the equipment;
• ship - armor to protect ships (underwater and surface parts);
• construction - a type used to protect pillboxes, dugouts and wood-and-earth firing points (bunkers);
• space — all kinds of shockproof screens and mirrors to protect space stations from orbital debris and the harmful effects of direct sun rays in outer space;
• cable - designed to protect submarine cables from damage and durable operation in an aggressive environment.

Armor homogeneous and heterogeneous

The materials used to make the armor reflect the development of outstanding design ideas of engineers. The availability of minerals such as chromium, molybdenum or tungsten allows the development of high-strength specimens; the absence of such creates the need to develop narrowly targeted formations. For example, armor plates, which could easily be balanced according to the criterion of value for money.

By purpose, armor is divided into bulletproof, anti-ballistic and structural. Homogeneous armor (from the same material over the entire cross-sectional area) or heterogeneous (different in composition) is used to create both bulletproof and anti-ballistic coatings. But that's not all.

Homogeneous armor has both the same chemical composition over the entire cross-sectional area and identical chemical and mechanical properties. Heterogeneous, on the other hand, can have different mechanical properties (steel hardened on one side, for example).

Rolled homogeneous armor

According to the manufacturing method, armor (whether homogeneous armor or heterogeneous) coatings are divided into:

• Rolled. This is a type of cast armor that has been processed on a rolling machine. Due to the compression on the press, the molecules approach each other, and the material is compacted. This type of heavy-duty armor has one drawback: it cannot be cast. Used on tanks, but only in the form of flat plates. On a tank turret, for example, a rounded one is required.
• Cast. Accordingly, less durable in percentage terms than the previous version. However, such a coating can be used for tank turrets. Cast homogeneous armor, of course, will be stronger than heterogeneous. But, as they say, a good spoon for dinner.

purpose

If we consider bulletproof protection against conventional and armor-piercing bullets, as well as the impact of fragments of small bombs and shells, then such a surface can be presented in two versions: rolled homogeneous high-strength armor or heterogeneous cemented armor with high strength both on the front and back sides.

Anti-projectile (protects against the effects of large projectiles) coating is also represented by several types. The most common of them are rolled and cast homogeneous armor of several strength categories: high, medium and low.

Another type is rolled heterogeneous. It is a cemented coating with hardening on one side, the strength of which decreases "in depth".

The thickness of the armor in relation to hardness in this case is a ratio of 25:15:60 (outer, inner, back layers, respectively).

Application

Russian tanks, like ships, are currently covered with chromium-nickel or nickel-plated steel. Moreover, if a steel armored belt with isothermal hardening is used in the construction of ships, then the tanks are overgrown with composite protective shell, which consists of several layers of materials.

For example, the frontal armor of the Armata universal combat platform is represented by a composite layer impenetrable for modern anti-tank projectiles up to 150 mm caliber and sub-caliber arrow-shaped projectiles up to 120 mm caliber.

Also, anti-cumulative screens are used. Hard to say, best armor it or not. Russian tanks are improving, and with them the protection is also improving.

Armor vs Projectile

Of course, it is unlikely that members of the tank crew keep in mind the detailed tactical and technical characteristics of the combat vehicle, indicating how thick the protective layer is and what projectile it will hold at what millimeter, as well as whether the armor of the combat vehicle they use is homogeneous or not.

The properties of modern armor cannot be described by the concept of "thickness" alone. For the simple reason that the threat from modern projectiles, against which, in fact, such a protective shell was developed, comes from the kinetic and chemical energy of the projectiles.

Kinetic energy

Kinetic energy (better to say “kinetic threat”) refers to the ability of a projectile blank to flash through armor. For example, a projectile from or will pierce one through. Homogeneous steel armor is useless against hitting those. There are no criteria by which it can be argued that 200 mm homogeneous is equivalent to 1300 mm heterogeneous.

The secret of counteracting the projectile lies in the location of the armor, which leads to a change in the vector of impact of the projectile on the thickness of the coating.

HEAT projectile

The chemical threat is represented by such types of projectiles as anti-tank armor-piercing high-explosive (according to international nomenclature, it is designated as HESH) and cumulative (HEAT).

Cumulative projectile (contrary to popular belief and influence World games Of Tanks) does not carry a flammable stuffing. Its action is based on focusing the impact energy into a thin jet, which, thanks to high pressure, and not temperature, breaks through the protective layer.

Protection against this kind of projectiles is the build-up of the so-called false armor, which takes on the impact energy. The simplest example is the fitting of tanks with chain-link mesh from old beds during the Second World War by Soviet soldiers.

The Israelis protect the hulls of their Merkavs by attaching steel balls to the hulls hanging from chains.

Another option is to create dynamic armor. When a directed jet from a cumulative projectile collides with a protective shell, detonation of the armor coating occurs. An explosion directed in opposition leads to the dispersion of the latter.

land mine

The action is reduced to the flow around the body of the armor in the event of a collision and the transmission of a huge shock impulse through the metal layer. Further, like pins in a bowling alley, the layers of armor push each other, which leads to deformation. Thus, the armor plates are destroyed. Moreover, the layer of armor, flying apart, injures the crew.

