Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

You first should forget about ERA because that term originated to define old reactive protection, and it is not correct to refer to modern elements.

Today it is much more complex.

Modern reactive blocks placed on top can perfectly protect against threats, Tow-2B (EFP with limited perforeation) and disrupt HEAT jet of tandem warhead of missile like Javelin.

ERA is ERA, You can fight with reality as how much You want, but You can't win with reality. ERA based on explosive material between steel plates is primitive and obsolete protection, insignificant in fact in conctact with modern threats.

It can be provided, and was actually provided.

Maybe against outdated weapons tested in Russia, not against modern top attack weapons.

APS can never be treated as fisrt and only protection due to important reasons.

I never said that, but APS is only efficent protection for turret roof and vehicle rear.

This is not in subject.

It is not efficient to increment armour thickness, it will lead to nowhere, weight, protection level increase would not be acceptable. Point is use of efficient reactive armour.

Americans in early 90s looked at solution, to adopt turret armour of great dimensions (about 1300mm), low efficiency, lower weight, to cover hull from top, but this was only a partial solution.

Again Your understanding of reality is naive.

1) Americans never increased front turret armor to protect turret roof, front hull armor increase was to place there more layers of NERA like armor. The basic principle of western composite not understanded by Russians who use primitive composite armors, is that from Burlington to the newer developments, it was everything about making composite armor a form of dynamic protection, but without use of explosives.

It is funny how people like You compare primitive composite armor of such tanks like T-90, to the far more advanced composite armor of western tanks, and try to make any conclusions about protection offered by western armor, by basing their calculations and suspicions on data for much more primitive protection.

2) Americans were testing turret roof reinforcement, there were several configurations during M1A2SEP R&D phase, in the end conclusion was, any of such protection will increase protection values to the level, it will be effective against top attack threats, but all of these will increase vehicle weight, so it was abandoned.

This is very wrong. In fact you have no understanding of basic working principles of all mentioned reactive armour arrangements.

Oh, I understand it's very well. It only seems that Russians are embaraced with the achievements of Ukrainians, and try to discredit that Ukrainians despite smaller budget, and need to build their industry from scratch, were capable to design superior ERA, to anything Russians designed.

Automatic Tow-2B, Javelin, Spike seekers, their operanting principle is well understood, as I said.

You could do anything manually, but not in practice.

Oh really, well our operators won't agree, I seen manually guided Spike in to the hatches zone, and it can be done on the battlefield, heh gunner does not really need to see targets before he fires missile, but it seems that such technology is uncomprehendable to You, is it?

 

[hest]

Top attack protection and methods to defeat:

Configuration of modern top attack missile (Bill-2, Tow-2B)

Such missiles are armed with EFP warheads, self forming projectile, with limited perforation ability (against RHA of medium hardness).

To defeat tank, they have flight profile and special algorithm which makes them detonate over "vulnerable" as calculated by designers, part of tank which is detonation in most cases close to frontal part of turret.

For defeat of armour with limited perforation ability of EFP warhead, they employ a tandem configuration. But they are not effective against tanks with modern reactive armour arrangement, ob.640, T-90M, and will not penetrate part protected by "universal element" in turret.

Universal element with 4S22 Kontakt-V on top of turret

This element will defeat EFP not by reaction, but in passive method. It is composed of multilayered arrangement of high hardness steel plates and explosive elements, which act as spaced armour composed of multiple layers of high hardness steel of 10-15mm thickness.

EFP warheads of Bill-2, Tow-2B with limited perforation are not able to defeat combination of mentioned protection element, and top turret armour.

In case of tanks protected with Ukrainian "Nozh", they will be destroyed by initiation, and cumulative effect.
---------------------------------------
Effectiveness of loafted flight profile missiles, Javelin, Spike, or effectiveness of tandem warhead configuration with diameter up to 120mm against modern reactive armour


Automatic engagement principle of active missile seeker is similar to mentioned top-attack missiles, incidence from top over frontal turret in majority of cases, due to software configuration.

With limited diameter and perforation ability (600-700mm maximum), they were designed to defeat top armour and reaction of reactive armour with reactive lenght up to 200 microseconds (Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5) operating with angle of incidence of more than 30 degrees to be effective and for main warhead to not be disrupted by plate before it's detonation.

Howewer they are defeated by interaction with modern reactive armour of multiple plates, and incidence lenght of 300-400 microseconds.

