Hubbry Logo
Vehicle armourVehicle armourMain
Open search
Vehicle armour
Community hub
Vehicle armour
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Vehicle armour
Vehicle armour
from Wikipedia

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. Such vehicles include armoured fighting vehicles like tanks, aircraft, and ships.

Civilian vehicles may also be armoured. These vehicles include cars used by officials (e.g., presidential limousines), reporters and others in conflict zones or where violent crime is common. Civilian armoured cars are also routinely used by security firms to carry money or valuables to reduce the risk of highway robbery or the hijacking of the cargo.

Armour may also be used in vehicles to protect from threats other than a deliberate attack. Some spacecraft are equipped with specialised armour to protect them against impacts from micrometeoroids or fragments of space debris. Modern aircraft powered by jet engines usually have them fitted with a sort of armour in the form of an aramid composite kevlar bandage around the fan casing or debris containment walls built into the casing of their gas turbine engines to prevent injuries or airframe damage should the fan, compressor, or turbine blades break free.[1]

The design and purpose of the vehicle determines the amount of armour plating carried, as the plating is often very heavy and excessive amounts of armour restrict mobility. In order to decrease this problem, some new materials (nanomaterials) and material compositions are being researched which include buckypaper,[2] and aluminium foam armour plates.[3]

Materials

[edit]

Metals

[edit]

Steel

[edit]

Rolled homogeneous armour is strong, hard and tough (does not shatter when struck with a fast, hard blow). Steel with these characteristics is produced by processing cast steel billets of appropriate size and then rolling them into plates of required thickness.[4] Rolling and forging (hammering the steel when it is red hot) irons out the grain structure in the steel, removing imperfections which would reduce the strength of the steel.[5] Rolling also elongates the grain structure in the steel to form long lines, which enables the stress the steel is placed under when loaded to flow throughout the metal, and not be concentrated in one area.[4]

Cast homogenous armour or cast steel armour is produced by directly casting steel into the desired shape.[6] It tends to be softer as heat treatment is difficult or impossible. Nevertheless, the flexibility in shape has made it popular as the structural hull in modern tanks.[7]

Aluminium

[edit]
The British Fox CVR(W) was built largely of aluminium.

Aluminium is used when light weight is a necessity. It is most commonly used on APCs and armoured cars. While certainly not the strongest metal, it is cheap, lightweight, and tough enough that it can serve as easy armour.

Iron

[edit]

Wrought iron was used on ironclad warships. Early European iron armour consisted of 10 to 12.5 cm of wrought iron backed by up to one metre of solid wood. It has since been replaced by steel due to steel being significantly stronger.

Titanium

[edit]

Titanium has almost twice the density of aluminium, but can have a yield strength similar to high strength steels, giving it a high specific strength. It also has a high specific resilience and specific toughness. So, despite being more expensive, it finds an application in areas where weight is a concern, such as personal armour and military aviation. Some notable examples of its use include the USAF A-10 Thunderbolt II and the Soviet/Russian-built Sukhoi Su-25 ground-attack aircraft, utilising a bathtub-shaped titanium enclosure for the pilot, as well as the Soviet/Russian Mil Mi-24 attack helicopter.

Uranium

[edit]

Because of its high density, depleted uranium (DU) can also be used in tank armour, sandwiched between sheets of steel armour plate. For instance, some late-production M1A1HA and M1A2 Abrams tanks built after 1998 have DU reinforcement as part of the armour plating in the front of the hull and the front of the turret, and there is a program to upgrade the rest (see Chobham armour).

Plastic

[edit]

Plastic metal was a type of vehicle armour originally developed for merchant ships by the British Admiralty in 1940. The original composition was described as 50% clean granite of half-inch size, 43% of limestone mineral, and 7% of bitumen. It was typically applied in a layer two inches thick and backed by half an inch of steel.

Plastic armour was highly effective at stopping armour piercing bullets because the hard granite particles would deflect the bullet, which would then lodge between plastic armour and the steel backing plate. Plastic armour could be applied by pouring it into a cavity formed by the steel backing plate and a temporary wooden form.

