Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Akim]

Tanks, as you know them will be useless.

newer faster, more mobile, more target driven logic target end game tactic warfare will change and by pass all the current things you know.

How do I know, because I practice the warfare and start to make the weapons for market

If you wish to debate the merits, I will be back!!!

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/41088-has-tank-become-obsolete-modern-warfare-9.html

Prompt me then, how will an infantry take territory controlled by an enemy?

 

[Damian]

Tanks, as you know them will be useless.

newer faster, more mobile, more target driven logic target end game tactic warfare will change and by pass all the current things you know.

How do I know, because I practice the warfare and start to make the weapons for market

If you wish to debate the merits, I will be back!!!

Well, explain then, why US Army spends money on M1 Abrams deep modernization/replacement program? Why Canadian Army after first plans to completely rid off the tanks, changed ideas and instead purchased Leopard 2's? Why US Army is abandoning the idea to purchase a lot of M1128 MGS Strykers, and instead says openly that normal tank is just better, and can't be replaced? Why Russian Army works on next generation MBT? Why Israeli Amy after Lebanon war in 2006, reverted it plans and instead of ending Merkava production, ordered more new Mk4's? Why Japanese fielded new Type 10? And South Koreans are preparing mass production of K2? Turkish are working on Altay? Why armed forces of my country wan't 300-500 new MBT's? Why British Army instead of scrapping all Challenger 2's, change original plans, and prepare MLU for them? I didn't hear Germans wan't to rid off tanks completely either, same French.

All major armies around the globe, see place for a tank, and nobody, want's to scrap them. Tank is still evolving, technology permitts to reduce it's weight without sacrificing protection, it permitts to use new types of more compact, light and fuel efficent engines, there are new ways of protecting vehicle, from advanced composite armors, ERA, NERA, NxRA to active protection systems.

There is no real reason to replace a tank. IMHO hate to a tank, is coming only from fools, that can accept for some reason a fact, that tank, in it's concept very simple vehicle, is the most succesfull weapon system ever designed, and despite all these efforts, to kill the idea, this idea is still in great shape, and after recent conflicts, idea of heavy armored vehicle, is spreading to the lighter platforms, that in the end might have similiar weight and protection to tanks. First step are tracked IFV's, but also wheeled APC's start to be bigger, heavier, better armored.

 

[Damian]

More photos by DENO from MP.net. What is interesting it seems that Turkish army on their Leopard 2A4's, preffer to mount additional MG3 for tank commander, contrary to more popular German scheme where only loader have MG3 installed on flex mount around his hatch.

 

[militarysta]

@Lidsky M.D

I have question - Are information posted in my post here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-229.html#post571408
and here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-228.html#post571261
clear?
Do you understand inforamtions included in those two post? And did You understood now simple fact that ERAWA-2 have anti double HEAT warhed capabilities proven in many test (whit using Panzerfaust-3ITl LAW, PG-7VR) whit many angles of incidence (15;30;60)?
Is that clear?
I can understand that after tons of nonsens written on btvt (and other russians forums) about ERAWA it was hard to belive so I decided to include parts of book whit ERAWA thema as proof about capabilities, and this part of article from tanktech.worldpress:

And here is another interesting pdf about CERAWA and ERAWA-1 - of course CERAWA and ERAWA can't deal with double SC (HEAT) but this ultra-light Reactive-passive armor with ERAWA-1 cassettes from aluminium alloy was developed to protect light aroured vehicles against RPG with older granades (perofration about 300mm RHA).
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/12108.pdf

 

[hest]

@Lidsky M.D

I have question - Are information posted in my post here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-229.html#post571408
and here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-228.html#post571261
clear?
Do you understand inforamtions included in those two post? And did You understood now simple fact that ERAWA-2 have anti double HEAT warhed capabilities proven in many test (whit using Panzerfaust-3ITl LAW, PG-7VR) whit many angles of incidence (15;30;60)?
Is that clear?

Problem is that author of that article based conclusions and figures only on staged tests with angles of incidence of 15 and 30 degrees. It is known that only in such situation it is possible for ERAWA-2 to achieve results. While results of rest of situations are just ignored on purpose. Why no results of tests of 60 degrees are shown??

Panzefaust with angle of incidence of 15 and 30 degrees on middle of ERAWA-2, it's main warhead is over reactive armour plate. In such situation there is effect on it's performance, but it is not realistic.

In fact it is same conditional effectiveness as Kontakt

But it would be great error to call Kontakt anti-tandem reactive armour, same with ERAWA.