Interaction of missile with tandem warhead configuration Javelin, Spike against anti-tandem reactive armour

In this scheme, main cumulative jet after interaction with two plates, without jet being deformed, has no ability to penetrate any armour behind.

Configuration of "Relikt"

Modern reactive element "Relikt" is placed with space between element and top armour to allow effect of two high hardness steel plates in opposite directions, allowing it to defeat tandem warheads with interval of more than 400 microseconds. Destabilising effect against main warhead of Javelin, Spike with diameter of less than 120mm and perforation under 700mm will leave a parasitic effect of main cumulative jet with neglible perforation against top armour.

In conclusion, tanks with turret protection as ob.640, T-90M with modern reactive elements have good protection against threats from above.

Configuration of tanks Molot, Armata, perspective Soviet-Russian tanks allowed to provide total protection of crew located in hull as show images of ob.477 and reactive armour placement.

 

[Damian]

Configuration of modern top attack missile (Bill-2, Tow-2B)

It is hard to call them modern...

Universal element with 4S22 Kontakt-V on top of turret

This element will defeat EFP not by reaction, but in passive method. It is composed of multilayered arrangement of high hardness steel plates and explosive elements, which act as spaced armour composed of multiple layers of high hardness steel of 10-15mm thickness.

EFP warheads of Bill-2, Tow-2B with limited perforation are not able to defeat combination of mentioned protection element, and top turret armour.

In case of tanks protected with Ukrainian "Nozh", they will be destroyed by initiation, and cumulative effect.

So now ERA is passive armor in your amusing thinking?

Knife and Dublet are far more effective than primitive Russian ERA.

Effectiveness of loafted flight profile missiles, Javelin, Spike, or effectiveness of tandem warhead configuration with diameter up to 120mm against modern reactive armour


Automatic engagement principle of active missile seeker is similar to mentioned top-attack missiles, incidence from top over frontal turret in majority of cases, due to software configuration.

With limited diameter and perforation ability (600-700mm maximum), they were designed to defeat top armour and reaction of reactive armour with reactive lenght up to 200 microseconds (Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5) operating with angle of incidence of more than 30 degrees to be effective and for main warhead to not be disrupted by plate before it's detonation.

Howewer they are defeated by interaction with modern reactive armour of multiple plates, and incidence lenght of 300-400 microseconds.

Interaction of missile with tandem warhead configuration Javelin, Spike against anti-tandem reactive armour


In this scheme, main cumulative jet after interaction with two plates, without jet being deformed, has no ability to penetrate any armour behind.

Such ERA as on Your drawing cannot be placed on turret roof, thus it is completely irelevant to the discussion about vehicle top protection.

Configuration of "Relikt"

Modern reactive element "Relikt" is placed with space between element and top armour to allow effect of two high hardness steel plates in opposite directions, allowing it to defeat tandem warheads with interval of more than 400 microseconds. Destabilising effect against main warhead of Javelin, Spike with diameter of less than 120mm and perforation under 700mm will leave a parasitic effect of main cumulative jet with neglible perforation against top armour.

In conclusion, tanks with turret protection as ob.640, T-90M with modern reactive elements have good protection against threats from above.

Relikt is not a modern protection, even NII Stali sees it as completely obsolete. Modern ERA can be called Knife or Dublet.

Conclusion is that turret top of Russian tanks is not protected against modern top attack missiles with tandem warheads, and what You say is only Your wet dream, based on some funny calculations.

I don't know, maybe Russians just don't want to accept the fact that west have obtained your technology, and tested it during development of their anti tank missiles. While Russia just can't do the same because of political force and money to do so.

Configuration of tanks Molot, Armata, perspective Soviet-Russian tanks allowed to provide total protection of crew from above.

This is a bald statement, without any facts.

 

[hest]

It is hard to call them modern...

These are threats from above, and no, they are not modern, outdated guidance system, etc.

So now ERA is passive armor in your amusing thinking?

Knife and Dublet are far more effective than primitive Russian ERA.

Just "ERA" is no longer placed on top as Kontakt-1. It is called universal module on 4S22 element, for top protection. On it plays a role not only initiation, but passive protection as it is not made to react against fragments, EFP, etc.

Nozh has different defeat pronciple, but similar in effect.

Such ERA as on Your drawing cannot be placed on turret roof, thus it is completely irelevant to the discussion about vehicle top protection.

