Responder al tema

Mensaje

<blockquote data-quote="Bushmaster" data-source="post: 230305" data-attributes="member: 86">Pero tienes alguna fuiente que lo verifique? porque hasta donde yo he podido leer:M1A2 Abrams SEP MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002 - 2004) Against Kinetic Energy(in mm of RHAe)&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Glacis&nbsp; 560 - 590&nbsp; Against Chemical Energy(in mm of RHAe)&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Glacis&nbsp; 510 - 1,050 RHAe = Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent; an equivalent RHA thickness of a given armor type against a given armor piercing ammunition or missile (i.e. Kinetic Energy penetrators, like APFSDS DU long-rod penetrators or Chemical Energy projectiles, like HEAT ammunition and ATGM's). Modern composite (Chobham) armor may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy than RHA of the same thickness. Aunque la verdad ahora mepiezo a dudar sobre la composición del gvalics ya que las diferencias no son muy significativas.SALUDOS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bushmaster, post: 230305, member: 86"] Pero tienes alguna fuiente que lo verifique? porque hasta donde yo he podido leer: M1A2 Abrams SEP MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002 - 2004) Against Kinetic Energy(in mm of RHAe) Glacis 560 - 590 Against Chemical Energy(in mm of RHAe) Glacis 510 - 1,050 RHAe = Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent; an equivalent RHA thickness of a given armor type against a given armor piercing ammunition or missile (i.e. Kinetic Energy penetrators, like APFSDS DU long-rod penetrators or Chemical Energy projectiles, like HEAT ammunition and ATGM's). Modern composite (Chobham) armor may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy than RHA of the same thickness. Aunque la verdad ahora mepiezo a dudar sobre la composición del gvalics ya que las diferencias no son muy significativas. SALUDOS [/QUOTE]

Verificación

Libertador de Argentina