Abrams Side Armor

[DarkLabor]

Can we have a Leclerc topic for Leclerc related questions?

[Hedgehog]

Can we have a Leclerc topic for Leclerc related questions?

Sure!

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?p=255779#post255779

Let rip!

DL don´t be to harsh to our new Tank Analyst No 1...

A new (old) Aspect: A wise man said (I lost his Name over the Years) :

"Best Protection for a Tank is movement"

What about this?

I have a whole bunch of T-55's and T-34's at my Academy grounds (I study at National Defence Academy in Warsaw), which I ocasionally visit in free time.

So Mr Damian, which course are you studying?

I believe this is what Mr Eisen is discussing

A quick explanation in the concept of protection by movement:

BLUEFOR Tank A is at position A, See REDFOR Tank A fires, and misses.

After Firing BLUEFOR Tank A displaces to Position B.

REDFOR Tank A fires at position A, believing BLUEFOR Tank A to be occupying Position A, REDFOR Tank A hits noting.

This is how movement has protected BLUEFOR Tank A, it doesn't even need armour.

A case study: The Toyota wars of the 1980s.

Toyota Pickups pickups defeated T-62s in the south Libyan desert by using movement and the standoff capabilities of the TOW system.

[Damian90]

So Mr Damian, which course are you studying?

Homeland security, this is a course that covers a wide variety of different topics, from military to political etc. Good course, opens route for different carriers within security, MoD, Military or Police.

This is how movement has protected BLUEFOR Tank A, it doesn't even need armour.

A case study: The Toyota wars of the 1980s.

Toyota Pickups pickups defeated T-62s in the south Libyan desert by using movement and the standoff capabilities of the TOW system.

Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I would however not dare to sacrifice armor, as a wise men said once "shit happens".

As for T-62 in Libyan desert, well, T-62 is not the best tank in the first place, with very archaic fire control, we know this from Steel Beasts as well.

[Hedgehog]

Homeland security, this is a course that covers a wide variety of different topics, from military to political etc. Good course, opens route for different carriers within security, MoD, Military or Police.

Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I would however not dare to sacrifice armor, as a wise men said once "shit happens".

As for T-62 in Libyan desert, well, T-62 is not the best tank in the first place, with very archaic fire control, we know this from Steel Beasts as well.

As I'm sure Eisen would say:

Aaaah!

Its not the Tank!

Its how you use it!

The quality of the Crew is THE single biggest force multiplier.

[Damian90]

This is also true. Arabs are not known for their combat skills.

[Assassin 7]

by ammunition bunker, Red6 probably means the secure ammunition storage in the turret bustle. it adds fairly decent protection to the rear of the turret. massive airgap and pretty thick blast doors. dunno if it'd stop an RPG though.

as for the merkava, it's a pretty cool tank. there's no other tank in the world that can double as a very heavy IFV, although you'd have to sacrifice a lot of your ammunition in order to do so. the ammunition storage does leave something to be desired, but at least it's stored in spallproof containers, so it'd take a direct hit to blow off it's top.

having the engine in the front adds some serious drawbacks to the tank.

first it makes the tank a lot taller. the merkava mk2 is about 22cm taller than the abrams.

second it reduces the amount of composite armour you can have, at least in front of the engine. so you're pretty much guaranteed that the tank is immobilized if it's hit in the front hull. the engine itself doesn't add that much armour, probably around 250mm KE, and 650mm HEAT. with a glacis about 60-70mm thick, and angled at around 75 degrees, thats another 250mm or so, so a total of 500mm vs KE for the older merkavas. the mk.4 front hull glacis seems to be roughly twice as thick. if it's all steel, a rough estimate would be 120mm@75 degrees = 460mm + 250mm = 710mm. but it's probably some sort of composite. lower front hull would be a lot less protected though, maybe even possible to penetrate and immobilize with the 40mm bofors, or some old-ass T-62 round.

Yeah I knew what he meant and your exactly right about the Hull Ammo compartment

[Assassin 7]

It´s a bit difficult for a non native English Speaker to declare what coincidence mean in English, but I was sure you know this Term....