It is scheme reflecting interaction against tandem warhead of increased duration (400 microsecons).

a- Start of initiation
b- Effect of first plate against leading warhead and partial destruction of missile construction (cumulative jet passage)
c- After some hundreds of microseconds, main warhead initiates
d- After interaction with first plate and initiation and consequent interaction with second, it has weak residual effect incapable to perforate armour.

Now, what don't you understand about Relikt and interaction with 2 opposing plates with duration of 400 microseconds, and destabilisation of 600mm perforation cumulative jet of main warhead ??

Relikt is not a modern protection, even NII Stali sees it as completely obsolete. Modern ERA can be called Knife or Dublet.

Relikt is reactive armour of improved 2nd generation, NII Stali has already reached 4th generation, what will be on future tank Armata, but it protects against current threats, except those which are not deployed or do not exist

Conclusion is that turret top of Russian tanks is not protected against modern top attack missiles with tandem warheads, and what You say is only Your wet dream, based on some funny calculations.

I showed, only thing is that you do not understand, or do not want to, or both...

I don't know, maybe Russians just don't want to accept the fact that west have obtained your technology, and tested it during development of their anti tank missiles. While Russia just can't do the same because of political force and money to do so.

Soviet missiles were tested against reactive armour which West does not even have, in characteristics, for example, VDZ-2 with diameter of 500mm composed of several layers of reactive elements of Kontakt, so called, simulator of Western ERA which is nowhere deployed :cool2:.

That is from 80s, now it is even more strict.

For example this was used in test of Belarussian armament
image

This is a bald statement, without any facts.

In that configuration reactive armour covered whole crew compartment from above.

 

[Damian]

These are threats from above, and no, they are not modern, outdated guidance system, etc.

You have problems with mind? You call them modern in previous post and suddenly You change opinion?

Just "ERA" is no longer placed on top as Kontakt-1. It is called universal module on 4S22 element, for top protection. On it plays a role not only initiation, but passive protection as it is not made to react against fragments, EFP, etc.

4S22 Kontakt-5 is just ERA. You can fight against reality, but I belive more reality than fantasion of a Bellarusian from Moscow.

Nozh has different defeat pronciple, but similar in effect.

Knife is more effective, due to it's more modern working mechanism.

It is scheme reflecting interaction against tandem warhead of increased duration (400 microsecons).

a- Start of initiation
b- Effect of first plate against leading warhead and partial destruction of missile construction (cumulative jet passage)
c- After some hundreds of microseconds, main warhead initiates
d- After interaction with first plate and initiation and consequent interaction with second, it has weak residual effect incapable to perforate armour.

Now, what don't you understand about Relikt and interaction with 2 opposing plates with duration of 400 microseconds, and destabilisation of 600mm perforation cumulative jet of main warhead ??

No, You don't understand that such ERA module can't be placed on turret roof because of it's size, is it just too bulky to be practical. What You don't understand here written in such simple language like english?

Relikt is reactive armour of improved 2nd generation, NII Stali has already reached 4th generation, what will be on future tank Armata, but it protects against current threats, except those which are not deployed or do not exist

Relikt is obsolete, period, and it does not protect efficiently enough against current threats like M829A3, neither future threats like M829A4, or more capable ATGM's. As for what NII Stali developed, we will see, currently You are excited like a kid first seeing naked women, about something that does not exsist yet.

I showed, only thing is that you do not understand, or do not want to, or both...

No, I'am just invurnable for propaganda. Russians are sometimes amusing people I must say, they try to compare everything, and proove at all cost that they are superior in everything to anyone... it seems to be that wrong habit of inferiority complex taken from the soviet times, when party said that everywhere around are enemies, and nation needs to be superior in anything to them.

Russian missiles are tested against reactive armour which West does not even have, in characteristics, for example, VDZ-2 with diameter of 500mm composed of several layers of reactive elements of Kontakt, so called, simulator of Western ERA which is nowhere deployed .

This is example of someone being idiot. You test something against something that is simulator of nonexisting system, that probably will never exist, because Your imagined adversary, is aiming at completely different way to achieve vehicles high protection levels.

When west is experimenting with composite armors based on nanotechnology, Russians seems to still play with classic obsolete ERA.

But please, smile further in such arogant way. In my country we call people like You "cwaniaczki", they pretend to know everything, but in the end they are just primitives, that base their knwoledge on obsolete data.

For example this was used in test of Belarussian armament
image

That is from 80s, now it is even more strict.

Nothing impressive, Ukrainians are far more advanced than Russians.