I can understand that after tons of nonsens written on btvt (and other russians forums) about ERAWA it was hard to belive so I decided to include parts of book whit ERAWA thema as proof about capabilities, and this part of article from tanktech.worldpress:

It is same situation which I explained above.

Such results can be achieved with any ERA based on plate interaction principle, be it Kontakt, ERAWA or whatever, as long as warhead falls within plate zone... but it is not realistic situation, and not serious.

Reactive armour based on that principle cannot give more than 200 microseconds of interaction, which is effect of plate on cumulative jet.

Interval between effect of leading warhead and detonation of main in tandem warhead missile, is of several hundred of microseconds. For reactive armour to have anti-tandem properties it has to:

-Extend interaction lenght from 200 to more than 400 microseconds, as Relikt with "reflective" plates flying in opposite directions.
-To be composed of several reactive elements with local effect, that is, leading warhead will only cause detonation of first layer and do not damage second for posterior reaction against main warhead. This principle is realised in Nozh and Duplet.
-To have large reacting surface, to destroy main warhead possibly without detonation.

Nothing of this is possible to achieve with ERAWA-2 configuration. With it's construction, it is not possible to reach 400 microseconds of interaction lenght (about double than all what ERAWA can achieve).

And here is another interesting pdf about CERAWA and ERAWA-1 - of course CERAWA and ERAWA can't deal with double SC (HEAT) but this ultra-light Reactive-passive armor with ERAWA-1 cassettes from aluminium alloy was developed to protect light aroured vehicles against RPG with older granades (perofration about 300mm RHA).
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/12108.pdf

http://www.be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf01103338.pdf

Here you have article detailying reactive armour effect, Kontakt, also applies to ERAWA, and developement path.

 

[Damian]

It seems that Lidsky can accept only test results from Russia. Achievements of any other country won't satisfy him simply because of his strange technology nationalism.

 

[militarysta]

Problem is that author of that article based conclusions and figures only on staged tests with angles of incidence of 15 and 30 degrees. It is known that only in such situation it is possible for ERAWA-2 to achieve results. While results of rest of situations are just ignored on purpose. Why no results of tests of 60 degrees are shown??

Lidsky - have you been watching the same article as I posted here? I had wrote very clerly:
using warhed taken from:
1. Pzf-3IT
2. RPG-7 PG-7VR
3. LAW
All of them have tandem warhed (precursor + main SC). Each test was done for three angle of incidence:
a) 15 degrees
b) 30 degrees
c) 60 degrees
Values CP - capability of protection:
5) tandem SC (Panzerfust-3IT, PG-7VR, LAW) CP= ~66%
are given for angle of incidence equal to 30 degrees.
But this what You wrote:

While results of rest of situations are just ignored on purpose. Why no results of tests of 60 degrees are shown??

It is shown in two places in article, and one in pdf...you just don't even read this articles cerfully...
Here are result:

Panzefaust with angle of incidence of 15 and 30 degrees on middle of ERAWA-2, it's main warhead is over reactive armour plate. In such situation there is effect on it's performance, but it is not realistic.

Well the same I can write about russian ERA test. And other ERA. It's ussaly the same marketing talks like on btvt: 90%. And this value for anti-HEAT efectivnes is takne from what? Have you ever think about this? I suppose not.
But only for ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 developers give us full diagram in relatio angle and ERA efectvness: for all degree between 15 and 60. angle. Why russian developers don't do the same for Kontakt-5 and Relikt? Answer is simple - in polish articles there is marketing but in the same time saince. In russian articles about Kontakt and Relikt is only marketing whit the best of avaible result in defending against HEAT warhed.

In fact it is same conditional effectiveness as Kontakt

But it would be great error to call Kontakt anti-tandem reactive armour, same with ERAWA.

ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 have nothing common whit this Kontakt-1 draw, and situation on it...

-Extend interaction lenght from 200 to more than 400 microseconds, as Relikt with "reflective" plates flying in opposite directions.
-To be composed of several reactive elements with local effect, that is, leading warhead will only cause detonation of first layer and do not damage second for posterior reaction against main warhead. This principle is realised in Nozh and Duplet.
-To have large reacting surface, to destroy main warhead possibly without detonation.
Nothing of this is possible to achieve with ERAWA-2 configuration. With it's construction, it is not possible to reach 400 microseconds of interaction lenght (about double than all what ERAWA can achieve).

It will be shock for You but ERAWA-2 can provide this result But firs you shoud understand that not only in russia is avaible to develped good ERA. Without this mentaly break out whit "homosovieticus" kind of thinking You will not be able to even understand what I will try to write bellow.