Some main battle tank armour utilises polymers, for example polyurethane as used in the "BDD" appliqué armour applied to modernized T-62 and T-55.

Glass

[edit]
Ballistic test of a bullet-resistant glass panel

Bullet-resistant glass is a colloquial term for glass that is particularly resistant to being penetrated when struck by bullets. The industry generally refers to it as bulletproof glass or transparent armour.

Bullet-resistant glass is usually constructed using a strong but transparent material such as polycarbonate thermoplastic or by using layers of laminated glass. The desired result is a material with the appearance and light-transmitting behaviour of standard glass, which offers varying degrees of protection from small arms fire.

The polycarbonate layer, usually consisting of products such as Armormax, Makroclear, Cyrolon, Lexan or Tuffak, is often sandwiched between layers of regular glass. The use of plastic in the laminate provides impact-resistance, such as physical assault with a hammer, an axe, etc. The plastic provides little in the way of bullet-resistance. The glass, which is much harder than plastic, flattens the bullet and thereby prevents penetration. This type of bullet-resistant glass is usually 70–75 mm (2.8–3.0 in) thick.

Bullet-resistant glass constructed of laminated glass layers is built from glass sheets bonded together with polyvinyl butyral, polyurethane or ethylene-vinyl acetate. This type of bullet-resistant glass has been in regular use on combat vehicles since World War II; it is typically about 100–120 mm (3.9–4.7 in) thick and is usually extremely heavy.

Newer materials are being developed. One such, aluminium oxynitride, is much lighter but at US$10–15 per square inch is much more costly.

Ceramic

[edit]

Ceramic's precise mechanism for defeating HEAT was uncovered in the 1980s. High speed photography showed that the ceramic material shatters as the HEAT round penetrates, the highly energetic fragments destroying the geometry of the metal jet generated by the hollow charge, greatly diminishing the penetration. Ceramic layers can also be used as part of composite armour solutions. The high hardness of some ceramic materials serves as a disruptor that shatters and spreads the kinetic energy of projectiles.

Composite

[edit]
Plasan Sand Cat light (5 ton) military vehicle featuring integrated composite armoured body

Composite armour is armour consisting of layers of two or more materials with significantly different physical properties; steel and ceramics are the most common types of material in composite armour. Composite armour was initially developed in the 1940s, although it did not enter service until much later and the early examples are often ignored in the face of newer armour such as Chobham armour. Composite armour's effectiveness depends on its composition and may be effective against kinetic energy penetrators as well as shaped charge munitions; heavy metals are sometimes included specifically for protection from kinetic energy penetrators.

Composite armour used on modern Western and Israeli main battle tanks largely consists of non-explosive reactive armour (NERA) elements - a type of reactive armour. These elements are often a laminate consisting of two hard plates (usually high hardness steel) with some low density interlayer material between them. Upon impact, the interlayer swells and moves the plates, disrupting heat 'jets' and possibly degrading kinetic energy projectiles. Behind these elements will be some backing element designed to stop the degraded jet or projectile element, which may be of high hardness steel, or some composite of steel and ceramic or possibly uranium.

Soviet main battle tanks from the T-64 onward utilised composite armour which often consisted of some low density filler between relatively thick steel plates or castings, for example Combination K.[8] For example, the T-64 turret had a layer of ceramic balls and aluminium sandwiched between layers of cast steel armour,[9] whilst some models of the T-72 features a glass filler called "Kvartz". The tank glacis was often a sandwich of steel and some low density filler, either textolite (a fibreglass reinforced polymer) or ceramic plates.[10] Later T-80 and T-72 turrets contained NERA elements, similar to those discussed above.[11][12]

Ships

[edit]
Diagram of common elements of warship armour. The belt armour is denoted by "A".

Belt armour is a layer of armour-plating outside the hull of warships, typically on battleships, battlecruisers, cruisers and some aircraft carriers.[13]

Typically, the belt covers from the deck down some way below the waterline of the ship. If built within the hull, rather than forming the outer hull, it can be fitted at an inclined angle to improve the protection.