In that configuration reactive armour covered whole crew compartment from above.

So what? What guarantee Yoy have it will protect them from top attack threats? None.

 

[militarysta]

In conclusion, tanks with turret protection as ob.640, T-90M with modern reactive elements have good protection against threats from above.

Lidsky ERA is not kind of wunderwaffe - it have advantages and disadvantages. Stoping EFP warhed is not big deal - It's for reson that EFP projectile can perforate only to 0,8-1 its diameter. So 155mm shell can take only ~140mm EFP warhead and this can perforate only 100-120mm in the best way. HEAT warhed can perforated now more then 6,5 its diameter.
ERA efectivness against HEAT is quite good - polish ERAWA-2 is in performance very close to Kontakt-5, but ERAWa-2 can deal against tandem warhed. But it was proven many times that ERA in turet top is not enought to stop 105-120mm in diameter HEAT warhed. Top-Attack ATGMS like Javelin and Spike have "dive" profile attack and the angle during HEAT warhed initiation is very dyfficult for ERA bricks. In most cases it's near 60-80 degree! In that angle ERA have lower effectiveness about twice. So we can forget about thiss all marketing BS for Kontakt-5 and Relikt like "Снижение характеристик кумулятивных средств поражения До 90%" becouse in fact it will be ~50-60% in best way. What means that 105mm in diameter HEAT warhed in Spike (slighty up to 700mm RHA perforaion) and ~120mm HEAT warhed in Javelin (about 800mm RHA perforation) will be have still about 280-320mm RHA perforation. Even when we consider that turret roof in T-80U and T-90A/MS is 60-80mm thick (lets sey that with some angle it will be 100mm pure RHA LOS) we have still enought power in HEAT warhed in Javelin and Spike to perforate roof RHA plate after ERA whit more then 150mm in "stock" -what is necessary to kill crew or ignit ammo in tank.

This problem was study in Polad during test both ERA (ERWA-2) and Spike ATGMS. And ERAWA-2 is in performance (against HEAT) the same like Konktak-5 or slight better against tandem HEAT warhed. And what? Ad after test it was considered that there is no need to add the precursor in Spike warhed due to it's "dive" attack profile and rather thin (40-80mm RHA) tanks roof.

BTW: In Strv.122 and Leopard-2Ex program (TVM maximum) roof is protected against EFP and small bomblets by 20-25cm thick roof armour. In Merkava IV its 30cm thick armour module. So not only in estern tank developers attempted to deal with this threat. But in west it was obwious that both ways are needed - some kind roof protection against EFP and small bomblets (like on Strv.122 on AMAP-R) but against top-attack ATGMs will be needed APS.

BTW:2: In the begining ERA bricsk on top of the Soviet tanks was not to deal with ATGMs but to protect this stupid "all catching" raised turret roof against fired from ground level rounds and AT granades.


BTW:3

Soviet missiles were tested against reactive armour which West does not even have, in characteristics, for example, VDZ-2 with diameter of 500mm composed of several layers of reactive elements of Kontakt, so called, simulator of Western ERA which is nowhere deployed

I doubt for tree resons:
1) Western Burlinghton armour ussaly is thick between 650 and 840 or 800 and 960mm LOS for turret.
2) Burlinghton works on diffrent then ERA way, and in opposite to ERA it can withstand multi hit.
3) In Soviet Union developers havent bigger idea about Burlinghton in whole 70 and in middel 80 -the armour layout in estern tanks needs ERA to achive simmilar result like only Burlinghton gives on western tanks.

 

[Damian]

FGM-148 Javelin have a tandem warhead, with main warhead 127mm calliber.

 

[average american]

You are not going to be able to build tanks large enought to defeat spigot mortars sprinciple, With modern electronics and miniaturisation smart anti-tank mortar rounds, these can be man in the loop systems requiring laser illumination and guidance or of the fire and forget variety with either mm wavelength Radar or imaging IR guidance. The Electronics are not that complex,,,, some where near the path of tanks, it can be serveral miles, a computer detects and indentfies the sound or vibration of a tank,, it fires a mortar in the general direction, the mortar identifies the tank from heat, sound, or optical, and aims for the least protected part of the tank. The Mortars are much cheaper then a tank. The size of the Mortar can allways be increased in size to what ever is needed to destroy the tank. A mortar can be designed to defeat any antimissile defense.

 

[militarysta]

...........................