Protection against high-explosive projectiles can be the same as against cumulative ones.

Conclusion

One of the historically recorded cases of the use of unusual chemical compositions for tank protection is the initiative of Germany to cover vehicles with zimmerite. This was done to protect the hulls of the "Tigers" and "Panthers" from magnetic mines.

The composition of the zimmerite mixture included such elements as zinc sulfide, sawdust, ocher pigment and a binder based on polyvinyl acetate.

The use of the mixture began in 1943 and ended in 1944, for the reason that drying required several days, and Germany at that time was already in the position of the losing side.

In the future, the practice of using such a mixture did not find a response anywhere due to the abandonment of the use of hand-held anti-tank magnetic mines by the infantry and the appearance of much more powerful types of weapons - anti-tank grenade launchers.

Both in Russia and abroad, for the armoring of military equipment, mainly low-alloy homogeneous armor steels are used.

1. Steel for armoring heavy equipment ( tank armor)

These steels must withstand the impact of large-caliber projectiles without splitting (survivability requirement), and also meet the requirements for weldability (tempering of welded joints is not allowed).

In the absolute majority of cases, steels with the Cr-Ni-Mo alloying system are used with a limit on the upper allowable carbon content (not more than 0.30% for thicknesses up to 100 mm).

Steels are supplied in a state of thermal improvement (quenching and high tempering) for a hardness of 280…388 HB. Main technical requirements and acceptance conditions are regulated by the technical specifications for the supply of armor plate (abroad - MIL-A-12560 “Armor plate, steel, wrought, homogeneous. For use in combat-vehicles and for ammunition testing)”.

Hardness requirements depend on the thickness of the sheet, namely:

Typical representatives of this class are armor steel grades MARS 190 (France), ARMOX 370S (Sweden).

Steels ARMOX 300S and ARMOX 400S also belong to the indicated strength class, but due to the lower carbon content, the required level of strength (hardness) is realized on these steels due to hardening and low tempering.

Domestic analogues, as a rule, have a higher carbon content, which imposes more stringent requirements on the choice of welding materials and the technology for manufacturing welded armored units.

Features in terms of acceptance

Armor plates according to MIL-A-12560 are controlled for hardness, Charpy impact strength at a temperature of -40 ° C and the level of bulletproof and anti-ballistic resistance. A typical example of acceptance conditions is shown in the table below.

When firing both bullets and shells, the speed of the ballistic penetration limit V 50 is determined

Thickness range, mm	Type and caliber of the bullet (projectile)	Angle of fire, deg.
	7.62 mm AR, M2
	12.7 mm AR, M2
	20 mm AR-T, M602
	57 mm AR, M70
	90 mm ARS, M82

In domestic practice and NTD, the acceptance conditions are somewhat different. When shelling with bullets, it is not V 50 that is determined, but the non-penetration angle, a 20 mm caliber projectile is not used, 100 mm is used instead of a 90 mm projectile, etc. In addition, instead of impact strength in Russia, the type of fracture of the technological sample is controlled.

These differences are rather conditional, and nothing prevents us from working out acceptance conditions that suit both parties.

Typical representatives of foreign armor steels of this class are shown in tables 1, 2. Domestic improved anti-ballistic armor steels provide a strength level of 1000 ... 1400 MPa.

2. Steel for booking light armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles)

These steels must withstand large-caliber bullets without splitting (survivability requirement), and also meet the requirements for weldability (subject to tempering of welded joints).

In the absolute majority of cases, steels with a limit on the upper permissible carbon content (not more than 0.32%) are used.

Steels are delivered in the state of hardening and low tempering for hardness 477…534 HB. The main technical requirements and acceptance conditions are regulated by the technical conditions for the supply of armor plate (abroad - MIL-A-46100 “Armor plate, steel, wrought, high-hardness”).

Typical representatives of this class are armor steel grades MARS 240 (France), ARMOX 500S (Sweden).

Domestic analogues are steel grades “2P”, “7”. At the same time, steel grade “7” does not require tempering of welded joints.

Armor plates according to MIL-A-46100 are controlled by hardness, Charpy impact strength at a temperature of -40 0 C and the level of bulletproof resistance with armor-piercing bullets of 7.62 mm, 12.7 mm and 14.5 mm caliber. The existing differences in the conditions of acceptance have already been noted above.

Typical representatives of foreign and domestic steels of this class are shown in tables 1,2,3.

3. Steels for a wide range of applications

These steels must withstand without splitting and cracking in places where 20 mm caliber projectiles hit.

Steels are delivered in the state of hardening and low tempering for hardness 534…601 HB (for thicknesses 4.7…25.4 mm) and 477…534 HB (for thicknesses 25.5…76.2 mm). Armor of the second class is supplied with hardness 302…352 HB.