In my small Words: It´s the Time your FCS need to calculate were your Target is it what your FCS needs to hit the Target ( Speed of Target, Forehold, own Speed a.s.o.)

And, yes I know "Russian sources says it is comparable with NATO tanks that have similiar capabilities"

What should they say "Our Tanks are crap" ?

But can YOU prove it, I think you can´t. You can´t prove what you said the last 15 Pages!

LOL that's also what they said in Desert Storm too. The mighty T-72. Yeah that turned out to be a lie

[Damian90]

LOL that's also what they said in Desert Storm too. The mighty T-72. Yeah that turned out to be a lie

This is actually interesting aspect, because in Soviet Union, T-72 was not considered as advanced or "mighty".

Besides this Iraqis were using more or less exactly the same export variant as Syrians used. So it's capabilities were known for NATO.

It was relatively strange behavior of some people that can be considered as T-72 "fans".

Especially as it was T-72M/M1, nothing special really, I would not be surprised if Iraqis would have T-72B's that were far more superior to T-72M/M1 (and still were considered as worse tank in Soviet Union than T-80U and T-80UD that were advanced high tech tanks), but then again, it was strange behaviour.

[Red6]

But what is your personnal background about tanks?

In which tanks do have already put your ass in?

For me amx30, (b, B2, s) amx32, amx30, Leclerc (all versions), Leopard 1A5BE, leopard 2A4, T 55 AM2, T72A, M1A1, and almost all tanks of the armor museum of Saumur (except Merkava which is welded)

(extensive time)

M1A1 (a lot), M1A2SEP, M2A2ODS (a lot), M2A3

(limited time- touring, joy rides, or crap we shot apart)

M1A2, Leo2A4, M60A3, BMP1, BMP2, BTR60, BTR70, T72M1 (Iraq had the Polish export model among other variants), T55, T80U (Korea), K1 (Korea), M113, M577 (or whatever the TAC vehicles nomenclature is), M88 (I had a buddy CW3 and that's what he rode around in, so I joined him occasionally)

But the coolest tank ever was one my unit built for the local Iraqi's to help them guard a fire-base in a bad area of Baghdad. Yes, it had power and A/C. The the machine gun and the optics worked and our mechanics and the locals helping were able to even get it to where the turret would traverse. That turret had a massive construction I-beam frame underneath it, and was sandbagged all around. The building underneath was an Iraqi air defense bunker, so it was solid. The local Iraqi's that took over inherited this "contraption." It eventually had two operational MGs.

To answer the likely question: Main gun wasn't operational.

[Red6]

We managed to discuss the idea of sacrificial armor and what that is.

Now let's discuss the importance of interior geometry, and compartmentalization.

Interior geometry relates to not putting crew members in the same axis from either the front or the sides.

This doesn't prevent penetration, but it reduces the extent of damage when penetrated, i.e. you tend to lose less people with a single event. With the M1 you have separation along all three axis so that crew members are separated (x, y, z). It's not perfect, of course here you're dealing with the reality of limited space and the constraints of how you can lay things out inside the vehicle. If two people are beside or in front of each other, then the probability of a single event taking both of them out is higher than if they are separated. Since the hull is narrower, tracks take up a great deal of the volume, you are very limited if you put people in the hull, plus you lose the y axis.

An excellent picture of this concept: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1/M1A1_internal.gif Unfortunately this picture isn't 3D, there is also separation from left to right, with the loader being far left, the driver in the middle, and the gunner and TC on the right, however, the TC is elevated over the gunner (y).

While this looks cool, this is a violation of this basic principal: http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/5bilder/tjorniritn.jpg A quick search of future MBT brought this. The personnel on the left side of the vehicle are "in line."

(A simple google search under future MBT)

Wrong: http://www.oocities.org/area51/rampart/1966/tless1.jpg

Wrong: http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/101/55379291.jpg

These are designs where a penetration from either side if it is in the axis of a crew member, it will likely take out multiple in a single event.

Both from the front and the side, no two men are in the same axis (at least not entirely) in an M1 in order to minimize casualties if you have a penetration. That is another "basic" concept.