 

[Damian]

You are not going to be able to build tanks large enought to defeat spigot mortars sprinciple, With modern electronics and miniaturisation smart anti-tank mortar rounds, these can be man in the loop systems requiring laser illumination and guidance or of the fire and forget variety with either mm wavelength Radar or imaging IR guidance. The Electronics are not that complex,,,, some where near the path of tanks, it can be serveral miles, a computer detects and indentfies the sound or vibration of a tank,, it fires a mortar in the general direction, the mortar identifies the tank from heat, sound, or optical, and aims for the least protected part of the tank. The Mortars are much cheaper then a tank. The size of the Mortar can allways be increased in size to what ever is needed to destroy the tank. A mortar can be designed to defeat any antimissile defense.

This is one of the most stupid things I ever read... go back to school and educate yourself again...

And this is the best part:

A mortar can be designed to defeat any antimissile defense.

And what if active protection system will defeat mortar round? Do You even understand the working mechanism of active protection systems?

Mortar round can be defeated in exactly the same way as anti tank guided missile or rocket propelled granade.

Really, sometimes I just feel pity that I can't shoot at such idiots like You.

Damn even my dogs have higer IQ level...

 

[militarysta]

From the interview with Victor Murakhovsky (about T-72BA):

звестно, что на него установлен белорусский прицел "Сосна-У", правда, никаких датчиков навигационной системы ГЛОНАСС пока не видно. Да и двигатель – старый Ð’-84 мощностью 840 л.с.
(...)
Возьмем, к примеру, силовую установку, просто сейчас нет возможности обеспечения тысячесильными двигателями В-92С2 в нужном объеме.
(...)
Давайте пока будем придерживаться данных о 170 машинах на 6 миллиардов рублей в течение трех лет. Да, это капремонт с минимальной модернизацией, самый новый компонент в танке - белорусский прицел.

Well so even not 300 but only 170 T-72BA and again -without V29S2 engine.

 

[Damian]

With very small defensive budget, it is hard to be surprised, that they need to reduce numbers of ordered vehicles, and how much they will be modernized.

 

[hest]

Lidsky ERA is not kind of wunderwaffe - it have advantages and disadvantages. Stoping EFP warhed is not big deal - It's for reson that EFP projectile can perforate only to 0,8-1 its diameter. So 155mm shell can take only ~140mm EFP warhead and this can perforate only 100-120mm in the best way. HEAT warhed can perforated now more then 6,5 its diameter.

Those anti-tank, Javelin, Tow-2B, weapons are not "wunderwaffe" due to their limitations as explained. It is no surprise they will not be effective against modern protection.

ERA efectivness against HEAT is quite good - polish ERAWA-2 is in performance very close to Kontakt-5, but ERAWa-2 can deal against tandem warhed. But it was proven many times that ERA in turet top is not enought to stop 105-120mm in diameter HEAT warhed. Top-Attack ATGMS like Javelin and Spike have "dive" profile attack and the angle during HEAT warhed initiation is very dyfficult for ERA bricks. In most cases it's near 60-80 degree! In that angle ERA have lower effectiveness about twice. So we can forget about thiss all marketing BS for Kontakt-5 and Relikt like "Снижение характеристик кумулятивных средств поражения До 90%" becouse in fact it will be ~50-60% in best way. What means that 105mm in diameter HEAT warhed in Spike (slighty up to 700mm RHA perforaion) and ~120mm HEAT warhed in Javelin (about 800mm RHA perforation) will be have still about 280-320mm RHA perforation. Even when we consider that turret roof in T-80U and T-90A/MS is 60-80mm thick (lets sey that with some angle it will be 100mm pure RHA LOS) we have still enought power in HEAT warhed in Javelin and Spike to perforate roof RHA plate after ERA whit more then 150mm in "stock" -what is necessary to kill crew or ignit ammo in tank.

All that is very wrong, where to start...

Initiation of modern reactive armour with 4S23 element is a given, good luck relying on that. Defeat principle I explained already.

About Polish ERAWA, will you explain how those claims are achieved ?? To say, I know about them, and there are serious doubts...

You base your understanding on ERAWA working principle, but it has no relation to subject.

This problem was study in Polad during test both ERA (ERWA-2) and Spike ATGMS. And ERAWA-2 is in performance (against HEAT) the same like Konktak-5 or slight better against tandem HEAT warhed. And what? Ad after test it was considered that there is no need to add the precursor in Spike warhed due to it's "dive" attack profile and rather thin (40-80mm RHA) tanks roof.