When struck by a shell or torpedo, the belt armour is designed to prevent penetration, by either being too thick for the warhead to penetrate, or sloped to a degree that would deflect either projectile. Often, the main belt armour was supplemented with a torpedo bulkhead spaced several metres behind the main belt, designed to maintain the ship's watertight integrity even if the main belt were penetrated.

The air-space between the belt and the hull also adds buoyancy. Several wartime vessels had belt armour that was thinner or shallower than was desirable, to speed production and conserve resources.

Deck armour on aircraft carriers is usually at the flight deck level, but on some early carriers was at the hangar deck. (See armoured flight deck.)

Aircraft

[edit]

Armour plating is not common on aircraft, which generally rely on their speed and maneuverability to avoid attacks from enemy aircraft and ground fire, rather than trying to resist impacts. Additionally, any armour capable of stopping large-calibre anti-aircraft fire or missile fragments would result in an unacceptable weight penalty. So, only the vital parts of an aircraft, such as the ejection seat and engines, are usually armoured. This is one area where titanium is used extensively as armour plating. For example, in the American Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II and the Soviet-built Sukhoi Su-25 ground attack aircraft, as well as the Mil Mi-24 Hind ground-attack helicopter, the pilot sits in a titanium enclosure known as the "bathtub" for its shape. In addition, the windscreens of larger aircraft are generally made of impact-resistant, laminated materials, even on civilian craft, to prevent damage from bird strikes or other debris.

Armoured fighting vehicles

[edit]

The most heavily armoured vehicles today are the main battle tanks, which are the spearhead of the ground forces, and are designed to withstand anti-tank guided missiles, kinetic energy penetrators, high-explosive anti-tank weapons, NBC threats and in some tanks even steep-trajectory shells. The Israeli Merkava tanks were designed in a way that each tank component functions as added back-up armour to protect the crew. Outer armour is modular and enables quickly replacing damaged parts.

Layout

[edit]

For efficiency, the heaviest armour on an armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) is placed on its front. Tank tactics require the vehicle to always face the likely direction of enemy fire as much as possible, even in defence or withdrawal operations.

Sloping and curving armour can both increase its protection. Given a fixed thickness of armour plate, a projectile striking at an angle must penetrate more armour than one impacting perpendicularly. An angled surface also increases the chance of deflecting a projectile. This can be seen on v-hull designs, which direct the force of an improvised explosive device or landmine away from the crew compartment, increasing crew survivability.[14]

Spall liners

[edit]

Beginning during the Cold War, many AFVs have spall liners inside of the armour, designed to protect crew and equipment inside from fragmentation (spalling) released from the impact of enemy shells, especially high-explosive squash head warheads. Spall liners are made of aramids (Kevlar, Twaron), UHMWPE (Dyneema, Spectra Shield), or similar materials.

Appliqué

[edit]
Vehicle composite add-on armour kit

Appliqué armour,[15] or add-on armour, consists of extra plates mounted onto the hull or turret of an AFV. The plates can be made of any material and are designed to be retrofitted to an AFV to withstand weapons that can penetrate the original armour of the vehicle.[16][17] An advantage of appliqué armour is the possibility to tailor a vehicle's protection level to a specific threat scenario.

Improvised

[edit]

Vehicle armour is sometimes improvised in the midst of an armed conflict by vehicle crews or individual units. In World War II, British, Canadian and Polish tank crews welded spare strips of tank track to the hulls of their Sherman tanks.[18] U.S. tank crews often added sand bags in the hull and turrets on Sherman tanks, often in an elaborate cage made of girders. Some Sherman tanks were up-armoured in the field with glacis plates and other armour cut from knocked-out tanks to create Improvised Jumbos, named after the heavily armoured M4A3E2 assault tank. In the Vietnam War, U.S. "gun trucks" were armoured with sandbags and locally fabricated steel armour plate.[19] More recently, U.S. troops in Iraq armoured Humvees and various military transport vehicles with scrap materials: this came to be known as "hillbilly armour" or "haji armour" by the Americans.[18] Moreover, there was the Killdozer incident, with the modified bulldozer being armoured with steel and concrete composite, which proved to be highly resistant to small arms.