The main technical requirements and acceptance conditions are regulated by the technical conditions for the supply of armor plate (abroad - MIL-A-46173 “Armor steel, plate, wrought, (ESR). (3/16 through 3 inches, inclusive))”.

Typical representatives of this class are armor steel grades MARS 270 (France), ARMOX 560S (Sweden).

Domestic analogues are steel grades “77” and “88”. At the same time, steel grade “77” requires tempering of welded joints.

Armor plates according to MIL-A-46173 are controlled by hardness, Charpy impact strength at a temperature of -40 ° C and the level of bulletproof and anti-ballistic resistance with armor-piercing bullets of 7.62 mm, 12.7 mm, 14.5 mm caliber. and (for thicknesses of 25 ... 50 mm) shells of 20 mm caliber. The existing differences in the conditions of acceptance have already been noted above.

Table 1. The main grades of armor steels in France

steel grade		Thickness, mm	Carbon weight. %	σ V, MPa average	Hardness HB	Technology Features	Specifications
	0.30C-1.10Cr-2.0Ni-0.45Mo					Secondary processing S ≤ 0.005%
	0.285C-1.50Cr-1.50Ni-0.30Mo					Same, S ≤ 0.004%
	0.35C-0.75Cr-3.10Ni-0.40Mo					Same, S ≤ 0.002%
	0.50C-0.80Si-4.0Ni-0.40Mo

Table 2. The main grades of armor steels in Sweden

steel grade	Nominal chemical composition	Thickness, mm	Carbon weight. %	σ V, MPa average	Hardness HB	Technology Features	Specifications
	0.18С-1.5Mn-0.4Cr-0.65Mo-0.003B					Out-of-furnace processing TMO technology
	0.28-1Mn-0.8Cr-1.1Ni-0.65Mo-0.002B
	0.35-1Mn-1.2Cr-3Ni-0.65Mo-0.002B
	0.45-0.8Mn-0.8Cr-2.5Ni-0.65Mo-.002B

Table 3. Armored steels with the structure of low-tempered martensite in Russia

steel grade	Doping system	Thickness, mm	Carbon weight. %	σ V, MPa average	Hardness HB	Technology Features	analogue of TU
						Out-of-furnace processing

The invention relates to the field of development of means of protecting equipment from armor-piercing bullets.

Progress in the creation of highly effective destructive weapons and the increase in the requirements for armor protection determined by it led to the creation of multilayer combined armor. The ideology of combined protection consists in a combination of several layers of dissimilar materials with priority properties, including a front layer of extra hard materials and a high-strength energy-intensive rear layer. Ceramics of the highest category of hardness are used as materials for the frontal layer, while its task is reduced to the destruction of the hardened core due to the stresses that arise during their high-speed interaction. The back retaining layer is designed to repay kinetic energy and blocking fragments resulting from the impact interaction of a bullet with ceramics.

Known technical solutions designed to protect surfaces with complex geometric relief - US patents No. 5972819 A, 26.10.1999; No. 6112635 A, 09/05/2000, No. 6203908 B1, 03/20/2001; patent of the Russian Federation No. 2329455, 20.07.2008. Common in these solutions is the use of small-sized ceramic elements in the frontal high-hard layer, as a rule, in the form of bodies of revolution, among which elements in the form of cylinders are most widely used. At the same time, the efficiency of the ceramics is increased by using convex sloping ends on one or both sides of the cylinders. In this case, when meeting lethal agent with oval surfaces of ceramics, there is a mechanism for withdrawing or knocking down a bullet from the flight path, which significantly complicates the work of overcoming a ceramic barrier. In addition, the use of small-sized ceramics in this case provides a higher level of survivability compared to the tiled version due to a significant reduction in the affected area and partial local maintainability of structures, which is very important for practice.

At the same time, the high efficiency of multilayer armor is determined not only by the properties of the materials of the main layers, but also by the conditions of their interaction during a high-speed impact, in particular, by acoustic contact between the ceramic and back layers, which makes it possible to partially transfer elastic energy to the back substrate.

Modern ideas about the mechanism of impact interaction of an armor-piercing core and combined protection are as follows. First initial stage when the core meets the armor, its penetration into the ceramic does not occur due to the fact that the latter has a significantly higher hardness compared to that of the core; the processes that take place. The degree of core destruction is mainly determined by the time of interaction until the moment of ceramic destruction, while the acoustic contact between the layers plays a key role in increasing this time due to the partial transfer of elastic energy to the rear layer, followed by its absorption and dissipation.

Known technical solution, set forth in US patent No. 6497966 B2, 12/24/2002, which proposes a multilayer composition consisting of a front layer made of ceramic or an alloy with a hardness above 27 HRC, an intermediate layer of alloys with a hardness of less than 27HRC and a back layer of a polymer composite material. In this case, all layers are fastened together with a polymeric winding material.

