7 ms·

Chobham armour is the informal name of a composite armour developed in the 1960s at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey. The name has sin

by adolph 5y ago

Chobham armour is the informal name of a composite armour developed in the 1960s at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey. The name has since become the common generic term for composite ceramic vehicle armour. Other names informally given to Chobham armour include "Burlington" and "Dorchester." "Special armour" is a broader informal term referring to any armour arrangement comprising "sandwich" reactive plates, including Chobham armour. Although the construction details of the Chobham armour remain a secret, it has been described as being composed of ceramic tiles encased within a metal framework and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers. Owing to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

josh2600 5y ago
It sounds like it's basically chainmail for tanks.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  it sounds like it's basically unlike chainmail in all possible ways!
- virtue3 5y ago
  I believe you were thinking of brigandine.
greedo 5y ago
Actually, there are no ceramics in Chobham armor. https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-a...
- Groxx 5y ago
  While an interesting read: it's fairly clearly stated that they believe there were no ceramics in early Chobham armors. And some newer ones might, though probably not most, and that it's not particularly relevant to the effectiveness (i.e. it's an armor structural pattern, ceramic is orthogonal). So it mostly supports your claim, since Wikipedia is rather focused on the ceramic aspect, but it's in a somewhat different context.
  - ggm 5y ago
    Ceramics and metals can "cross over" so to speak. Structurally distinct, but in the margins can share properties. They have a relationship. So it might pay not to fixate on the words implications. Chobham armour is a composite, and exploits the properties of different materials.
npsomaratna 5y ago
Out of curiosity: suppose a modern tank was (magically) transported to WWII. Would it be essentially invincible against the weapons of that era? (Addendum: I do appreciate that repeated weapons impacts will degrade any type of armor over time.)
- edaemon 5y ago
  Yes and no. If the Germans had some well-fortified position only to see a T-72B3 fitted with explosive reactive armor and an active protection system roll in? Yes, in that case, the Germans are toast. In practical terms they would not be able to damage the tank. It isn't invincible, though. The tracks on any tank are vulnerable and the engine is (relatively) fragile. A lucky HEAT shot or a well-placed anti-tank mine could disable it, though I don't they could score an outright kill.
- AmpsterMan 5y ago
  I suspect they would be invincible for sure. Keep in mind that modern main battle tanks are typically heavier than WW2 tanks, carry guns that are almost twice in diameter (76mm for the late war Sherman's vs 120mm for M1A1/2/3 Abrams) are much faster, have vastly improved electronics and night vision, counter measures, etc.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > 76mm for the late war Sherman's vs 120mm for M1A1/2/3 Abrams And the Shermans were notoriously undergunned. The Germans had 88mm guns on tanks since 1942 with the Tiger I, and had anti-tank guns up to 126mm (which was even mounted on the Jagdtiger tank destroyers ( of course as everything late war German, in pitiful numbers)). The Soviet KV-2 had a 152mm howitzer in 1939, and anti-tank guns up to 100mm. The IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and was used since 1944. Today's main battle tanks are closer to heavy WW2 tanks ( in terms of size, armament, protection, etc.), so compare apples with apples, shall we :p
    - throw1234651234 5y ago
      I am guessing you already know this, given all the information that you have posted, but "caliber parity" alone would not be sufficient to penetrate an Abrams/T-90/Chally/whatever. Today's 120mm rounds are kinetic-penetrator sabot rounds* (link below if someone really wants the details and naming conventions). The point is that this round is way longer than WWII tank rounds and functions completely differently. None of the tanks you listed would penetrate a modern tank from the front (100%), I would guess they are unlikely to penetrate from any aspect, but I am not ready to provide data proving that. Note that even T-72s are currently being updated specifically to be able to use LONGER rounds, and every developed country has chosen to BYPASS 150+mm cannons in favor of using longer 12x rounds. We can also get fancy and talk about active protection systems (APS), which would defend against slow WWII rounds as well as they protect against RPGs since the 90s. Though, no one but Israel has really fielded APS in serious numbers since the USSR pioneered the concept. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized_discarding_sabot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized...

by adolph 5y ago

josh2600 5y ago

It sounds like it's basically chainmail for tanks.

idiotsecant 5y ago
it sounds like it's basically unlike chainmail in all possible ways!
virtue3 5y ago
I believe you were thinking of brigandine.

greedo 5y ago

Actually, there are no ceramics in Chobham armor. https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-a...

Groxx 5y ago
While an interesting read: it's fairly clearly stated that they believe there were no ceramics in early Chobham armors. And some newer ones might, though probably not most, and that it's not particularly relevant to the effectiveness (i.e. it's an armor structural pattern, ceramic is orthogonal). So it mostly supports your claim, since Wikipedia is rather focused on the ceramic aspect, but it's in a somewhat different context.
- ggm 5y ago
  Ceramics and metals can "cross over" so to speak. Structurally distinct, but in the margins can share properties. They have a relationship. So it might pay not to fixate on the words implications. Chobham armour is a composite, and exploits the properties of different materials.

npsomaratna 5y ago

Out of curiosity: suppose a modern tank was (magically) transported to WWII. Would it be essentially invincible against the weapons of that era? (Addendum: I do appreciate that repeated weapons impacts will degrade any type of armor over time.)

edaemon 5y ago
Yes and no. If the Germans had some well-fortified position only to see a T-72B3 fitted with explosive reactive armor and an active protection system roll in? Yes, in that case, the Germans are toast. In practical terms they would not be able to damage the tank. It isn't invincible, though. The tracks on any tank are vulnerable and the engine is (relatively) fragile. A lucky HEAT shot or a well-placed anti-tank mine could disable it, though I don't they could score an outright kill.
AmpsterMan 5y ago
I suspect they would be invincible for sure. Keep in mind that modern main battle tanks are typically heavier than WW2 tanks, carry guns that are almost twice in diameter (76mm for the late war Sherman's vs 120mm for M1A1/2/3 Abrams) are much faster, have vastly improved electronics and night vision, counter measures, etc.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > 76mm for the late war Sherman's vs 120mm for M1A1/2/3 Abrams And the Shermans were notoriously undergunned. The Germans had 88mm guns on tanks since 1942 with the Tiger I, and had anti-tank guns up to 126mm (which was even mounted on the Jagdtiger tank destroyers ( of course as everything late war German, in pitiful numbers)). The Soviet KV-2 had a 152mm howitzer in 1939, and anti-tank guns up to 100mm. The IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and was used since 1944. Today's main battle tanks are closer to heavy WW2 tanks ( in terms of size, armament, protection, etc.), so compare apples with apples, shall we :p
  - throw1234651234 5y ago
    I am guessing you already know this, given all the information that you have posted, but "caliber parity" alone would not be sufficient to penetrate an Abrams/T-90/Chally/whatever. Today's 120mm rounds are kinetic-penetrator sabot rounds* (link below if someone really wants the details and naming conventions). The point is that this round is way longer than WWII tank rounds and functions completely differently. None of the tanks you listed would penetrate a modern tank from the front (100%), I would guess they are unlikely to penetrate from any aspect, but I am not ready to provide data proving that. Note that even T-72s are currently being updated specifically to be able to use LONGER rounds, and every developed country has chosen to BYPASS 150+mm cannons in favor of using longer 12x rounds. We can also get fancy and talk about active protection systems (APS), which would defend against slow WWII rounds as well as they protect against RPGs since the 90s. Though, no one but Israel has really fielded APS in serious numbers since the USSR pioneered the concept. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized_discarding_sabot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized...