Tank companion, whether the M2 infantry fighting vehicle uses composite armor or pressed steel armor

The M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle is aluminum alloy armor, the prototype is M2A0, the service model is from M2A1, and the improved models are A2, A2ODS (improved for deserts after the Gulf War), A3.

The upper and top armor of the hull is 5083 aluminum alloy;

The upper and upper parts of the turret and the upper part of the hull are steel armor at the head and below;

The inclined armor on the sides is 7039 aluminum alloy, the rear and side vertical armor is gap armor, the gap armor is from the outside to the inside, the first layer is thick steel armor, the second layer is a gap, the third layer is thick steel armor, the fourth layer is a gap, and the last layer is an aluminum armor back plate, total thickness;

The bottom armor of the car is also 5083 aluminum alloy, and the front third is hung with 1 layer of steel armor to protect against mines.

The armor of the whole vehicle can protect against all-directional bullets and fragments of 155mm shells.

The A2 is equipped with additional armor on the turret and exterior of the hull, and the whole vehicle can protect against 30mm shells.

On the basis of A2, the M2 series infantry fighting vehicles have also been tested and improved into composite armor and fiberglass armor;

Finally, aluminum alloy armor is not fire-resistant, and it is extremely easy to be hit **, which is a major weakness of M2 infantry defense.

It was 12 mm lead alloy armor. If necessary, I can send **.

a。Because of the Merkava, it has a crew compartment at the rear that can carry infantry assault operations like an infantry fighting vehicle.

The aluminum alloy armor used by people is not the aluminum alloy on the balcony of your and my house, and it is completely incomparable. Light armored vehicles are inherently sensitive to quality, and modern aluminum alloys can ensure high strength while reducing weight, and are far weaker than traditional steel in terms of magnetism, making them a good choice for light armored vehicles.

It is not uncommon for armored vehicles to have aluminum armor. In fact, it is not exactly aluminum, to be precise, aluminum alloy. Because they mainly rely on speed to complete the mission, rather than always engaging the enemy completely head-on like a tank.

These armored vehicles are generally required to be able to withstand bomb fragments and large-caliber machine guns. Like the American M2 infantry fighting vehicle, it is armored with aluminum alloy. Tanks don't use this kind of armor because it has to be thick, and it's too brittle for a tank.

In order to reduce weight, it is possible to walk in the area of the water network, which is convenient for the aircraft to transport empty heads by air. To be used as a low-cost assault force, in order to compensate for the lack of a number of armored forces purely expendable.

Aluminum alloy is not easy to burn...

And the specific strength of aluminum is also relatively high, in superduralumin, the strength can reach half of steel, and the weight is only 1 3, and it is even stronger than steel under the same quality, but the hidden danger is the increase in thickness. The tank is intensively protected, all but the necessary part is armor-protected, and he has high volume requirements, so he would rather sacrifice mobility in exchange for battlefield survival. Armored vehicles and rapid mobility are more demanding, so aluminum alloy has its living space.

The armor of most armored vehicles is made of high-strength steel, and modern armor is generally mixed with alloys, ceramics and other components to improve strength, such as M1A1's "depleted uranium armor", uranium is a heavy metal, and very low radioactive uranium mixed into the armor can improve the protection against kinetic armor-piercing shells (the main anti-armor ammunition after World War II). In addition, there are other forms of protection such as reactive armor and active defense.

The combat capability of tanks comes from three main factors: mobility, firepower and protection. Destroying the track to make the tank lose its mobility is indeed one of the ways to deal with the tank, and it is a more important one in the infantry anti-tank tactics of World War II.

Moreover, the tank with the loss of mobility also has a certain combat capability, and even if the track is blown up in real combat, it can be quickly repaired by the vehicle-mounted tools, so the destruction of the track will not necessarily cause a fatal blow to the tank.

In fact, there is no armor, it may not be impossible, it is the trend of the future to be relatively cheap, unmanned but with sufficient mobility and strike ability, and it is not good to say that vehicle combat is not good. As long as the other party does not **, it will not be able to cause damage, so the first enemy ** is the priority. In the Gulf War, for example, the M2 destroyed more vehicles with TOW than the M1, and perhaps modern anti-tank missiles can really replace tank guns to a large extent.

If there are only launch tubes, the cost and volume will not be high, and the concealment will be improved. Although it will take some time, if that day comes, there will really be no future for manned heavily armored and heavy firepower vehicles.

However, at the moment, it is very difficult for the soldiers on foot to destroy the tank. It's not just a RPG that you can hit a tank, and you may not be able to go around the side, and it's not easy to hit. Besides, the main gun is there, and you can't run away at all.

The composite armor of the early T-64 was a composite sandwich of fiberglass and steel armor, which did not sharply increase in cost and did not have too many technical difficulties, but greatly increased the ability to combat kinetic armor-piercing shells and heat ammunition. Now there should be a better alternative material for these two interlayers, generally following the "soft" - "hard" combination, with ceramic instead of steel. However, the direction other than the front of the surface layer should still be normal armor, because the ceramic is really not suitable for the surface layer, and the other directions are unlikely to resist anti-tank ammunition even with composite armor.

How do you go about frying? Funny!

Are you going to take the explosives bag? Machine guns will kill you!

Don't be so naïve!

Artillery caliber, degree of protection of armor.

Let's talk about the difference from several aspects 1. Firepower: The owner of the armored vehicle should be equipped with a cannon or small-caliber artillery according to the needs of the operation, while the tank is mainly equipped with a large-caliber tank gun, generally above 105 mm 2Armor Protection:

The protection of armored vehicles is much worse than that of tanks, mainly because armored vehicles are mainly protected against light **, while the frontal armor of tanks can reach more than 800 mm of homogeneous rolled steel plate 3Maneuverability: Armored vehicles are generally better than tank 4

Purpose: An armored vehicle is a light armored platform that provides infantry with a certain defensive ability and mobility ability, while a tank is a combat vehicle that annihilates various armored platforms of the enemy, attacking fixed or moving crop targets, and cannot provide protection for infantry.

It was precisely because of the lack of motor vehicles in the Soviet Union during World War II that you had to put infantry on tanks

A lot... Who do you listen to say a lot, and the USSR had armored personnel carriers? Only like the old liberation or armored train or on foot... You say that the tank is much safer.

At present, China has 99 reforms that are much more advanced than it.