Another concept is compartmentalization. Like a submarine. It is not without reason that in events where turret crew are injured or killed, the driver of the M1 survives, often unscathed. It is also not without reason why if the driver is hit, the turret will likely survive. Unfortunately, here too are constraints, and the open turret layout (sort of necessary) at least when the M1 was developed is less than ideal.

[Damian90]

There was a concept of a tank with individual crew compartments for each crew member. But it is very difficult to achieve such design.

So the most promising is to have all crew members in heavy armored compertment behind massive front armor.

It is not perfect, but what is? Some compromises needs to be done.\\Such design will be lighter and more compact while better protected than conventional design with manned turret.

[lavictoireestlavie]

FYI, concerning the losses of Merkavas in the 2006 Lebanon War:

Lebanon War 2006 - Tank Losses A full list of support:

12 June (first day)

4 people killed by a mine in the Israeli village of Zarit in Mortal Kombat II.

24 June

1 person killed in the mines near Bint Mk4 Džbejl′.

1 person killed in Mk4 from ATGMS by Bint Džbejl′.

3 August

3 killed in Mk3 Radžamin has against atgms.

1 lost against atgms and taibeh.

7 August

2 dead reservists from ATGMS by Bint Džbejl′.

9 August

4 dead reservists in Mk2 against atgms in Ayta a-Šaeb (tank pictured with sletevšej Tower).

10 August

1 reservist killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES at the Al-Khiam.

1 reservist killed in Mk2 against atgms at Labboune.

12 August (roll over the Wadi Saluki)

4 people killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES at Hirbat Ksejf.

4 people killed by a mine at Tiri.

3 killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES in the Mk4 in Wadi Saluki.

1 person killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES near Qantara.

13 August (last day)

1 reservist killed from mortar near Tel Nahes.

------------------------------

All 31 crew were killed (Iran, 22 and 9 reserve members) in 14 tanks. 12 August killed one more soldier from intelligence company tank Brigade, which also applies to the armoured troops, so the total 32.

-------------------------------

21 tank in 10 tanks were killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES.

9 support in 3 tanks were killed by land mines.

1 from the mortar.

-------------------------------

4 tank which killed the entire crew.

2 tank in the deaths of 3.

1 tank which has killed 2.

7 tanks in the deaths of 1.

[12Alfa]

FYI, concerning the losses of Merkavas in the 2006 Lebanon War:

Lebanon War 2006 - Tank Losses A full list of support:

12 June (first day)

4 people killed by a mine in the Israeli village of Zarit in Mortal Kombat II.

24 June

1 person killed in the mines near Bint Mk4 Džbejl′.

1 person killed in Mk4 from ATGMS by Bint Džbejl′.

3 August

3 killed in Mk3 Radžamin has against atgms.

1 lost against atgms and taibeh.

7 August

2 dead reservists from ATGMS by Bint Džbejl′.

9 August

4 dead reservists in Mk2 against atgms in Ayta a-Šaeb (tank pictured with sletevšej Tower).

10 August

1 reservist killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES at the Al-Khiam.

1 reservist killed in Mk2 against atgms at Labboune.

12 August (roll over the Wadi Saluki)

4 people killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES at Hirbat Ksejf.

4 people killed by a mine at Tiri.

3 killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES in the Mk4 in Wadi Saluki.

1 person killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES near Qantara.

13 August (last day)

1 reservist killed from mortar near Tel Nahes.

------------------------------

All 31 crew were killed (Iran, 22 and 9 reserve members) in 14 tanks. 12 August killed one more soldier from intelligence company tank Brigade, which also applies to the armoured troops, so the total 32.

-------------------------------

21 tank in 10 tanks were killed by ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILES.

9 support in 3 tanks were killed by land mines.

1 from the mortar.

-------------------------------

4 tank which killed the entire crew.

2 tank in the deaths of 3.

1 tank which has killed 2.

7 tanks in the deaths of 1.

Source?

