<![CDATA[
Path:
spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!gemini.tycho.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Approved:
sci-military-moderated@retro.com
Return-Path: news@google.com
Delivery-Date: Tue Feb 26 22:02:57 2002
Delivery-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:02:57 -0800
for <sci-military-moderated@retro.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:02:56 -0800 (PST)
id QQmdza07900
for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 05:44:59 GMT
for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>;
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:44:58 -0800
for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>;
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:44:56 -0800
for sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:44:56 -0800
To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org
From: blitzkrieg44@altavista.com (BW)
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
Subject: Re: NATO Triple Heavy
Date: 26 Feb 2002 21:44:56 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <896cd07.0202262144.3b44d57@posting.google.com>
References:
<896cd07.0202240901.51f9d683@posting.google.com>
<a5f01u$i9a$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <hdcm7u85b272dv7ftv85t7ugn36s8tivuk@4ax.com>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.178.11.204
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
X-NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Feb 2002 05:44:56 GMT
Content-Length: 1681
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: aa8cb2cf.newsreader.tycho.net
X-Trace: 1014800508 gemini.tycho.net 79553 205.179.181.194
X-Complaints-To: abuse@tycho.net
Xref: spln sci.military.moderated:43174
Gentlemen,
Thank you for the feedback. I suspected there was not a direct RHA
equivalent, but wasn't sure.
Cheers
Bill Wilson
Robb McLeod <rmcleod@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:<hdcm7u85b272dv7ftv85t7ugn36s8tivuk@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:36:59 -0500, "Tom Schoene"
> <taschoene@starpower.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> >"BW" <blitzkrieg44@altavista.com> wrote in message
> >news:896cd07.0202240901.51f9d683@posting.google.com...
> >> Gentlemen,
> >>
> >> Is there an RHA equivalent for "NATO Triple Heavy", or is this a
> >> standard that somehow defies equivalency in terms of RHA? I've seen
> >> this phrase often in terms of armor penetration of given rounds, but
> >> I've never seen an RHA equivalency. Thanks for any pointers.
> >
> >It's more complex than that. Triple heavy is an array of multiple plates,
> >so a round will perform differently against it than against a solid plate
> >of any thickness. A direct RHA equivalent probably isn't feasible or they
> >would just use that to test against.
>
> And the real numbers are (note that all thicknesses and air gaps are
> perpendicular to the plates, so apply the appropriate 1/cos(theta)
> factor to arrive at the path thickness):
>
> Single medium: 60° x 130 mm
> Single heavy: 60° x 150 mm @ 260-300 BHN
>
> Double medium:
> 60° x 40 mm (+150mm air)
> + 90 mm
>
> Double heavy:
> 60° x 40 mm @ 308-353 BHN (+ 150 mm air)
> +110 mm @ 260-300 BHN
>
> Triple medium:
> 65° x 10 mm (+ 330 mm air)
> +25 mm (+ 330 mm air) +60 mm
>
> Triple heavy:
> 65° x 10 mm @ 412-438 BHN (+ 330 mm air)
> + 25 mm @ 100-122 BHN (+ 330 mm air)
> + 80 mm @ 308-353 BHN
]]>