Experience with ERAWA, again, has no relation.

BTW: In Strv.122 and Leopard-2Ex program (TVM maximum) roof is protected against EFP and small bomblets by 20-25cm thick roof armour. In Merkava IV its 30cm thick armour module. So not only in estern tank developers attempted to deal with this threat. But in west it was obwious that both ways are needed - some kind roof protection against EFP and small bomblets (like on Strv.122 on AMAP-R) but against top-attack ATGMs will be needed APS.

Without modern reactive armour it is not possible to provide protection against RPG and ATGM with loafted trajectory.

BTW:2: In the begining ERA bricsk on top of the Soviet tanks was not to deal with ATGMs but to protect this stupid "all catching" raised turret roof against fired from ground level rounds and AT granades.

That is what exactly I said on my earlier post. Purpose of universal element, different from Kontakt-1, to provide also protection in passive form.

BTW:3

I doubt for tree resons:
1) Western Burlinghton armour ussaly is thick between 650 and 840 or 800 and 960mm LOS for turret.
2) Burlinghton works on diffrent then ERA way, and in opposite to ERA it can withstand multi hit.
3) In Soviet Union developers havent bigger idea about Burlinghton in whole 70 and in middel 80 -the armour layout in estern tanks needs ERA to achive simmilar result like only Burlinghton gives on western tanks.

Many things you do not know about Soviet armament developement.

1 Soviets in fact always overestimated Western armour. Tests during ATGM developement involve not only so called ERA imitators, but also imitators of composite armour, you'll know about later.
2 Test with ERA, to defeat perspective threats. Effect of ERA on ATGM is different and requires specific construction to defeat.
3 That is plain wrong.

 

[hest]

From the interview with Victor Murakhovsky (about T-72BA):



Well so even not 300 but only 170 T-72BA and again -without V29S2 engine.

It is true, contract was signed for tanks with new engine, howewer due to plant limited production capacity it was decided to give priority to export contract, and fulfill contract later. Also plant is currently being modernised, expanded.

 

[Damian]

1 Soviets in fact always overestimated Western armour. Tests during ATGM developement involve not only so called ERA imitators, but also imitators of composite armour, you'll know about later.

Soviets never trully understood how western composite armors were designed, about on what principles were designed. Everywhere I see all soviet estimations are based on NATO desinformation about ceramics encased in honeycomb structure, which is false as we know today.

While west had preatty good knowledge on soviet tanks, during one of soviet national holidays, BRIXMIS team in east Germany broke in Soviet base where T-64's were stored, the get inside one tank, made as many photographs as possible, they messured everything they could and get out unnoticed by guards.

3 That is plain wrong.

No, this is a fact, Soviet composite armors were more primitive in design and are thinner than Brulington.

For example Combination K is closer in design principle to Silicious Core Armor than Burlington. When we compare how many layers of armor stands against projectile in T-72B, T-80U/UD and later vehicles, we can count approx 5 layers or less at most predictible hit angles, in western tanks, there is far more layers standing against projectile at most predictible hit angles. It is a simple fact, known to everyone that seen these types of armors and counted number of layers.

 

[hest]

Soviets never trully understood how western composite armors were designed, about on what principles were designed. Everywhere I see all soviet estimations are based on NATO desinformation about ceramics encased in honeycomb structure, which is false as we know today.

Not true.

While west had preatty good knowledge on soviet tanks, during one of soviet national holidays, BRIXMIS team in east Germany broke in Soviet base where T-64's were stored, the get inside one tank, made as many photographs as possible, they messured everything they could and get out unnoticed by guards.

You call that good knowledge, and somehow relate external photographs to armour composition...

No, this is a fact, Soviet composite armors were more primitive in design and are thinner than Brulington.

For example Combination K is closer in design principle to Silicious Core Armor than Burlington. When we compare how many layers of armor stands against projectile in T-72B, T-80U/UD and later vehicles, we can count approx 5 layers or less at most predictible hit angles, in western tanks, there is far more layers standing against projectile at most predictible hit angles. It is a simple fact, known to everyone that seen these types of armors and counted number of layers.

Ha ha, funny bias...

I do not see the point of your unilateral and anachronistic comparison.
In fact after introduction of T-64 (first tank with composite armour and only one for a time) armour composition of both was equivalent in same time frame, and is now.