Spaced

[edit]
Sturmgeschütz III with spaced armour plates

Armour with two or more plates spaced a distance apart, called spaced armour, has been in use since the First World War, where it was used on the Schneider CA1 and Saint-Chamond tanks. Spaced armour can be advantageous in several situations. For example, it can reduce the effectiveness of kinetic energy penetrators because the interaction with each plate can cause the round to tumble, deflect, deform, or disintegrate. This effect can be enhanced when the armour is sloped. Spaced armour can also offer increased protection against HEAT projectiles. This occurs because the shaped charge warhead can detonate prematurely (at the first surface), so that the metal jet that is produced loses its coherence before reaching the main armour and impacting over a broader area. Sometimes the interior surfaces of these hollow cavities are sloped, presenting angles to the anticipated path of the shaped charge's jet in order to further dissipate its power. Taken to the extreme, relatively thin armour plates, metal mesh, or slatted plates, much lighter than fully protective armour, can be attached as side skirts or turret skirts to provide additional protection against such weapons. This can be seen in middle and late-World War II German tanks, as well as many modern AFVs. Taken as a whole, spaced armour can provide significantly increased protection while saving weight.

The analogous Whipple shield uses the principle of spaced armour to protect spacecraft from the impacts of very fast micrometeoroids. The impact with the first wall melts or breaks up the incoming particle, causing fragments to be spread over a wider area when striking the subsequent walls.

Sloped

[edit]
The Merkava features extreme sloped armour on the turret

Sloped armour is armour that is mounted at a non-vertical and non-horizontal angle, typically on tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles. For a given normal to the surface of the armour, its plate thickness, increasing armour slope improves the armour's level of protection by increasing the thickness measured on a horizontal plane, while for a given area density of the armour the protection can be either increased or reduced by other sloping effects, depending on the armour materials used and the qualities of the projectile hitting it. The increased protection caused by increasing the slope while keeping the plate thickness constant, is due to a proportional increase of area density and thus mass, and thus offers no weight benefit. Therefore, the other possible effects of sloping, such as deflection, deforming and ricochet of a projectile, have been the reasons to apply sloped armour in armoured vehicles design. Another motive is the fact that sloping armour is a more efficient way of covering the necessary equipment since it encloses less volume with less material. The sharpest angles are usually seen on the frontal glacis plate, both as it is the hull side most likely to be hit and because there is more room to slope in the longitudinal direction of a vehicle.

Reactive

[edit]
M60A1 Patton tank with Israeli Blazer ERA

Explosive reactive armour, initially developed by German researcher Manfred Held while working in Israel, uses layers of high explosive sandwiched between steel plates. When a shaped-charge warhead hits, the explosive detonates and pushes the steel plates into the warhead, disrupting the flow of the charge's liquid metal penetrator (usually copper at around 500 degrees Celsius;[citation needed] it can be made to flow like water by sufficient pressure). Traditional "light" ERA is less effective against kinetic penetrators. "Heavy" reactive armour, however, offers better protection. The only example currently in widespread service is Russian Kontakt-5. Explosive reactive armour poses a threat to friendly troops near the vehicle.

Non-explosive reactive armour is an advanced spaced armour which uses materials which change their geometry so as to increase protection under the stress of impact.

Active protection systems use a sensor to detect an incoming projectile and explosively launch a counter-projectile into its path.

Slat

[edit]
IDF Caterpillar D9 armoured bulldozer with slat armour (in addition to armour plates and bulletproof windows). The D9 armour deflected RPG rockets and even 9K11 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) ATGMs.

Slat armour is designed to protect against anti-tank rocket and missile attacks, where the warhead is a shaped charge. The slats are spaced so that the warhead is either partially deformed before detonating, or the fuzing mechanism is damaged, thereby preventing detonation entirely. As shaped charges rely on very specific structure to create a jet of hot metal, any disruption to this structure greatly reduces the effectiveness of the warhead.[20] Slat armour can be defeated by tandem-charge designs such as the RPG-27 and RPG-29.[21]

Electric armour

[edit]