1. In ERAWA-2 layers are placed asymmetrically - draws not exatly shown layers arrangement. The first layers is protected by thick RHA plate whit very hight HB scale (more then 500HB). In fact this HB scale double it's thickness. Many small precursors are not able to deflorate this plate, the same small fire arms. Then a thin layer of high explosive whit hight velocity explosion is placed. After that another thick RHA layers and main high explosive layer whit slow velocity explosion is placed.
2. In theory and on test this all precursor are neutralized by first thick RHA layer and HE hight velocity explosion. Interaction lenght is elongate due to using completle diffrent two HE in ERA casette and shielding HE layers by thick RHA plates whit very hight HB scale.
On test it was working against Panzerfaust-3, LAW, PG-7VR and other double HEAT warhed. So if somthing looks stupid but works it not stupid.
3. Disadvantages of this internal structure ERAWA-2 is impossible do deal with modern APFSDS whit longer penetrator. ERAWA-1/2 can heavy damage penetrator developed from many parts (ore with tungsten slug inside), not monoblock. So 3BM15, 3BM22, 3BM26, maybe even dual in structe 3BM42 but not monoblock penetrator: 3BM32,3BM44M etc. DM-33A1 and others.
So in result ERAWA can reduce 3BM15 for more then 56% but younger DM33A1 more then twice less...And yes -it's disadvantages ERAWA-2. But there is no doubt that ERAWA-2 can deal with HEAT warhed whit precursor -it was demonstrated in a series of tests.

BTW: There is always many way to achive some result. Russian option in ERA layers arragment is not only possible way to protect against HEAT warhed whit precursor. Think about this, and dont by so focus only on btvt and tarasenko blog. In fakt both of this site about other then russian wepons suck.

 

[hest]

This is what is said:

Lidsky - have you been watching the same article as I posted here? I had wrote very clerly:
using warhed taken from:
1. Pzf-3IT
2. RPG-7 PG-7VR
3. LAW
All of them have tandem warhed (precursor + main SC). Each test was done for three angle of incidence:
a) 15 degrees
b) 30 degrees
c) 60 degrees
Values CP - capability of protection:
5) tandem SC (Panzerfust-3IT, PG-7VR, LAW) CP= ~66%
are given for angle of incidence equal to 30 degrees.
But this what You wrote:

Фтв were are results for test in angle of incidence of 60 degrees ?? They are omitted on purpose.

Because situation would be very different.

It is shown in two places in article, and one in pdf...you just don't even read this articles cerfully...
Here are result:

These are results against monoblock warhead of old missiles. It is better only because ERAWA-2 has double configuration, double volume, weight...

I ask again, why are results for tandem warhead missile with angle of incidence of 60 degrees not shown ??

Well the same I can write about russian ERA test. And other ERA. It's ussaly the same marketing talks like on btvt: 90%. And this value for anti-HEAT efectivnes is takne from what? Have you ever think about this? I suppose not.
But only for ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 developers give us full diagram in relatio angle and ERA efectvness: for all degree between 15 and 60. angle. Why russian developers don't do the same for Kontakt-5 and Relikt? Answer is simple - in polish articles there is marketing but in the same time saince. In russian articles about Kontakt and Relikt is only marketing whit the best of avaible result in defending against HEAT warhed.

Research institute NII Stali has lots of publications on subject. For Relikt they detail working method with figures, interaction time.

But for ERAWA you make conclusions on staged test, with no explanation of how it is achieved.

ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 have nothing common whit this Kontakt-1 draw, and situation on it...

I showed you scheme, because situation in CD is similar as Panzerfaust in 15-30 degrees angle of incidence in middle of ERAWA-2.

Think about what I am saying and you may realise how such result is achieved

Another question. If you consider ERAWA-2 to have anti-tandem properties due to result in specific situation, then you must also consider Kontakt-1 as such. So ??

It will be shock for You but ERAWA-2 can provide this result But firs you shoud understand that not only in russia is avaible to develped good ERA. Without this mentaly break out whit "homosovieticus" kind of thinking You will not be able to even understand what I will try to write bellow.

Nobody says ERAWA is not good for it's kind, and that's it.

But it represents nothing for modern reactive armour placed in tank which was original discussion.