In fact, in this case we are talking about a two-layer composition of the destructive frontal layer, made from materials that differ in hardness. In the recommendations of the authors of this technical solution, it is proposed to use carbon steels in a less hard layer, while questions about the energy exchange of the front and rear layers are not considered, and the proposed class of materials cannot serve as an active participant in the transfer of elastic energy to the rear layer due to its properties.

The solution to the issues of interaction between the front and rear layers is proposed in the patent of the Russian Federation No. 2329455, 07/20/2008, which, in terms of the totality of common features, is the closest analogue to the proposed invention and is selected as a prototype. The authors propose the use of an intermediate layer in the form of an air gap or an elastic material.

However, the proposed solutions have a number of significant drawbacks. So, at the initial stage of interaction with ceramics, the elastic wave precursor of destruction reaches its rear surface and causes it to move.

When the gap collapses, the impact of the inner surface of the ceramic on the substrate can cause premature destruction of the ceramic and, consequently, accelerated penetration of the ceramic barrier. To avoid this, it is necessary either to significantly increase the thickness of the ceramics, which will lead to an unacceptable increase in the mass of the armor, or to increase the thickness of the gap, which will reduce the protection efficiency due to the separate (stage-by-stage) destruction of individual layers.

In the second version, the authors of the prototype propose to place an elastic layer between the layers, which should protect the ceramics from destruction upon impact with the rear armor. However, due to the low characteristic impedance of the elastic material, the interlayer will not be able to provide acoustic contact between the layers, which will lead to energy localization in brittle ceramics and its early failure.

The problem to be solved by the invention is to increase the armor resistance of the combined armor.

The technical result of the invention is to increase the armor resistance of the combined armor by increasing the density of acoustic contact between the layers.

The disadvantages of the prototype can be eliminated if the intermediate layer is made of a plastic material with certain properties that provides acoustic contact between the layers and the transfer of elastic energy to the rear. The above is achieved if the yield strength of the intermediate layer is 0.05-0.5 of the yield strength of the material of the back layer.

In the presence of an intermediate layer made of a plastic material with a yield strength of 0.05-0.5 of the yield strength of the material of the back layer, in the process of moving ceramics under the action of an elastic wave precursor, leaks and small gaps in the adjacent layers are eliminated due to plastic deformation of the latter. In addition, under the action of stress waves, its density increases, and hence its characteristic impedance. All this together leads to an increase in the density of acoustic contact between the layers and increases the proportion of energy transmitted and dissipated in the back layer. As a result, due to the presence of an intermediate layer made of a plastic material with a yield strength of 0.05-0.5 of the yield strength of the material of the back layer, the impact interaction energy is distributed over all layers of the combined armor, while its efficiency increases significantly, since the time of interaction before the destruction of ceramics increases, which, in turn, provides a more complete destruction of the high-hard core.

An intermediate layer with a yield strength of more than 0.5 of the yield strength of the back layer does not have sufficient plasticity and does not lead to the desired result.

Making the intermediate layer of a plastic material with a yield strength of less than 0.05 of the value of the yield strength of the material of the back layer will not lead to the desired result, since its extrusion during the impact interaction is too intense and the effect described above on the mechanics of the interaction processes does not appear.

The proposed technical solution was tested in the test center NPO SM, St. Petersburg. ceramic layer in prototype 200×200 mm was made from AJI-1 corundum cylinders with a diameter of 14 mm and a height of 9.5 mm. The back layer was made of Ts-85 armor steel (yield strength = 1600 MPa) 3 mm thick. The intermediate layer was made of AMC grade aluminum foil (yield strength = 120 MPa) 0.5 mm thick. The ratio of the yield strengths of the intermediate and back layers is 0.075. Ceramic cylinders and all layers were glued together with a polyurethane-based polymer binder.

The results of field tests showed that the proposed version of the combined armor protection has armor resistance 10-12% higher compared to the prototype, where the intermediate layer is made of an elastic material.

Multilayer combined armor containing a highly hard front layer of a ceramic block or elements connected by a binder into a monolith, a high-strength energy-intensive back layer and an intermediate layer, characterized in that the intermediate layer is made of a plastic material having a yield strength of 0.05-0.5 of the limit back layer fluidity.

Similar patents:

The invention relates to reactive protection systems for the protection of stationary and moving objects from damaging elements. The system is fixed or movably installed or can be installed on the side of the object to be protected (1) facing the striking element (3) and contains at least one protective surface (4) located at a certain angle (2) with respect to the direction of the striking element.

The invention relates to rolling production and can be used in the manufacture of armor plates from (α+β)-titanium alloy. A method for manufacturing armor plates from (α+β)-titanium alloy includes preparing a charge, melting an ingot of the composition, wt.%: 3.0-6.0 Al; 2.8-4.5V; 1.0-2.2 Fe; 0.3-0.7 Mo; 0.2-0.6Cr; 0.12-0.3 O; 0.010-0.045 C;<0,05 N; <0,05 Н;<0,15 Si; <0,8 Ni; остальное - титан.