Electric armour is a recent development in the United Kingdom by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28] A vehicle is fitted with two thin shells, separated by insulating material. The outer shell holds an enormous electric charge, while the inner shell is at ground. If an incoming HEAT jet penetrates the outer shell and forms a bridge between the shells, the electrical energy discharges through the jet, disrupting it. Trials have so far been extremely promising, and it is hoped that improved systems could protect against KE penetrators. The developers of the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) series of armoured vehicles are considering this technology.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Vehicle armour refers to the specialized protective materials and systems applied to military vehicles, such as tanks, fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers, to shield occupants, vital components, and the vehicle's structure from threats including small-arms fire, fragments, anti-tank guided missiles, and improvised devices. These systems are engineered to absorb, deflect, or disrupt impacts while optimizing weight to preserve mobility, firepower, and operational endurance in combat environments. The evolution of vehicle armour began during with the introduction of rudimentary steel plating on early tanks like the British Mark I, which provided 6–12 mm of protection primarily against machine-gun fire to enable infantry support across trench lines. By , armour thickness escalated to 80–180 mm on heavy tanks such as the German , driven by the need to withstand increasingly potent anti-tank guns like the 88 mm Pak 43, while innovations like sloped designs on the Soviet improved effective thickness without proportional weight gain. Post-war developments responded to shaped-charge warheads, incorporating composite armours like in the 1970s and explosive reactive armour (ERA) in the late 1970s, first used in combat during the , with further adaptations in and focusing on blast-resistant V-hulls and urban survivability kits to counter IEDs. Vehicle armour materials commonly include (RHA) with Brinell hardness ratings of 250–410 for foundational , aluminium alloys like 5083 for lighter applications, and advanced composites combining ceramics, fibres, and polymers to achieve higher mass efficiency against (HEAT) rounds. Armour is classified into passive systems, which rely on static absorption or deflection (e.g., sloped or RPG-defeating nets like Q-Net); reactive systems, which dynamically counter threats via explosive charges in (e.g., Kontakt-1 on tanks) or non-energetic deformation in NERA; and active systems (APS), which use sensors and interceptors to neutralize incoming projectiles, as in Rafael's on tanks. efficacy is standardized by 's , which defines five levels: Level 1 against 7.62 mm NATO ball ammunition at 30 m; Level 2 against 7.62 mm armour-piercing; Level 3 adding 155 mm fragments at 10 m and 8 kg TNT blasts; Level 4 for 14.5 mm and 10 kg blasts; and Level 5 for 25 mm APDS-T and 10 kg blasts. Contemporary advancements emphasize lightweight composites and integrated multi-layered designs to address emerging threats like drone-delivered munitions and top-attack ATGMs, enabling vehicles such as the (AMPV) to maintain in high-intensity conflicts while adhering to weight constraints for transportability. These systems often incorporate spall liners to mitigate internal fragmentation and to reduce detectability, reflecting a holistic approach to that balances passive resilience with active countermeasures.