1. In ERAWA-2 layers are placed asymmetrically - draws not exatly shown layers arrangement. The first layers is protected by thick RHA plate whit very hight HB scale (more then 500HB). In fact this HB scale double it's thickness. Many small precursors are not able to deflorate this plate, the same small fire arms. Then a thin layer of high explosive whit hight velocity explosion is placed. After that another thick RHA layers and main high explosive layer whit slow velocity explosion is placed.
2. In theory and on test this all precursor are neutralized by first thick RHA layer and HE hight velocity explosion. Interaction lenght is elongate due to using completle diffrent two HE in ERA casette and shielding HE layers by thick RHA plates whit very hight HB scale.
On test it was working against Panzerfaust-3, LAW, PG-7VR and other double HEAT warhed. So if somthing looks stupid but works it not stupid.
3. Disadvantages of this internal structure ERAWA-2 is impossible do deal with modern APFSDS whit longer penetrator. ERAWA-1/2 can heavy damage penetrator developed from many parts (ore with tungsten slug inside), not monoblock. So 3BM15, 3BM22, 3BM26, maybe even dual in structe 3BM42 but not monoblock penetrator: 3BM32,3BM44M etc. DM-33A1 and others.
So in result ERAWA can reduce 3BM15 for more then 56% but younger DM33A1 more then twice less...And yes -it's disadvantages ERAWA-2. But there is no doubt that ERAWA-2 can deal with HEAT warhed whit precursor -it was demonstrated in a series of tests.

1-2 In ERAWA there is no local effect with leading warhead. Predecessor will either initiate reaction of all elements, or as variant, destroy them without initiation (for destruction it is not even necessary to penetrate plate). Such configuration of reactive plates cannot reach interaction long enought to affectboth warheads, so anti-tandem property is excluded.

Against Panzerfaust with angle of incidence of 15-30 degrees as in test, reactive elements, metal plate, will affect main warhead because it is directly on it's flying path (look at CD on scheme) which will result in decrease of performance. But in rest of situations where main warhead is out of direct element reach, there is no effect at all. This is why result for 60 degrees is not shown.

Understand now why it is no more than advertisement based on staged test ?

3 In fact only difference with analogue Kontakt, metal plate giving better passive protection, rest is about the same, only thing, ERAWA-2 is only better because of double configuration, twice elements, diameter, weight... it is not anything more advanced, just simple ERA with working principle based on planar element interaction .

BTW: There is always many way to achive some result. Russian option in ERA layers arragment is not only possible way to protect against HEAT warhed whit precursor. Think about this, and dont by so focus only on btvt and tarasenko blog. In fakt both of this site about other then russian wepons suck.

Nobody is talking here about btvt or whatever. That person in particular is not very knowledgeable about this subject...

 

[Damian]

Well Lidsky, maybe first You learn to read if You don't see the arguments in documents, and presentations postem by Militarysta?

Besides I still, not understand this technological nationalism of yours, why You just not admitt, that other nations also have good achievements in military industry?

 

[bhramos]

1Г46 gunner sifht in Т-90 turret

 

[militarysta]

(...)

were are results for test in angle of incidence of 60 degrees ?? They are omitted on purpose.

Because situation would be very different.

Like for all ERA - with Kontakt-5 and Relikt. For almoust all ERA in shape thin "brick" (http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5_1.jpg) efectivness is depend on angle. And if ERAWA-2 can stop 66% PzF-3IT warhed (900-1000mm RHA perforation) for angle of incidence equal to 30 degrees. (what is without any doubt given in tekst -its fakt not opinnion) then perforamce for bigger degree (60) will be mucht mucht worse. But its typical for all ERA -including Kontakt-5 and Relikt. Sorry but all ERA casette are simmilar in this problem. Of course there is solution - like in most of the ERA for side armour when whery thick ERA module (unposible to place this on turret roof) have 2-3 ERA layers whit...yes, again angle of incidence equal to 30 degrees but inside the casette. (like hee: http://ptisidiastima.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/m19arat-c.jpg) I have hope that this what I had wrote is clear.

All ERA whit thickness like thin brick have the same problem - relatio between angle and efectivness. Its the same problem for ALL ERA: ERAWA-1, ERAWA2, CERAWA, Kontakt-5, Relikt, etc. Becouse single ERA casette is dependend on angle.
This problem is lower in thic side ERA modules like ARAT, or NII Stali side modules or Blazer becouse in that kind of ERA internal ERA layout still give between 30 and 60 angle.
Of course one ERA (ERAWA-2, Relikt, Dyna, Nóż) using many diffrent metods can achive bigger protection for "diffciult" angle of incidence then oder ERA (ERAWA-1, Kontakt-1, older Kontakt-5) in even better angle of incidence. Its a matter of technique used and internal ERA laout, used material HE etc.

It is better only because ERAWA-2 has double configuration, double volume, weight...

You still don't understand it's not simple "double" somthing. It's diffrence in used HE material in ERA bricks, in HB scale in RHA plates and others.

I ask again, why are results for tandem warhead missile with angle of incidence of 60 degrees not shown ??