The group of inventions relates to the field of transport engineering. The method of installing glasses when booking a car according to the first option is that the armored glasses are installed behind the regular ones using a frame connected to the lead-in part of the glass and repeating the shape of the glass, and fasteners.

The invention relates to armored objects, mainly to electrified tanks with dynamic (reactive) armor protection. The armored object contains a protective device of a dynamic type, which includes elements with a body and a cover installed on a part of the outer surface area of ​​the object.

SUBSTANCE: group of inventions relates to the production of multilayer flexible armor materials for personal protective equipment. The way to counteract the movement of a multi-layered armor bullet, shrapnel consists in alternating layers of high-modulus fibers with substances that enhance resistance, which are placed in cells formed by layers of high-modulus fibers.

The invention relates to defense technology and is intended for testing facial metal barriers - the basis of heterogeneous protective structures. The method includes firing strikers at a speed greater than the impact speed, determining and measuring the depth of impact penetration of the striker with a diameter d into the metal surface h (cavity depth). In this case, the impact speed is greater or less than the expected minimum speed of continuous penetrations. Determination of the limiting (minimum) speed of continuous penetrations, above which continuous penetrations are obtained, and below - only regular penetrations, against the background of a linear dependence of small values ​​of the cavity depth h on the impact velocity; advantages of quantized impact velocities; single-digit and small two-digit quantum numbers n for all velocities at which penetrations or caverns of increased depth are obtained. EFFECT: determining the presence and advantages of quantized impact velocities, as well as increasing the accuracy of determining the minimum speed of continuous penetrations. 4 ill.

The invention relates to military equipment, in particular to the design of armor protection designed to counter cumulative ammunition. The reactive armor contains a housing in which two parallel metal plates are located, detonators evenly spaced in the gap between the metal plates, sensors for determining the coordinates of the penetrating cumulative jet, fixed on the inner surfaces of the plates. In the gap between the metal plates there are vessels filled with liquid, inside the vessels there are rigidly fixed detonators made in the form of controlled electric dischargers, the power electrodes of which are connected by wires to the output of the electric energy storage device, and the ignition electrodes are electrically connected to the output of the ignition pulse generator, the input of which is electrically connected. with sensors for determining the coordinates of the cumulative jet. EFFECT: increased reliability of dynamic protection operation. 1 ill.

The invention relates to means of protecting equipment and crew from bullets, shrapnel and grenade launchers. The protective composite material contains a sandwich that includes at least three layers glued together. The first and second sandwich layers include at least two prepregs and titanium alloy or aluminum alloy corners. The third layer of protective composite has a honeycomb structure and is made of polyurethane. The first and second layers of the sandwich include monoliths formed from an angle profile. Shelves of the angular profile are located at an angle of 45° to the plane of the working surface of the protective composite. The titanium alloy or aluminum alloy corners are interconnected by at least two prepregs. Prepreg fibers contain corundum nanotubes on the surface of a fiber made of polyethylene filament, or glass filament, or basalt filament, or fabric, or tow, or tape. An increase in protective properties is achieved due to the design of the armor. 3 w.p. f-ly, 1 ill.

The invention relates to armored objects, mainly to tanks with dynamic armor protection, and at the same time to means of camouflaging military objects using a camouflage coating fixed on the surface of the object. The protective device of an armored military object contains camouflage square elements-modules with a camouflage pattern in a range of colors and with a choice of one or another individual four-position orientation, removable on the armor sections of the object. The device provides for dynamic protection elements distributed over the surface of the object with removable square covers, and the camouflage elements-modules are made in the form of rigid plates interchangeable with the mentioned covers of dynamic protection elements, with the possibility of quickly changing the camouflage pattern by replacing and / or rearranging two-functional ones, thus , elements-modules between elements of dynamic protection. Efficiency of replacement of camouflage means is achieved by particular application of the principle of multifunctionality of units and parts of machines to elements of dynamic protection and camouflage means. 5 z.p. f-ly, 4 ill.

The invention relates to the field of measurement technology and can be used to control the quality of composite armor barriers. A device for thermal quality control of composite armor barriers based on the analysis of the absorption energy of the projectile, including a device for firing located between the substrate and the device for firing on the flight path of the projectile, a device for measuring the flight speed of the projectile at the output of the device for firing, a substrate made of plastic material . The device is additionally equipped with a thermal imaging system, a computer system and a device for recording the start of the projectile flight. The thermal imaging system is located in such a way that the field of view of its optical part covers the point of contact between the striking element and the composite armor barrier. The input of the device for recording the beginning of the flight of the projectile is connected to the output of the device for measuring the speed of the projectile at the output of the device for firing. The output of the device for recording the beginning of the flight of the striking element is connected to the input of the thermal imaging system, and the output of the thermal imaging system is connected to the input of the computer system. The technical result is an increase in the information content and reliability of the test results. 9 ill.