History

Early vehicle armour

The origins of vehicle armour trace back to , where light protections were applied to chariots to enhance crew survivability while preserving speed and maneuverability. In around 1500 BCE, war chariots consisted of wooden frames overlaid with or rawhide, often supplemented by large rectangular shields made of wood covered in animal hide, which charioteers held or attached to the vehicle for defense against arrows and spears during charges. These designs emphasized minimal encumbrance, allowing two-man crews—a driver and an archer—to operate effectively in open battles. Similarly, Assyrian chariots from the same era incorporated comparable wooden shields and lightweight or panels, providing basic cover for elite warriors against infantry projectiles while maintaining the vehicle's role as a mobile platform. During the medieval period, armoured wagons represented an evolution toward more robust vehicle defenses, particularly in siege warfare. In 15th-century , the employed "war wagons" during conflicts like the (1419–1434), constructing them from heavy wooden carts reinforced with iron plates or thick hides to shield crossbowmen and handgunners from arrows, bolts, and early fire. These wagons, typically 10 feet long and manned by crews of up to 16 soldiers armed with flails, pavises, and firearms, were chained together in circular formations to create improvised forts, offering mutual protection during advances or defensive stands against charges. Such innovations highlighted the tactical value of mobile barriers in , though their static deployment in sieges limited offensive potential. By the , experiments with metallic plating on rail vehicles marked a shift toward industrialized protections, driven by the need to safeguard transport under fire. During the (1853–1856), British engineers improvised iron reinforcements on locomotives and railway cars along the Grand Crimean Central Railway to shield supplies and troops from Russian artillery during the Siege of Sevastopol, representing early efforts to armor civilian-derived platforms for military logistics. These rudimentary ironclad rail elements, bolted over wooden structures, provided marginal resistance to shrapnel and small arms but were not fully enclosed, prioritizing rapid deployment over comprehensive coverage. The transition to motorized vehicles around 1900 introduced steel plating as a standard for basic protection against , adapting automobile for roles. Pioneering designs like F.R. of featured riveted steel plates, approximately 5–7 mm thick, capable of stopping bullets at range while mounting a for offensive use. This era's armoured cars, built on commercial or frames, emphasized speed over heavy defence, with plating focused on vital areas like the and compartment to counter threats in colonial skirmishes. A pivotal deployment occurred during the (1911–1912), where Italian forces introduced armoured cars to modern combat for the first time, using them for scouting and suppression in . Vehicles such as the Bianchi armoured cars were constructed with riveted steel plates up to 6 mm thick, assembled on a metal frame to protect against rifle fire and light shrapnel, though visibility slits and open tops remained vulnerabilities. These - and Isotta Fraschini-based models, numbering around a dozen, demonstrated the potential of self-propelled armour in desert terrain but were hampered by mechanical unreliability in sand. Early vehicle faced significant limitations due to weight constraints, resulting in thin designs that prioritized mobility at the expense of resilience. Steel plates rarely exceeded 6–10 mm in thickness, offering adequate cover against but proving ineffective against shells, whose high-explosive impacts could penetrate or overturn vehicles even with minimal . This often led to high loss rates in contested environments, underscoring the need for balanced in subsequent developments.

World War I and II innovations

During , vehicle armour saw its first widespread application in combat with the debut of tanks, which shifted protection from rudimentary bolted plates to more standardized steel configurations. The British Mark I , introduced in 1916, featured (RHA) steel plates ranging from 6 to 12 mm thick, with frontal sections up to 12 mm and some sloped elements on the sides and to promote deflection against small-arms fire and shrapnel. This design provided basic immunity to rifle bullets but was vulnerable to , marking an initial step toward industrialized . Armoured cars, such as improvised conversions of civilian vehicles, commonly used bolted mild steel plates of 3.5 to 4 mm thickness riveted or screwed to a frame, offering limited protection for roles in mobile operations. In the , advancements focused on increasing thickness and uniformity to counter evolving anti-tank threats, laying groundwork for designs. Experimental tanks like the French incorporated thicker RHA steel up to 25 mm on the hull sides and 40 mm on the frontal glacis at a 45-degree , enhancing resistance to 37 mm guns while maintaining reasonable mobility for a heavy vehicle weighing around 25 tons. These developments emphasized techniques, with armour cast or rolled for better consistency, though challenges in led to reliance on riveting. World War II accelerated innovations in armour metallurgy and geometry, prioritizing sloped configurations to maximize effective thickness without excessive weight. The German Panther exemplified this with face-hardened plates, featuring an 80 mm frontal hull sloped at 55 degrees, which equated to over 140 mm of line-of-sight protection against kinetic penetrators like the Soviet 76 mm gun. In aviation, bombers such as the US B-17 Flying Fortress employed 12.7 mm plates around critical crew areas and laminated glass windshields for fragmentation resistance. Naval vessels adopted all-or-nothing schemes to concentrate protection on vitals; the USS South Dakota-class battleships used a 310 mm sloped belt of layered Class A and B homogeneous , backed by 19 mm , designed to withstand 16-inch shells at combat ranges while leaving extremities unarmoured to save weight. The Soviet 's innovative 45 mm at 60 degrees not only deflected early German 37 mm and 50 mm rounds but profoundly influenced global designs, prompting adversaries like the US and to incorporate similar angles in later Shermans and Centurions. In the North African campaigns, Allied forces improvised sandbag on tanks like the and M3 Grant, stacking bags up to 30 cm thick on hulls and turrets to mitigate mine blasts and low-velocity shrapnel, though this added strain on suspensions. Throughout the wars, engineers grappled with balancing thickness against mobility, as heavier plates reduced speed and fuel efficiency; this tension spurred early composites, such as -rubber layered skirts on vehicles like the German , which absorbed impacts and reduced spalling while minimizing weight penalties.