Becouse for assumed and required cover in +/-30 for longitiudal axis of turret and hull is enought and more then enought:

And it's stupid to pretend that a single ERA brick can stop HEAT warhed whit perforation equal ~1000mm RHA + precursor when angle of hit is bigger then 30 degree.
And when we back to the topic: there is no diffrence between placed ERAWA-2 or Relikt on tank turret roof - ERA hit on more then 60 degree for "diving" top-attack ATGM wil be ineffective and roof will be perforated. Even if ERA effectiveness will be close to ~70% (what is impossible for that angle!) then warhed whit perforation 700-800 still will have enought big perforation vaue to perforate 40-70mm RHA thick roof. It's really simple. And there is no one known test when ERA casette in thickness like for ERAWA-2 or Relikt was able to stop even single SC warhed when angle of incidence was equal between 70 and 85 degrees (like for diving top attack ATGM's) and protected by ERA armour has only 40-70mm RHA thick. Thats reson why APS are so necessary.

Research institute NII Stali has lots of publications on subject. For Relikt they detail working method with figures, interaction time.

Greate - but there is no one article (and I don'y find that article) when is showned Relikt and it's possibilities to o stop single SC warhed when angle of incidence was equal between 70 and 85 degrees and protected armour is only 40-70mm RHA thick.
Do you have this evidence? I don't.
You try to put article about side BMP protection using thick ERA modules whit multi layers ERA (whit angle 30-60 degree inside) to proof that completly diffrent in layout Relikt or Kontakt-5 can stop HEAT warhed in case when angle of incidence is between 70 and 85 degree and covered armour is only 40-70mm thick. Sory - no way.

But for ERAWA you make conclusions on staged test, with no explanation of how it is achieved.

I've already explained that exactly in older posts.

I showed you scheme, because situation in CD is similar as Panzerfaust in 15-30 degrees angle of incidence in middle of ERAWA-2.

No, it's not. Back to the photos or pdf. There was alway single ERAWA-2 casette against HEAT warhed so this CD example is pointlles, and the result was achive by using more sophisticated materials and layout then you try to input.

Another question. If you consider ERAWA-2 to have anti-tandem properties due to result in specific situation, then you must also consider Kontakt-1 as such. So ??

No, Kontakt-1 can't deal whit dobuble HEAT.
ERAWA-2 have nothing common whit Kontakt-1:
- totally different internal design and layout
- diffrent material use
- havierRHA plates (in fact Kontakt-1 is very delicate adn ERAWa-1/2 can stand even napalm)
etc.
And for ERAWA-2 anti-tandem properties are normal in use - ERAWA-2 slightly can deal with SC warhed whit precursor for angle about 30-35 degree. As I mentioned and put photos about Panzerfaust, LAW, PG-7VR test...
And this angle 30-35 degree can achive completly normal protection for MBT on battelfield.

n fact only difference with analogue Kontakt, metal plate giving better passive protection, rest is about the same, only thing, ERAWA-2 is only better because of double configuration, twice elements, diameter, weight... it is not anything more advanced, just simple ERA with working principle based on planar element interaction .

Again You don't understand - it's not about double components but for they asymmetric arrangement and - difference in reaction time due to the use of different HE materials in layers. And ERAWA-2 is very far in the construction of Kontakt-5.

In ERAWA there is no local effect with leading warhead. Predecessor will either initiate reaction of all elements, or as variant, destroy them without initiation (for destruction it is not even necessary to penetrate plate). Such configuration of reactive plates cannot reach interaction long enought to affectboth warheads, so anti-tandem property is excluded.

You event don't try to read what I posted. Precursor in most HEAT warhed (PzF-3, LAW, PG-7VR, RPG-29, RPG-32) have small diameter (30-50mm) and can perforate only about 150-200mm RHA. Due to hight HB scale, thick external plate and angle 30-35 degree jet from precursor must overcome more then twice external LOS plate whit about 500HB scale - after that jet hit thin high sensitivity HE material layer and external RHA plate just eliminates the precursor jet. Even if (it's not so obvious...) jet from precursor perforate internal RHA plate there is very different in properties insensitive HE. Time reaction between blow out external HE (and in the same external RHA plate) and internal HE layer and RHA plate is extended up to that point when the jet from main HEAT warhed will be hit by internal RHA plate and HE blast. Thats the reson why ERAWA-2 have only 46mm thick cassette and can deal with HEAT warhed whit precursor. Germans and Swedish developers where veru suprised ERAWA-2 perforamnce.