The invention relates to the field of transport engineering. The energy-absorbing structure for protecting the bottom of ground vehicles consists of inner and outer layers of protection made of armor and/or structural alloys. Between the layers of protection is a layer. The interlayer is made in the form of two identical rows of U- or W-shaped energy-absorbing profiles mirrored to each other and shifted by half a step relative to each other. The end ribs of the energy-absorbing profiles of one row rest on the end ribs of adjacent energy-absorbing profiles of the opposite row. An increase in the efficiency of energy absorption during detonation is achieved. 3 ill.

The invention relates to the field of measurement technology and can be used to control the quality of composite armor barriers. The method includes installation of an armored barrier in front of a plate of plastic material, directing a striking element at a given speed to the armored barrier. Additionally, the temperature field of the surface of the composite armor barrier having minimal temperature anomalies is recorded, which is taken as anomalous, the spatial resolution is determined for registering the temperature field, based on the detection of temperature anomalies of the minimum size with a spatial period determined by the dimensions of the minimum temperature anomaly. After impact on the composite armor barrier by the striking element at a given speed, the temperature field is simultaneously measured in the area of ​​contact between the striking element and the composite armor barrier, starting from the moment the striking element contacts the composite armor barrier and from the opposite side, in relation to the side of contact with the striking element, on based on the analysis of the temperature field recorded from two surfaces, the technical state of the composite armor barrier is determined by the vector of characteristics of the armor barrier and its absorption energy by minimizing the functional by the vector of characteristics of the controlled armor plate by solving a system of equations, and based on the analysis of the temperature field, the absorption energy of the composite armor barrier is determined. A device for bench testing of composite armor barriers is disclosed. The technical result is an increase in the information content and reliability of the test results. 2 n. and 3 z.p. f-ly, 3 ill., 1 tab.

The invention relates to a penetration-resistant article that can be used for the production of protective clothing such as bulletproof vests, helmets, as well as shields or armor elements, as well as to a method for its production. The product contains at least one woven fabric structure (3) having thermoplastic fibers and high strength fibers with a strength of at least 1100 MPa, in accordance with ASTM D-885. The high tenacity fibers are bonded together to form a woven fabric (2) of a woven fabric structure (3), and the thermoplastic fibers have a weight percentage relative to the weight of the woven fabric structure (3) of 5 to 35%. Moreover, thermoplastic fibers preferably in the form of a non-corrugated fabric (6) lie on the woven fabric (2) and are connected to the woven fabric (2) by the main thread and/or weft thread of the woven fabric (2) of high-strength fibers. There are no additional connecting threads or non-textile connecting means for connecting between the woven fabric (2) and the thermoplastic fibres. The penetration resistant article has impact protection and/or anti-ballistic properties. 3 n. and 11 z.p. f-ly, 7 ill.

SUBSTANCE: invention relates to bulletproof composite products, which are characterized by improved resistance to reverse deformation. Bulletproof product contains a vacuum panel, which consists of the first surface, the second surface and the housing. The vacuum panel limits at least a part of the internal volume in which the vacuum is created. Bulletproof product contains at least one bulletproof base, which is connected to the first or second surface of the vacuum panel. The ballistic base contains fibers and/or tapes with a specific strength of about 7 g/denier or more and a tensile modulus of about 150 g/denier or more. Also, the bulletproof base is made of a rigid material not based on fibers or tapes. Also proposed is a method for forming a bulletproof article, in which the bulletproof base is positioned so that it is on the outside of the bulletproof article, and the specified vacuum panel is placed behind the specified at least one bulletproof base in order to receive any shock wave that occurs as a result of impact. striking element on the specified bulletproof base. EFFECT: weakening of the impact of shock waves generated as a result of impact action of the striking element, reduction of the magnitude of the purl deformation, prevention or minimization of injuries from the transcendent action of bullets. 3 n. and 7 z.p. f-ly, 9 ill., 2 tables, 19 pr.

SUBSTANCE: group of inventions relates to the field of measuring technology, namely to a method for quality control of composite armor barriers made of fabric and a device for its implementation. The method includes installing a composite armor barrier in front of a plate of plastic material, directing a projectile at a given speed to the armor barrier, and determining the absorption energy of the projectile. From the moment of interaction between the armored barrier and the damaging element, two spatial fields are simultaneously recorded on the surface of the armored barrier: the temperature field of the surface of the armored barrier and the field of the video image of the surface. The video image contour is superimposed on the temperature field, a new measured temperature field is formed, and the absorption energy by the composite armor barrier is determined based on the analysis of the new temperature field. Disclosed is a device for quality control of composite armor barriers made of fabric for the implementation of the method. EFFECT: increased informative value and reliability of control results. 2 n. and 1 z.p. f-ly, 5 ill.

The invention relates to the field of development of means of protecting equipment from armor-piercing bullets. Multilayer combined armor contains a highly hard front layer of a ceramic block or elements connected by a binder into a monolith, a high-strength energy-intensive back layer and an intermediate layer. The intermediate layer is made of a plastic material having a yield strength of 0.05-0.5 of the yield strength of the back layer. An increase in the armor resistance of the combined armor is achieved by increasing the density of acoustic contact between the layers.