And you make of Burlington and Western armour some sort of magic, while there are no objective arguments. In fact original Burlington was nothing special, from information which was now made available.

 

[hest]

I am waiting for explanation of claims about ERAWA "anti-tandem properties", based on it's working method. Want to see how such thing is justified...

 

[militarysta]

I am waiting for explanation of claims about ERAWA "anti-tandem properties", based on it's working method. Want to see how such thing is justified...

Test on PzF-3 will be enought? I know that on btvt is many shit about ERAWA-1 adn ERAWA-2 to proof that only one trully russian made ERA are good and modern and superior then other ERA (Ukrainian-Knife;Duplet, Czech-Dyna and Polish- ERAWA-2/CERAWA ones) but it's not so true in fact Kontakt-5 have no advantage in compare to the ERAWA-2. Relikt should be better but it's diffrent story.













explanation of the signs
(Объяснение знаков)

CP - capability of protection (Возможность защиты)

CP=(H-Hw)/H

H- Guaranteed penetration RHA armour with thick "H"
Hw - real depth of perforation RHA amrour (witness) after perforation ERAWA brick

ERAWA-2 CP - capability of protection (Возможность защиты) is:

1) single SC (ex:9M113) CP=95% (for 60.)
2) EFP diameter 100mm CP=94% (for 60.)
3) BK-14M HEAT CS CP=94-80% (for 60.)
4) 3BM15 APFSDS CP=57% (for 60.)
5) tandem SC (Panzerfust-3IT, PG-7VR, LAW)
CP= ~66%

 

[Damian]

Not true.

Oh actually very true, only such silly people like You know very little.

You call that good knowledge, and somehow relate external photographs to armour composition...

Western intelligence was allways superior in terms of technology espionage than soviet intelligence.

Ha ha, funny bias...

I do not see the point of your unilateral and anachronistic comparison.
In fact after introduction of T-64 (first tank with composite armour and only one for a time) armour composition of both was equivalent in same time frame, and is now.

And you make of Burlington and Western armour some sort of magic, while there are no objective arguments. In fact original Burlington was nothing special, from information which was now made available.

It is not funny bias, it is only that we discuss with poorly educated primitive like You.

Combination K was primitive form of protection, based on cast turret with cast alluminium filler and STEF, this was same level of technology as SCA armor. And UK with USA was working on composite armors for a much longer time than in Soviet Union. HCR2 composite armor for M4 Sherman tanks was one of the very first, actually working armor of such type.

And Burlington is not magic, neither other types of western composites armor. They are superior through use of more advanced and more diverced materials cooperating with each other. As well as per whole armor thickness, much more space is used for composite armor filler in western designs than in soviet ones, this means more layers standing against projectile. This is a drawback of size and weight reduction of soviet designs.

Seems that Russians have still this silly habit to advertise every weapon system they have, with unfair comparrision, and any lack of criticism of their own development.

Only just to bash any non soviet/russian stuff, and create some wunderwaffe from their designs. While their designs good, are not perfect either, and have many weaknesses.

 

[militarysta]

Those anti-tank, Javelin, Tow-2B, weapons are not "wunderwaffe" due to their limitations as explained. It is no surprise they will not be effective against modern protection.

But this modern protection is not ERA brick on only 40-80mm thick roof. There is no ERA able to stop 105/125mm diameter HEAT warhed where the main armour is placed 2-4cm after ERA and have only 40-80mm RHA. Soory - fairy tails o other forums are needed.

All that is very wrong, where to start...

Initiation of modern reactive armour with 4S23 element is a given, good luck relying on that. Defeat principle I explained already.

Answer the questions:
1. Is the effectiveness of the ERA is dependent on the angle on the angle at which the ERA is?
2. In what angle will be hit ERA brick diving Spike or Javelin? It will be more then 50 degree? Or maybe between 60 and 80 degree? Hmm?
3. What is the effectiveness of the ERA for such a negative angle? It will be 90% like in all producents ads or rather less?

Hej dude, Im not russophob. Just think about ERA and roof protection.

You base your understanding on ERAWA working principle, but it has no relation to subject.


Experience with ERAWA, again, has no relation.

ERAWA -indeed not. ERAWA-2 yes it have relation. In fact external plate in ERAWA-2 are made for RHA whit HB bigger then 500...

Without modern reactive armour it is not possible to provide protection against RPG and ATGM with loafted trajectory.

Wihout APS rather. Just think how thick is protection in fornt turret to stop ATGM's...