Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

If Tanks have to evolve, which path they should follow?

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 25 7.3%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 57 16.7%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 198 58.1%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 61 17.9%

  • Total voters
    341

sesha_maruthi27

New Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
3,963
Likes
1,803
Country flag
Kontakt-5 ERA

The Kontakt-5 EDZ is the explosive reactive armour (ERA) currently installed on Russian MBTs. It is often referred to as 2nd generation, heavy-duty, or integral ERA.




Where the conventional ERAs are only capable of defeating shaped-charge jets, Kontakt-5 can also defeat APFSDS rounds. Because of Kontakt-5, long-rod penetrators can lose over 30% of their penetration potential and the protected vehicle becomes immune to them.

This type of ERA can be easily recognized as it gives the vehicle outfitted with it a distinct 'clam-shell' appearance.

It is believed that while protected by Kontakt-5 ERA, Russian MBTs cannot be penetrated across the frontal arc by the M256 guns firing M829A1 APFSDS ammo.

In addition, thanks to their heavier (15 mm hard steel) front plate, the Kontakt-5 elements are harder to trigger by the precursor charges of tandem warheads, forcing the producers of tandem ATGMs to allocate more mass to precursor charge and, making an MBT more resistant to tandem HEAT warheads, as well.



Spent Kontakt-5
The second section from the right is spent. Notice lack of damage to the Kontakt-5 outer shell
It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection.



T-90 turret closeup.
The main components of Shtora EOCMDAS and frontal Kontakt-5 ERA arrays are very well visible.


Specifications:

Package mass: 3 t

Added protection, RHA rating (as stated by NII Stali):
vs APFSDS: 250 mm
vs HEAT: 600 mm


This armor package is developed by NII Stali (Research Institute of Steel), the leading Russian developer of applique protection packages; Russian Federation pat. No 2064154 from 27.05.92.
 
Last edited:

sesha_maruthi27

New Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
3,963
Likes
1,803
Country flag
Kontakt-5 Heavy ERA

The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around 1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300 mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U (~720 mm total).

We've done a lot of work to analyze how effective Kontakt-5 is and by what methods it defeats the incoming APFSDS rounds. The results of the analysis are quite impressive in their own rough and limited way. We assumed that the Kontakt-5 brick was 10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick, with a mass of 10.35 kg. We arrived at a total mass of 2.8 t for the array. We later found out from Steven Zagola's literature that the array is supposed to be around three tonnes, so we were pretty happy. Assuming the use of Semtex for the inter-layer, I found that the configuration was most likely a 15 mm plate up front, backed by 35 mm of explosive, and then a 20 mm plate. This asymmetrical configuration had improved effectiveness because the APFSDS rod could still 'catch' the retreating rear plate while the front plate would retain a characteristic high velocity. This is completely opposite to the model that the US Army used in the late 1980s to describe 'heavy' ERA. In their model, the front plate was on the order of 60 mm thick and the rear a standard 5 mm plate. They thought that the thick plate simply moved up into the path of the incoming long rod and forced it to make a 'slot' (thickness x height) rather than a hole (thickness). This is bogus; the front plate would tamp the explosive and would be barely set in motion.

Anyway, back to the point. Without getting into the actual math, after a couple of analyses, we arrived at our conclusion as to what defeat mechanisms were being imployed. These conclusions have not yet been conclusively proved and we hope to do that soon. We assumed that the massive areal density of the long rod perforated the thin plates with relative ease. Actual ablatic penetrator mass loss was set at about 2%. What we found was that we had these two plates, each individually with about 60% the momentum of the long rod penetrator, were moving oppositely up/down to each other, and that the path of the penetrator was such that it was moving between them. The forces exerted on the penetrator are apparently very large, so large in fact that they were in the region of plastic failure for most (read: all) metals. Essentially, when the penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20% (to a maximum of around 30%). This is mainly because a blunt nose is very inefficient in the initial phase of penetration before the ablatic shear phase can begin. The penetrator has to actually sharpen itself to the optimum Von Karam plastic wave theory shape for penetration of the target material before it can begin radially displacing the target material. This resolves itself in the form of a lot of wasted work and thus penetrator mass. The blunted penetrator also suffers structural damage and more mass loss as a shock wave travels down its length and blows spall off the tail. The main secondary effect of Kontakt-5 EDZ against APFSDS rounds is yaw induced by the front plate before contact with the rear plate is established. The total is about two to three degrees of yaw, which suddenly becomes a lot more in a denser material such as steel. Reduction in penetration due to a 2° yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially worse from there, and on the 67° slope of the front glacis of the T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%.

Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.

So was I surprised by the results? Not really. I had expected penetrator yaw to be the primary defeat mechanism, but otherwise we had verified the effectiveness of Kontakt-5 before it became general public knowledge, which is great bragging rights.

Of course, now the goal is to do a rigorous mathematical proof.

Anyway,

APFSDS round is defeated by Kontakt-5



APFSDS round is defeated by Kontakt-5 (X-ray photo)

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
I want to only remind that all thes informations are preatty old, from around 90's, and Ogorkiewicz is wrting about old M829 from 1980's. Short term dolution against Kontakt-5 was designed in 1990's (M829A2), long term solution was developed in late 90's and early XXI (M829A3), next generation solution is in the final R&D phase (M829E4/M829A4).
 