TO THE HISTORY OF THE PRODUCTION OF TANK ARMOR IN THE USSR

I. V. Yurasov

The beginning of the development of the tank industry in the USSR should be considered 1931, when the Izhora plant, followed by the now Zhdanovsky plant of heavy engineering, began the production of rolled tank armor.

The first armor plates in Russia were obtained at the Izhora plant in February 1866 for sheathing ships of the Russian fleet.

In 1870, an armor plate weighing more than 27 tons, 6.6 m long, 1.65 m wide and 0.37 m thick was made for an international exhibition. The Izhora plant was awarded a gold medal.

At that time, armor was made by two methods - forging under hammers and rolling in iron rolls.

In the early 90s, the search began for a new type of armor - steel and steel-nickel.

In 1894, the first three armor plates were made of nickel steel, but field tests of these plates were unsatisfactory.

Abroad at this time, the top layer of armor plates was cemented.

The Izhora plant was ordered to master the production of armor according to the Harvey method.

In November 1896, in the new armored hardening the first slab was processed by the workshop.

In Germany, at that time, another new type of armor became widespread - chrome-nickel.

In 1898, Russia acquired a patent for this armor from the German firm Krupp.

In 1910, a new armor factory was built next to the hardening workshop; the productivity of the Izhora plant increased to two thousand tons of armor per year.

It was decided to organize armor production and at the Obukhov plant.

In 1907-1909. An experimental bulk batch of deck armor for ships was produced at the Kulebaki Metallurgical Plant. In 1914-1918. the plant produced shrapnel blanks. In 1919-1920. produced armor plates for armored trains.

In 1914, the production of armor reached 18 thousand tons per year. In the same year, the Izhorok plant began to manufacture armored vehicles. These were passenger cars of the "Russian-Baltic Society in Riga".

At the end of 1916, several cars were booked with the design of the engineer Kegress, which were the prototype of the tanks that appeared soon.

From September 1918 to September 1919, armored vehicles, repair of armored trains, rental of armor plates for the needs of the front of the young Soviet state were widely developed at the plant.

In 1932, the gross production of tank armor began at the Zhdanov heavy engineering plant, at the Kulebak and Izhora metallurgical plants.

Domestic tanks, produced before 1938, were equipped mainly with bulletproof armor. The armored hulls of these tanks were made with riveting, so steel grades with a carbon content of 0.35-0.50%, developed by the pioneer of the domestic armor industry, the Izhorok plant, were used for their armor.

The leading specialists of the Soviet school that was created at that time - S. A. Baranov, A. S. Zavyalov, M. M. Zamyatin, L. A. Kanevsky, S. I. Sakhin and others developed several weldable brands of armor become.

In 1934, the steel grade IZ (Izhorkiy Zavod) was developed. The disadvantages of this steel were the complex hardening technology and stringent requirements for compliance with the welding technology in order to avoid the formation of welding cracks.

To make this steel suitable for mass production conditions, O. F. Danilevsky, Ya. I. Kulandin, V. G. Fridman, A. S. Zavyalov, L. A. Kanevsky and A. P. Goryachev corrected the chemical composition of steel was determined. Under the 2P brand, it is still used as the main steel for the manufacture of armored hulls of tanks with bulletproof protection.

The appearance of heavy machine guns (12.7 mm) and anti-tank guns with a caliber of 37 - 45 mm required the creation of more powerful armor; for this purpose in the period 1934-1939. the use of cemented armor began, the grades of which were developed by A. N. Ponimaschenko, V. A. Delle, A. S. Zavyalov, Ya. I. Kulandin, L. S. Levin, L. T. Schreiber.

However, the long and complex technology for manufacturing cemented armor prevented its widespread adoption.

In 1937-1938. the experience of the war in Spain showed the need to equip tanks with anti-ballistic protection. To protect against armor-piercing projectiles, high-hardness armor was developed that combined the required level of resistance with sufficient survivability, this is armor of the MZ-2 brand (Mariupolsky plant), the authors of which were G. F. Zasetsky, G. And Kapyrin, A. T. Larin, I. F. Timchenko, N. V. Schmidt.

This steel under the index 8C was used for armored hulls and turrets of the T-34 tank. In April 1940, a new design of the modernized T-34 machine with a stamped turret appeared.

As is known, the T-34 tanks were practically invulnerable to armor-piercing shells of 37 and 45-mm calibers and had satisfactory protection against armor-piercing shells of the short-barreled 75-mm gun of the German T-IV tank.

Before the start of World War II, a new type was developed highly released armor (instead of armor of high hardness), which has high resistance against the action of larger projectiles of 88, 90 and 100 mm caliber. This type of chromoly and chromium-nickel-molybdenum armor was used for the production of KB tank hulls and subsequently, during World War II, for IS tanks, in the form of grades 42C, 43PS, 49C and 52C.