[lavictoireestlavie]

I will provide a source shortly. I am not at home right now.:clin:

[lavictoireestlavie]

Here is one of the sources: http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/history/2nd-lebanon-war/acv-losses/

In English: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waronline.org%2FIDF%2FArticles%2Fhistory%2F2nd-lebanon-war%2Facv-losses%2F

[Red6]

Here is one of the sources: http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/history/2nd-lebanon-war/acv-losses/

In English: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waronline.org%2FIDF%2FArticles%2Fhistory%2F2nd-lebanon-war%2Facv-losses%2F

Wow-

Thank you for the links and the translation. I can only do English, German and a very little bit Korean.

What is important to remember when reading this, isn't that the Merkava's were knocked out (well that matters too - sad for the guys), but as it pertains to this discussion, that they are dealing with a huge (pun intended) IED/Mine threat.

"Merkava" was undermined landmine containing 900-1,100 kg (!) BB."

"and the tank was blown Guy landmine containing 300-350 kg of explosives."

There is a difference between a 6, 8 or 10Kg blast and 1,100Kg. That is about 110 times what a Western MBT is really designed for. When you're dealing with so much force that the turret is thrown 130 meters, not from secondary explosions, rather from the initial blast, you are far exceeding anything that any sort of vehicle is designed for. If you run over something that size with a Buffalo, made for clearing IEDs/mines, you are done. Pointing the finger at the Israeli Merkava and stating that this vehicle is not very apt at dealing with mines or IEDs, is ignoring the level of threat that these machines are exposed to. Of course the Israeli's got pummeled with ATGMs and RPG style weapons as well. The problem with Lebanon is that Syria, Iran, and others have been backdooring all sorts of goodies to the bad guys.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Red6

[Red6]

Comparing battleships with tanks is insane to be honest.

And guess what, many recent accidents suggest that lack of true armor on navy vessels was pure stupidity.

FCS did not also meet any requirements, and requirements changed quickly when USA was mid in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, we won't, there are better solution like, Main Battle Tanks, not tin can coffins. But fo course you can say this to families of dead soldiers, that they died because some fantasy boys imagined that thin skinned vehicle can protect them in battle.

MGV platform did not had any type of advanced armor, neither any sort of modular armor.

I can add active protection systems, and cheap but effective signature reduction solutions like multispectral camouflage nets and paints to a tank, same goes with situational awareness. I do not need a lightweight C-130 transportable coffin for this.

MGV platform was not capable to even provide a reliable protection for it's 60 degree arc. It was a multimilion tin can, noting else. Not to mention that front mounted engine/powerpack is completely inefficent in terms of protection for a tank. Of course unless someone is still dellusioned with Merkava myth.

No, FCS would end as a poor failure, especially after RPG, ATGM or IED attacks with it's non existing armor protection. Air transportability is a myth, even USAF don't have enough transport planes to quickly deploy BCT. As for smaller logistical footprint, give tanks enough fuel efficent engine, and logistical footprint will be reduced, it is that simple.

MBT's however performed their tasks above any expectations, and FCS fantasy was (thanks god) cancelled.

Oh stop with the same stupid text, can we talk like adults? I hate fanboys.

ARAT-2 is just M19 cassette with M32 cassette installed on it. Nothins special here compared with ARAT-1 as you try to say.

There is same or even higher risk for troops when vehicle is equipped with active protection system. Ha, even without APS or ERA, RPG or ATGM exploding is substantial risk to soldiers near vehicle that had been hit. There is no perfect solution.

Wrong. Look at video from "Duplet" ERA tests, no matters what was the angle of hit, ERA provided excellent protection.

Which is? Oh wait, I suppose you don't even know how the most modern ERA works, what is the principle of it's projectile defeating mechanism.

Now you are just a simple lier to be honest.

Every type of protection currently used adds significant weight to vehicle. Even active protection systems weight more than 1 metric ton. As for dimensions, most modern ERA kits have dimensions similiar or smaller than composite armor modules of the same purpose.

And who said ERA is a magic pill? Oh wait I get it, you create a slogan, and then you fight with this slogan pretending to fight with your adversary in discussion?

As for MBT's, when currently used designs become obsolete, they will be replaced with new MBT's, simple as that. Nobody needs a death traps.