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
Yes, I have seen but the Problem remain same, Their is a new upgrade with ERA put over the vulnerable area, But that doesn't solve the problem, It need a total new deign..
which problem?
the real problem is turret of western design Leopard-2 for example, not chieniese.
 

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
So Andrei, maybe reckonsider Your attitude, if not to UVZ designs, to at least non soviet designs... especially that You have tendency to ignore their history and the changes and improvements they went through their service life.
you have a good fantasy drawing some "assumed" abrams armor which does not exist.

Andrei_bt assumed that M1's side armor
It is what it is, on photo.
Maybe you try and find your photo to support you fantasy, than it will worth something.

"Complete disaster", "shot trap", I do not see complete disaster nor shot trap, and Your faith in ERA is really silly, like it would be some super armor, ERA have disadvantages also, like anything else, and I see a smart move in NII Stali statements about decision to go from explosive reactive material in to non explosive, that will probably also have multi hit capability. Even Knife and Duplet have disadvantages.
You knowladge about ERA is close to zero, so I don't consider this discussion deserving attention.

Oh, but they were messured (we have photos), and Militarysta is currently working to have new photos of messures in better quality.
Outstanding style of measurment - try to bent the ruller more for better result :rofl:
 

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
And any proof to Your statements? I was aksing for hard proof, and still nothing, because You have no proof to Your silly statements about complete inferiority of western designs.
may you provide me such "my" statements about "complete inferiority of western designs".
 

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.
Kontakt-5 armor adds about 120...130 mm of armor equivalent vs apfsds.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
which problem?
the real problem is turret of western design Leopard-2 for example, not chieniese.
The Problem we all can see, The inclined roof..

Putting ERA is an answer ?



Regarding LEO deign, we know..
 

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
We should consider that heavy metal alloys used in armors and APFSDS penetrators (at least these modern ones) are very different than these widely known to public. Also they do not act alone but as a whole with other materials. They are only one of many elements of protection... but still we should threat them as important element.
See there are some people which assume Chobham armour would include no ceramics - and ceramics are known for having some big advantages as armour material - but they say "it could be just false claims made to irritate the enemy" and they want a proof that ceramics are used in the armour. But nobody ever wanted a proof that there is DU in the armour (maybe we could take the way damaged M1A1HA/HC were treatened as proof), although DU is from the known characteristics not better than ceramic armour can be. I think it is possible/probable that they use DU armour but I don't doubt for no reason that Chobham might include ceramics.

@Andrei_bt, would you please elaborate the following statements further:

the real problem is turret of western design Leopard-2 for example, not chieniese.
Where exactly do you see a problem with Western turret design?

Kontakt-5 armor adds about 120...130 mm of armor equivalent vs apfsds.
Would you please give me/us the name of the source which includes this values or how you came to these values.

Outstanding style of measurment - try to bent the ruller more for better result :rofl:
As far as I see the steel behind the flat frontal box (i.e. in front of the main gun) is not as high as the armour box. Just the down-pressing of the ruler (to closely match the real thickness) might have lead to the "bending". You might have noticed that the measuring tape is not exactly parallel to the mantlet side, but both bending and slightly off angle shouldn't falsify the armour thickness much. ~50 cm seems to be correct.

@Damian

For example You consider that BM Oplot is some super tank, at least it looks like. But in fact in many things it is prehistoric for today standards, it can shoot GLATGM but it seems that designers of FCS are not completely using this advantage. If You want to use precision guided munitions, it would be good to have as high as possible zoom for sights, so the gunner can guide missile in to weak zones precisely. In this perfect is just new FCS mounted in M1A2SEP with maximal 25x and digital 50x zoom for main sight or TC CITV. This have also other advantages, why even tank should fire itself to far located targets? Lase it, computer will calculate distance, then it will calculate coordinates and voila, TC can send them to artillery via BMS.
That's not really true. ATGMs have a large CEP, all I know have a CEP greater than 0.5 m (so up to two - three kilometers range late APFSDS have a better accuracy) - higher zoom does therefore not increase the accuracy, but only increases the maximum distance for spotting and identifying enemies.
 

Austin

New Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
the real problem is turret of western design Leopard-2 for example, not chieniese.
What is that real problem with Leo-2 turret design ?

Have you done your own analysis of Arjun tank and its turret design and if so can you please link it.
 

Austin

New Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
Kontakt-5 armor adds about 120...130 mm of armor equivalent vs apfsds.
Correct 1.2 for export and 1.4 - 1.5 for non export over base armour , so it should be 120 --130 mm for export and 140-150 mm for non export.
 

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
On a russian forum some time back, I read someone say that the Shtora electronic protection suite is what differentiates the Russian T90 from the Indian T90s, and that this difference is significant. A T-90 with the Shtora, apparently, is miles ahead of a T-90 without it. Kinda like the difference between a Su-30 MKI, and the Chinese MKK. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Russian Shtora-1 does not react on modern western lasers emission wavelength. Solved on Ukrainian "Varta".
 

Andrei_bt

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
344
Likes
76
Correct 1.2 for export and 1.4 - 1.5 for non export over base armour , so it should be 120 --130 mm for export and 140-150 mm for non export.
Quit this, no export\non-export Kontakt exist.
This is same for Russian and Indian tanks - but it is not the question.
Main - ERA coverage of Russian T-90A is an outrage. But important to notice - even if it is installed it is not effective against modern apfsds, and tandem munitions.
 

Articles

Top