But the main thema is that what I posted:
there is no diffrence between placed ERAWA-2 or Relikt on tank turret roof - ERA hit on more then 60 degree for "diving" top-attack ATGM wil be ineffective and roof will be perforated. Even if ERA effectiveness will be close to ~70% (what is impossible for that angle!) then warhed whit perforation 700-800mm RHA still will have enought big perforation vaue to perforate 40-70mm RHA thick roof.

 

[hest]

Like for all ERA - with Kontakt-5 and Relikt. For almoust all ERA in shape thin "brick" (http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5_1.jpg) efectivness is depend on angle. And if ERAWA-2 can stop 66% PzF-3IT warhed (900-1000mm RHA perforation) for angle of incidence equal to 30 degrees. (what is without any doubt given in tekst -its fakt not opinnion) then perforamce for bigger degree (60) will be mucht mucht worse. But its typical for all ERA -including Kontakt-5 and Relikt. Sorry but all ERA casette are simmilar in this problem. Of course there is solution - like in most of the ERA for side armour when whery thick ERA module (unposible to place this on turret roof) have 2-3 ERA layers whit...yes, again angle of incidence equal to 30 degrees but inside the casette. (like hee: http://ptisidiastima.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/m19arat-c.jpg) I have hope that this what I had wrote is clear.

All ERA whit thickness like thin brick have the same problem - relatio between angle and efectivness. Its the same problem for ALL ERA: ERAWA-1, ERAWA2, CERAWA, Kontakt-5, Relikt, etc. Becouse single ERA casette is dependend on angle.
This problem is lower in thic side ERA modules like ARAT, or NII Stali side modules or Blazer becouse in that kind of ERA internal ERA layout still give between 30 and 60 angle.
Of course one ERA (ERAWA-2, Relikt, Dyna, Nóż) using many diffrent metods can achive bigger protection for "diffciult" angle of incidence then oder ERA (ERAWA-1, Kontakt-1, older Kontakt-5) in even better angle of incidence. Its a matter of technique used and internal ERA laout, used material HE etc.

What you describe is basic working method of planar reactive armour. It is the same effectiveness dependance based on angle of incidence (obliquity of elements, plates against cumulative jet), be it Kontakt, ERAWA or Kontakt-V in several degrees.

But this is against single warhead, and there is no relation at all against tandem Panzerfaust test. It is impossible for such elements to have interaction lenght long enought to match delay of main warhead, they will only affect tandem warhead when it is situated over plate, elements flying path, when it will be destroyed without initiation as I showed on scheme.

Erawa-2 will only affect tandem warhead at angle of incidence of 30 degrees in middle-upper part of cassette, same will happen with Kontakt-V, etc, this is very basic and generally known fact, that main warhead will be destroyed in angles close to normal, thus author mentions tests close to normal of 15-30 degrees which are most favorable conditions, if it was as you say, it would be the opposite, when it is more effective the bigger the angle there is from normal.

In rest of situations it is not effective at all. Effectiveness is required not only by geometry, but interaction time.

You still don't understand it's not simple "double" somthing. It's diffrence in used HE material in ERA bricks, in HB scale in RHA plates and others.

Point would be comparing ERAWA with Kontakt, there is no point on arguing over superiority based on ERAWA-2 which is double element.

Becouse for assumed and required cover in +/-30 for longitiudal axis of turret and hull is enought and more then enought:

And it's stupid to pretend that a single ERA brick can stop HEAT warhed whit perforation equal ~1000mm RHA + precursor when angle of hit is bigger then 30 degree.
And when we back to the topic: there is no diffrence between placed ERAWA-2 or Relikt on tank turret roof - ERA hit on more then 60 degree for "diving" top-attack ATGM wil be ineffective and roof will be perforated. Even if ERA effectiveness will be close to ~70% (what is impossible for that angle!) then warhed whit perforation 700-800 still will have enought big perforation vaue to perforate 40-70mm RHA thick roof. It's really simple. And there is no one known test when ERA casette in thickness like for ERAWA-2 or Relikt was able to stop even single SC warhed when angle of incidence was equal between 70 and 85 degrees (like for diving top attack ATGM's) and protected by ERA armour has only 40-70mm RHA thick. Thats reson why APS are so necessary.

Back to original point, Relikt will destroy Javelin, Spike warhead without initiation in angle of incidence from normal to 30 degrees. In rest of situations (30-70 degrees...) due to high obliquity of thick high hardness metal plate interacting with main cumulative jet during about 200 microseconds, it will completely destabilise and destroy it, with neglible parasitic effect. Javelin, Spike has little chance against top protected with Relikt and such modern reactive armour.