But of course you can ride in to battle in obsolete M113, it is so light, and so cool, and airtransportable, oh wow!:heu:

Ah, I see a Sparky accolite here.:heu:

M113 is obsolete piece of junk, deal with it.

Again, airtransportability is a myth. The only sollution is to build a dedicated AFV's for airborne troops, and let armor brigades have true MBT's and IFV's that can actually go head on with threats on battlefield and protect their crews.

Listen, I really don't care about your opinion. If you want to die in alluminium box, then ok, die. But please, give other people a chance to survive ok.

Oh BTW, what do you say about performing a test? I will close you inside alluminium box like M113, and test some RPG's against it, hmmm?:heu:

Nope, there is no prolieration.

Nag is one huge failure. Indian Army does not inducted this system in to service, it full of failures and missile itself have a very short range.

No they don't have such system.

These system are developed by NATO or EU countries or their close allies. Nothing to worry about, besides they have very weak warheads, easy to defeat by proper armor protection.

There were no RPG-7VR in Iraq prior 2003 invasion, RPG-7VR and RPG-29V were seen after 2005 in very small numbers, smuggled most likely from Iran as they were seen to be used exclusively by Shiites.

ERA is then perfect sollution, and it really works, look at "Duplet" ERA tests.

Idiotic idea to be honest. And modular armor is not the magic pill sollution, in fact modular armor can even be a problem. Did you ever seen how modular armor is mounted to vehicle? In case of Merkava Mk4 it become obvious that it's modular armor is very fragile and prone to damage, much more than more conventional semi modular armor used on NATO MBT's.

Everything you mention can be installed on MBT as well, and MBT still be better than alluminium coffin you promote so much.

But why should I care, you don't have (thanks god) any impact on decision making, and US Military and many other Armies around the globe decided, screw any type of FCS style program, and develop heavier, better protected vehicles. Everyone also screws this magical air transportability. If USAF itself can't quickly transport a single BCT, then nobody else can.

Aluminum isn't all the same.

Aluminum is light, has excellent corrosion properties, can act as a back plate to improve other armors effectiveness while providing some ballistic and spall protection in case of perforation. What do you think is a bigger hazard when exposed to heat, Aramid/resin spall liners, or aluminum plating? Some of these aluminum alloys actually have a substantial ballistic protection, much more than you would think from an aluminum.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/153139.pdf

Some other things one must consider is availability of raw materials and source of these materials, ability to mass produce (some things are hard to work with), and cost. Example: If you use titanium, the source nations will be China, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine. The only country that is a significant titanium producer that is an ally is Japan. Titanium is very expensive. Smart idea to use titanium in armor? Maybe only in small quantities, for those specialized applications.

[Assassin 7]

Aluminum isn't all the same.

Aluminum is light, has excellent corrosion properties, can act as a back plate to improve other armors effectiveness while providing some ballistic and spall protection in case of perforation. What do you think is a bigger hazard when exposed to heat, Aramid/resin spall liners, or aluminum plating? Some of these aluminum alloys actually have a substantial ballistic protection, much more than you would think from an aluminum.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/153139.pdf

Some other things one must consider is availability of raw materials and source of these materials, ability to mass produce (some things are hard to work with), and cost. Example: If you use titanium, the source nations will be China, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine. The only country that is a significant titanium producer that is an ally is Japan. Titanium is very expensive. Smart idea to use titanium in armor? Maybe only in small quantities, for those specialized applications.

This document is from the 1970's, 1979 to be exact. This document proves nothing. Im sure there have been many changes and testing done after this.

[Red6]

This document is from the 1970's, 1979 to be exact. This document proves nothing. Im sure there have been many changes and testing done after this.

Newer: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a481408.pdf

Here's a simple online tool that can make the comparison: http://www.onlinemetals.com/calculator.cfm To make the comparison: 2.74 inches of steel RHA or 4.72 inches of (7075) aluminum have near identical ballistic protection.