During the Great Patriotic War vols. S. I. Smolensky and B. E. Sheinin modified the composition of grades 42C and 43PS; to improve the technological and protective characteristics, the molybdenum content was increased in them, after which they received the designation 42SM and 43PSM.

For the manufacture of armor with a thickness of over 100 mm, at the suggestion of S. I. Smolensky, steel grade 53C was adopted.

In 1938 A. S. Zavyalov, JI. A. Kanevsky and N. I. Perov received an author's certificate for the manufacture of tank turret hulls and other units of complex configuration by casting.

The transition to casting instead of welding from bent or stamped sheet parts made it possible to simplify the technology, create the optimal geometric shape of nodes with differentiated thicknesses and inclination angles, and increase the survivability of nodes by eliminating welds.

For the first time, work on a cast turret at the Zhdanov plant began in February 1940. The first turret was cast from 8C steel, the heat treatment of the turret was carried out according to the double hardening scheme with final low tempering.

Field tests have shown that such a turret, with a slight increase in thickness, in comparison with rolled armor, has great advantages over a welded turret made of stamped parts. Other grades of cast armor were also developed.

The experience of ZhZTM in the production of cast turrets and armor casting for tanks was widely used at a number of tank factories in the Soviet Union and played a huge role in the qualitative and quantitative equipping of the Soviet army with combat vehicles during the Great Patriotic War.

For the thicker turrets of the T-34-85 tank (with an 85 mm caliber cannon), a more alloyed steel of medium hardness grade 71L was developed (authors JI.AT. Butalov, N. I. Perov, S. I. Sakhin, R. G. Khmelevsky).

For turrets and other cast units of all other medium and heavy tanks, armor of medium hardness grades 66L was used for small parts, 74L and 75JI for heavy tank turrets.

Until the end of 1935, the armor industry of the Soviet Union was not organizationally united. Only at the beginning of 1936 did the main armor-producing the factories were united in one main department, headed by the outstanding industrial organizer I. T. Tevosyan.

From the first days of the creation of the Glavka, a prominent specialist in the field of high-quality metallurgy A. A. Khabakhpashev was attracted to work in it, who in the period 1936-1954. actively contributed to the development of the armored industry.

In the period 1938-1940. V. S. Emelyanov worked in senior positions in the armor industry, and Ya. V. Yushin in the period 1940-1941.

During the Patriotic War, leading specialists L. A. Kanevsky, V. A. Orlov, F. I. Pirsky, D. M. Polikarpov, S. I. Smolensky and others were recruited to work in the apparatus of the Glavka; F. I. Pirsky, A. F. Stogov, Η were involved to manage the production of armor at ferrous metallurgy plants. N. Timoshenko and N. I. Sheftel.

At present, armor for tanks is made from high-quality alloy steels subjected to special heat treatment.

With high strength, the armor must also be sufficiently viscous, capable of absorbing large dynamic loads and at the same time not being destroyed, not cracking or spalling from the inside.

The main alloying additives are nickel, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, silicon, etc. The combination of alloying elements and their percentage in armored steels is different and depends on the methods of steel production, purpose, thickness of armored parts. The table gives the approximate percentage of additives in armor steel.

The quality of armor is greatly affected by carbon. An increase in its content increases hardness, but sharply increases brittleness, reduces the toughness of the armor, and worsens its weldability.

Nickel increases the toughness and strength of armor, improves weldability, and increases hardening.

Manganese increases strength and improves hardenability armor. Molybdenum, manganese and silicon increase strength and hardness without reducing toughness. In addition, manganese gives good casting qualities, improves heat treatment, and molybdenum reduces the brittleness of armor during tempering, facilitates machining and increases hardenability armor.

Table

Typical chemical composition of armor steel

Elements
Percentage	0,3-0,5	0,6-5,0	0,2-0,8	0,4-2,1	0,1-0,4	0,1-0,4

Heat treatment is a complex process, depending on the purpose of the armor, its thickness and chemical composition, usually includes hardening followed by tempering.

By quenching, the required hardness of the armor is achieved, and by tempering, the required toughness. The experience of foreign tank building is carefully studied.

Along with the continuous improvement in the quality of steel armor in foreign tank building, extensive work is underway to create tank armor from light alloys on a titanium, aluminum or magnesium basis. Thus, the foreign press reported on the creation of a light combat vehicle with magnesium alloy armor, three times lighter than a similar vehicle with steel armor. The new light American Sheridan tank has aluminum alloy armor. Much attention is paid to the co-building of plastic armor.

Rolled and cast armor is used.

According to the internal structure, armor can be homogeneous (homogeneous) and heterogeneous (heterogeneous).

Heterogeneous armor has somewhat better projectile resistance, but it is more expensive and more difficult to manufacture compared to homogeneous.

According to the design, monolithic, composite and shielded armor are distinguished.

Monolithic armor is made from one sheet; composite - from two or more sheets, folded close; shielded - from the screen and the main armor, placed at a certain distance from each other.

Such armor is used to combat cumulative projectiles.