For comparison, ERAWA-2 has no chance in angle of incidence of more than 30 degrees as it is impossible for it to reach 400 microseconds duration.

Greate - but there is no one article (and I don'y find that article) when is showned Relikt and it's possibilities to o stop single SC warhed when angle of incidence was equal between 70 and 85 degrees and protected armour is only 40-70mm RHA thick.
Do you have this evidence? I don't.
You try to put article about side BMP protection using thick ERA modules whit multi layers ERA (whit angle 30-60 degree inside) to proof that completly diffrent in layout Relikt or Kontakt-5 can stop HEAT warhed in case when angle of incidence is between 70 and 85 degree and covered armour is only 40-70mm thick. Sory - no way.

In such angle, main warhead of missile will be destroyed by steel plate without initiation. In rest, second reflected plate will destabilise and destroy cumulative jet completely due to high obliquity (more than 30 degrees).

Imperative of Relikt developement was to lenghten interaction to 400 microseconds to match delay of main warhead. The other situation is a given for all reactive armours (Kontakt, ERAWA, etc). Look at scheme...

I've already explained that exactly in older posts.

You can contradict test results, and try to explain how delay of main warhead is matched by ERAWA.

You miss specific situation which I explained.

No, it's not. Back to the photos or pdf. There was alway single ERAWA-2 casette against HEAT warhed so this CD example is pointlles, and the result was achive by using more sophisticated materials and layout then you try to input.

It has little to do with situation which I explained.

It is same situation as scheme of Kontakt in CD. I'll explain you this way, so you could see.

Get figures for lenght of ERAWA-2 cassete, and lenght of Panzerfaust from precursor to main warhead.

Place Panzerfaust with angle of incidence of 15-30 degrees in middle part of ERAWA cassette. Calculate lenght of Panzerfaust in horizontal axis, and see how it is directly above of reactive armour element. In all such situations reaction will affect main warhead.

Now understand why it is staged ??

No, Kontakt-1 can't deal whit dobuble HEAT.
ERAWA-2 have nothing common whit Kontakt-1:
- totally different internal design and layout
- diffrent material use
- havierRHA plates (in fact Kontakt-1 is very delicate adn ERAWa-1/2 can stand even napalm)
etc.
And for ERAWA-2 anti-tandem properties are normal in use - ERAWA-2 slightly can deal with SC warhed whit precursor for angle about 30-35 degree. As I mentioned and put photos about Panzerfaust, LAW, PG-7VR test...
And this angle 30-35 degree can achive completly normal protection for MBT on battelfield.

Every single planar reactive armour will deal tandem warhead at incidence close to normal, in situations which I explained.

But it is impossible to match delay of main warhead, thus guarantee protection at most angles as does Relikt.

You event don't try to read what I posted. Precursor in most HEAT warhed (PzF-3, LAW, PG-7VR, RPG-29, RPG-32) have small diameter (30-50mm) and can perforate only about 150-200mm RHA. Due to hight HB scale, thick external plate and angle 30-35 degree jet from precursor must overcome more then twice external LOS plate whit about 500HB scale - after that jet hit thin high sensitivity HE material layer and external RHA plate just eliminates the precursor jet. Even if (it's not so obvious...) jet from precursor perforate internal RHA plate there is very different in properties insensitive HE. Time reaction between blow out external HE (and in the same external RHA plate) and internal HE layer and RHA plate is extended up to that point when the jet from main HEAT warhed will be hit by internal RHA plate and HE blast. Thats the reson why ERAWA-2 have only 46mm thick cassette and can deal with HEAT warhed whit precursor. Germans and Swedish developers where veru suprised ERAWA-2 perforamnce.

Precursor of Panzerfaust, RPG is different from ATGM, it has no such delay regulator.

Vampir RPG warhead was developed to destroy reactive elements without initiation, rather than detonate. That was achieved in tests even without perforating plate by hydraulic effect, more intense, the thicker the cassete (cover) is, or by controlled action of fragments.

Against ERAWA-2 with it's explosive element, Panzerfaust would cause initiation as was seen in your tests.
If you try to say that there will be localisation of effect, no, it is not possible.

In fact your theories and explanation of working method would contradict tests which you showed.

 

[militarysta]

I will answer later - you try to transfer working idea Kontak-5 and Relikt when longer ERA cassette and elemnts in them interact whit cumulative jet to shorter ERAWA-2 cassette which operate on a slighty different principle.

Back to original point, Relikt will destroy Javelin, Spike warhead without initiation in angle of incidence from normal to 30 degrees. In rest of situations (30-70 degrees...) due to high obliquity of thick high hardness metal plate interacting with main cumulative jet during about 200 microseconds, it will completely destabilise and destroy it, with neglible parasitic effect. Javelin, Spike has little chance against top protected with Relikt and such modern reactive armour.