The Aluminum will provide the same level of protection as the steel, stopping the round. But the weight is 68.65 pounds per square foot, while the steel plate weighs in at 112.06 pounds. If we penetrate the same plates with a more powerful round, the aluminum will spall less. See the advantage of using that weak, pathetic, and unmanly aluminum? It's not always about achieving the most protection in the least volume. It's also important to achieve a level of protection and stay under a weight threshold, or to avoid spall...

Aluminum:

Weight savings

Corrosion/oxidation properties

National manufacturing base

Nationally available elemental/base resources

Relatively easy to work with in production

High volume of production possible

Cost effective

Good/low spalling material with proper alloy selection or layering

Material that has a long life and is repairable, i.e. can be welded (patched) etc.

Electrically conductive

Low magnetic properties

Aluminum has its application: M1126(Stryker family), M2, M113, HMMWV class, yes even the M1 uses Aluminum to at least "some" degree.

[Assassin 7]

Newer: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a481408.pdf

Here's a simple online tool that can make the comparison: http://www.onlinemetals.com/calculator.cfm To make the comparison: 2.74 inches of steel RHA or 4.72 inches of (7075) aluminum have near identical ballistic protection.

The Aluminum will provide the same level of protection as the steel, stopping the round. But the weight is 68.65 pounds per square foot, while the steel plate weighs in at 112.06 pounds. If we penetrate the same plates with a more powerful round, the aluminum will spall less. See the advantage of using that weak, pathetic, and unmanly aluminum? It's not always about achieving the most protection in the least volume. It's also important to achieve a level of protection and stay under a weight threshold, or to avoid spall...

Aluminum:

Weight savings

Corrosion/oxidation properties

National manufacturing base

Nationally available elemental/base resources

Relatively easy to work with in production

High volume of production possible

Cost effective

Good/low spalling material with proper alloy selection or layering

Material that has a long life and is repairable, i.e. can be welded (patched) etc.

Electrically conductive

Low magnetic properties

Aluminum has its application: M1126(Stryker family), M2, M113, HMMWV class, yes even the M1 uses Aluminum to at least "some" degree.

Very nice but this doesn't mention anything about the armor on the abrams. So where do you get the statement "yes even the M1 uses Aluminum to at least "some" degree"

[Red6]

Very nice but this doesn't mention anything about the armor on the abrams. So where do you get the statement "yes even the M1 uses Aluminum to at least "some" degree"

Maybe it's kryptonite with a red gummy bear filling?

[Assassin 7]

That's funny this is what I get when I look up the Abram's armor.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_thick_is_the_M1A2_Abrams_tank_armour#slide=1&article=How_thick_is_the_M1A2_Abrams_tank_armour

[Assassin 7]

LMAO

[Assassin 7]

Maybe it's kryptonite with a red gummy bear filling?

Maybe there is no proof to support your statement. No believe you

[Damian90]

Not to mention that there are better materials than alluminium.

Besides this, photographs of damaged M1 with partially exposed side armor, suggests that M1 uses NERA type composite armor. This is further backed up by recent scientific research about "Burlington" program codeveloped by UK and later also USA. Documents that were declassified says that armor neither used ceramics, neither was passive, but was form of non explosive reactive armor. In such armor use of different types of armor steel and other metals like DU seems to be more reasonable than alluminium or ceramics.

Here are articles written by Polish historian who researches history of tanks and other AFV's. These articles are based on declassified British documents about special armor development in UK and also partially in USA during World War II and Cold War. It is only in Polish so use translator, there is also huge bibliography so you can research on your own through British archieves.

http://speedy.sh/dtW44/PHW-3.pdf

PAWEŁ PRZEŹDZIECKI - ZARYS HISTORII BRYTYJSKICH CZOŁGOWYCH PANCERZY SPECJALNYCH: OD PROSTYCH EKRANÓW DO UKŁADU GRODZIOWEGO (1942–1964) (Page 112 in Acrobat Reader)

http://speedy.sh/EPw99/PHW-4.pdf

PAWEŁ PRZEŹDZIECKI - ZARYS HISTORII BRYTYJSKICH PANCERZY SPECJALNYCH: OPRACOWANIE I ROZWÓJ „PANCERZA CHOBHAM” W LATACH 1964–1976 (Page 106 in Acrobat Reader)