Cold War and post-Cold War advancements

During the era, vehicle armour underwent a significant evolution from homogeneous plates to advanced composite systems designed to counter shaped-charge warheads and kinetic penetrators. In the 1970s, British engineers developed , a layered composite featuring ceramic tiles embedded in a matrix, which provided superior protection against anti-tank munitions compared to earlier designs. This technology was first implemented on the tank in 1983, marking a key advancement in Western tank survivability. The licensed Chobham for the tank, integrating it to achieve a balance of protection and mobility that influenced doctrine throughout the period. In the 1990s, the highlighted vulnerabilities in existing armour, prompting widespread adoption of explosive reactive armour () to defeat shaped-charge threats. Soviet-designed Kontakt-1 , consisting of explosive elements sandwiched between steel plates, was retrofitted on tanks, reducing penetration from anti-tank guided missiles by up to 86% in combat tests. This reactive approach disrupted incoming warheads through detonation, proving effective against Iraqi forces' munitions and influencing post-war upgrades across Eastern and Western inventories. Following the turn of the millennium, in and drove innovations in countermeasures against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The U.S. military deployed Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in 2007, featuring designs that deflected blast forces away from the crew compartment, significantly improving survivability over up-armored Humvees. Complementing these, slat armour—also known as cage armour—was added to Humvees to pre-detonate RPGs before impact, offering lightweight protection tailored to urban patrol threats. These developments emphasized blast mitigation over traditional kinetic threats, reshaping light protection strategies. By the 2020s, advancements focused on adaptive and multifunctional materials to address emerging challenges like drones and urban combat. Adaptive armour incorporating shape-memory alloys enables dynamic reconfiguration for threat-specific responses, such as altering surface geometry to deflect projectiles. The U.S. Army's M1E3 Abrams upgrades include hybrid electric , enhancing stealth through reduced signatures while pursuing weight reduction to under 60 tons and maintaining ballistic integrity. Similarly, the German KF51 Panther prototypes from 2024 draw on innovations for sustained performance. The 2022–2025 conflict has accelerated drone-resistant innovations, with both sides deploying and on vehicles to intercept FPV drones and munitions. Ukrainian forces have experimented with rubber-coated and spiked overlays to disrupt drone and , while Russian adaptations include overhead canopies for top-attack protection, highlighting the shift toward multi-layered, anti-aerial defences. These battlefield lessons have spurred global R&D, contributing to market growth projected at USD 13.5 billion by 2035, with innovations in modular systems driving a 4.5% CAGR from 2025 onward. A prevailing trend in post-Cold War is , allowing rapid field upgrades to adapt to evolving threats without full overhauls. This approach, seen in interchangeable panels on MRAPs and next-generation tanks, facilitates cost-effective enhancements like adding or anti-drone screens, ensuring longevity in diverse operational environments.