Nonsens - ERA effectivnes will be mucht lower for 60-80 degree. It can't be 90% as in this all stupid ads on btvt. It just must be lower value. And no matter if it will be 50 or 60% effectivnes for ERA on turret top for diving during attack top-attac ATGM whit angle bigger then 60 degree. HEAT warhed wit 700mm will be enought becouse minimum value to defedet turret roof is 150mm RHA to ignit ammo or kill crew + 40-70mm RHA turret roof which give us only 190-220mm RHA perforation value. So on ERA cassette HEAT in Spike can lost even 73% of perforation value And it's no way to achive so big ERA effectiveness for angles bigger then 60-70 degree. It's just impossible for known ERA able to place on turret roof.

 

[hest]

I will answer later - you try to transfer working idea Kontak-5 and Relikt when longer ERA cassette and elemnts in them interact whit cumulative jet to shorter ERAWA-2 cassette which operate on a slighty different principle.

I am not sure about what are you saying here.

Only possibility for ERAWA-2 to affect main warhead, is for it to be located in vulnerable zone within effect of reactive element as in test conditions of your advertisement.

Nonsens - ERA effectivnes will be mucht lower for 60-80 degree. It can't be 90% as in this all stupid ads on btvt. It just must be lower value. And no matter if it will be 50 or 60% effectivnes for ERA on turret top for diving during attack top-attac ATGM whit angle bigger then 60 degree. HEAT warhed wit 700mm will be enought becouse minimum value to defedet turret roof is 150mm RHA to ignit ammo or kill crew + 40-70mm RHA turret roof which give us only 190-220mm RHA perforation value. So on ERA cassette HEAT in Spike can lost even 73% of perforation value And it's no way to achive so big ERA effectiveness for angles bigger then 60-70 degree. It's just impossible for known ERA able to place on turret roof.

First, effect of reactive armour is not measured by fixed percentage, that is no more than for advertisement.

Cumulative jet less than 700 mm of perforation after interaction has no chance against Relikt.

Kontakt for example reduced effectiveness of about 400-500 mm (against jet with 500 mm perforation, after interaction left parasitic effect with perforation of about 50-80 mm) in angle of 30 degrees.

For angle of less than 30 degrees main warhead in most situations will be destroyed by steel plate without detonation.

So what don't you understand about functioning method of planar reactive elements ??

 

[Damian]

Lidsky, what You are doing here is nothing more than a pure propaganda and advertisement.

Whithout any facts, without any data, without even a single proof You claims that:

Relikt will destroy Javelin, Spike warhead without initiation in angle of incidence from normal to 30 degrees. In rest of situations (30-70 degrees...) due to high obliquity of thick high hardness metal plate interacting with main cumulative jet during about 200 microseconds, it will completely destabilise and destroy it, with neglible parasitic effect. Javelin, Spike has little chance against top protected with Relikt and such modern reactive armour.

This is complete nonsense and BS. Relikt is not even advanced ERA comparable to Knife or Dublet.

You are accusing other of doing advertisement, but in the same time You are even worse... ----in propagandist.

It is just immposible for ERA to protect 80mm thick (max!) turret roof armor, against even destabilized shaped charge jet, there is not even any stand off so damaged jet can dissperse.

 

[farhan_9909]

China new tank mbt3000 underdevelopment

will be for export as well

Main Battle Tank 3000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sob]

Farhan any idea on the weight of this Tank.

 

[Akim]

China new tank mbt3000 underdevelopment

will be for export as well

Main Battle Tank 3000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

looked photo and read text - honoured saw nothing new. So any tank can do updating. Only for him will be attractive, it is a price. Нно only without machinations, as in Peru, when the Chinese tried to sell the tank, at price of BM Oplot.

 

[Damian]

MBT-3000 is nothing special, NORINCO even compromised itself when they shown prototype with signs of rust inside.

Besides this, if they still use composite armor only at turret front, I see a serious flaw in turret geometry design. In MBT-3000 turret side armor is most probably still protected only by thing RHA armor, and what is worse, it is now far more exposed to the shots withint vehicle 60 degrees frontal arc zone, than in previous Chinese tanks.

To be honest, there are better products than Chinese tanks, this is good only for countries that are unable to afford anything better be it Russian, Ukrainian made, or made in NATO countries.

 

[Apollyon]

MBT-3000 is nothing special, NORINCO even compromised itself when they shown prototype with signs of rust inside.

This picture ?