Principles of Armour

Types of threats and protection mechanisms

Vehicle armour must counter a variety of threats, primarily categorized as penetrators, warheads, blast and (IED) fragments, and fire with shrapnel. penetrators, such as (APFSDS) rounds, rely on high-velocity impacts to defeat armour through sheer momentum and material density; these projectiles typically achieve muzzle velocities between 1,500 and 1,800 m/s, enabling deep penetration into hardened targets. warheads, exemplified by the PG-7V round fired from the launcher, form a focused jet of molten metal upon , capable of penetrating up to 330 mm of (RHA). Blast and IED fragments generate widespread high-velocity debris and overpressure waves that can deform or rupture vehicle structures, while and shrapnel pose risks through localized impacts that may cause spalling or crew injury. Armour defeats these threats through several core mechanisms: deflection, absorption, and disruption. Deflection leverages angled surfaces to increase the effective thickness of the plate, as the line-of-sight path for the lengthens with slope obliquity, potentially redirecting or ricocheting incoming rounds away from critical areas. Absorption occurs when materials deform plastically to dissipate the 's , converting it into heat and structural yielding rather than allowing penetration. Disruption actively interferes with the threat, as seen in explosive reactive (), where sandwiched explosive layers detonate upon impact to eject metal plates that fragment or deflect jets and, to a lesser extent, disrupt kinetic penetrators. A key concept in evaluating armour efficacy is the ballistic limit, defined as the threshold velocity below which a projectile consistently fails to penetrate the armour when striking normal to its surface. This limit, often denoted as V_L or V_50 (the velocity at which penetration occurs 50% of the time), establishes performance boundaries for specific threat-armour pairings; for instance, protections are frequently benchmarked against RHA equivalence, a standardized measure expressing the thickness of RHA steel that provides comparable defeat capability against a given projectile. Exceeding the ballistic limit results in partial or full penetration, underscoring the need for layered defences to handle variable impact conditions. Blast resistance focuses on mitigating underbelly vulnerabilities from mines and IEDs, where V-shaped hull designs channel shockwaves and fragments outward and away from the crew compartment, reducing transmitted energy. Such geometries, as implemented in vehicles like the , enhance survivability by deflecting blast forces while integrating with energy-absorbing seats and suspensions. Impacts from kinetic or explosive threats can also generate —internal fragments from the rear face of the armour plate—necessitating spall liners, typically composite materials affixed to the interior, to capture and arrest these secondary projectiles and prevent crew injuries. Emerging threats since , including drone-delivered munitions and hypersonic projectiles, challenge traditional armour paradigms by exploiting top-attack profiles and extreme velocities. Loitering munitions launched from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) enable precise, overhead strikes that bypass frontal armour, prompting adaptations like overhead screens or active protection systems. Hypersonic kinetic penetrators, traveling above Mach 5, amplify penetration depth by factors of up to 2 compared to conventional rounds due to their immense , rendering many existing vehicle armours insufficient without advanced countermeasures.

Armour performance metrics

Armour performance is quantitatively evaluated through several key metrics that assess resistance to ballistic and blast threats, ensuring standardized comparisons across designs. These metrics provide objective measures of protection levels, guiding development and certification processes for military vehicles. The ballistic limit velocity, denoted as V50, represents the velocity at which there is a 50% probability of penetration through the , serving as a fundamental indicator of ballistic resistance. This metric is determined through statistical testing where projectiles are fired at varying velocities, with outcomes (penetration or non-penetration) used to estimate the threshold via methods like the up-and-down technique or . According to the U.S. Department of Defense Standard MIL-STD-662F, V50 testing involves at least 10-20 shots per series, employing optical chronographs to measure impact velocities with precision typically within 1% error. Protocols often use witness plates behind the to detect , and the test is conducted under controlled conditions to minimize environmental variables. Rolled homogeneous armour (RHA) equivalence quantifies an armour's protective capability by comparing it to the thickness of standard RHA that offers equivalent resistance against a specific , such as penetrators or shaped charges. This metric normalizes diverse material performances to a common baseline, where, for example, a might achieve 1.5 times the protection of equivalent-weight RHA. Measurement involves ballistic testing against reference threats, with equivalence calculated as the ratio of defeat capabilities, often expressed in millimeters of RHA. A study by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory defines RHA-e as a criterion for lethality assessment, emphasizing its role in defeat range predictions without requiring full-scale tests. Multi-hit capability evaluates an 's ability to withstand repeated impacts without significant degradation, critical for scenarios involving automatic or clustered threats like (APFSDS) rounds. This metric is assessed by specifying the number of hits (e.g., 3-6) within a defined , such as 100-300 mm spacing, that the armour can defeat at specified velocities before failure. Testing protocols, outlined in standards like NATO's AEP-55, require sequential firings on the same target, measuring residual integrity through backface deformation or penetration limits. Research from the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command highlights multi-hit as essential for patterned armour designs, where single-shot data informs probabilistic models for multiple engagements. For shaped charge threats, penetration depth is a key metric, approximated by the simplified hydrodynamic formula PLρjet/ρtargetP \approx L \sqrt{\rho_{jet} / \rho_{target}}
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.