Russian Tanks ERA and APS

Why I think western armour has not changed much is the reason even why T-90A got pierced in testings - RPG-29. That gun itself I believed pierced a Challanger II tank, which is even heavier than M1A1. wrote:

This tests were performed 1999, the first T-90A was built in 2004, so it's a standard T-90 not T-90A that was pierced.

[quote="GarryB"]

The US will soon come to the conclusion that with ERA and APS and with other systems and features and characteristics like the weight of new high power long rod ammo making autoloaders necessary that the next uber US tank will be a vehicle in the 45-55 ton weight range with ERA and APS and an autoloader and a main gun that fires missiles as well as standard rounds... yeah... the next gen US tank will be the T-90AM     THEY WISH.  

I thought US already had similar prototypes. Like the one with 2 crew members, weighting 40 tons, low profile and etc. Next US tank would probably look like Armata. It would be next step for tank design.
Still I think when it comes to fusing best worlds of tanks that are operated today, K2 and AMX-56 stand out as very good platforms. Not pretending that I am tank guru, but for me they look best compromises. Biggest drawback would be the price.

Regular wrote:
I thought US already had similar prototypes. Like the one with 2 crew members, weighting 40 tons, low profile and etc. Next US tank would probably look like Armata. It would be next step for tank design.

Aaah, i remember that.

Regular wrote:
Still I think when it comes to fusing best worlds of tanks that are operated today, K2 and AMX-56 stand out as very good platforms. Not pretending that I am tank guru, but for me they look best compromises. Biggest drawback would be the price.

Lets see:
K2:L/55 Rheinmetal Smooth bore 120-mm gun. A 55 caliber smooth bore gun which the tank can hold 40 rounds of varying ammunition from SABOT to HEAT rounds. More notably it fires a Korean made round called the KSTAM or Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition, also features an auto-loader similar in design to that of the one placed in French Leclerc main battle tanks; confirmed by the defense contractor Giat Industries.

Leclerc:The Leclerc features a CN120-26 120 mm smooth bore main gun, built by Giat, who are no Nexter. The tank can fire all (theoretically) German/NATO 120 mm ammunition rounds however as a good gesture to French ammunition makers, they only use French made ammunition. as it features a custom auto-loader which is why only 3 crewman are needed. Auto-loader enables the tank to fire 12 rounds per minute and the loader itself holds 22 rounds of ammunition which it can readily load and fired.

Between the two i would go with the K2, although price wise the best compromise is still the T-90/72 if you ask me.

Werewolf wrote:

This tests were performed 1999, the first T-90A was built in 2004, so it's a standard T-90 not T-90A that was pierced.

Those test results are sketchy too.
Fofanov removed them from his website due to uncertainty of accuracy.

With the 3 crew shoulder to shoulder in an armored capsule, wouldnt side protection be compromised?

AlfaT8 wrote:
Between the two i would go with the K2, although price wise the best compromise is still the T-90/72 if you ask me.

Id say put a turret bustle on the T-90 and it will be equal to the K2, though the cost/performance would go through the roof. 

With the 3 crew shoulder to shoulder in an armored capsule, wouldnt side protection be compromised?

Side protection is always a compromise.

On a normal standard tank (east west north or south design) statistics have shown the most likely part to get hit is the turret front so it is universally the most heavily protected area on any tank with a manned turret.

Next heaviest protected is the hull front... with both turret and hull protected over about 60 degrees of angle from the front.

By making the turret unmanned it no longer needs the heavy armour and the heaviest armour on the vehicle can be concentrated on the front hull to maximise crew protection without having an excessively heavy vehicle.

In the armata the front crew area will consist of a capsule that offers the best protection for the crew from enemy fire and from penetration and detonation of ammo or fuel on board.

Id say put a turret bustle on the T-90 and it will be equal to the K2, though the cost/performance would go through the roof.

Personally I liked the Burlak concept of a removable autoloader in the turret bustle area with 31 rounds ready to fire that could be loaded by a crane like a rifle magazine. Load one with 22 rounds and use the autoloader to move them into the underfloor magazine and then remove and replace with a full 31 round autoloader so you are fully armed with 53 rounds ready to fire, no ammo in the troop compartment. Any successful enemy attempt to ignite the turret bustle ammo can be countered by either fire suppression systems... it is separate from the crew compartment so it doesn't matter if they are poisonous, or in the worst case you can just eject the autoloader and ammo to burn on its own and simply continue with the 22 rounds in the under floor auto loader...

New generation of reactive protective elements (likely based on the NII Stali relatively latest breakthrough in energetic-active materials) already tested for implementation in Armata and Kurganet-25.


http://vpk.name/news/113359_traktornyie_zavodyi_sovershenstvuyut__zashitu_bronetankovoi_tehniki.html

Mindstorm wrote:
New generation of reactive protective elements (likely based on the NII Stali relatively latest breakthrough in energetic-active materials) already tested for implementation in Armata and Kurganet-25.


http://vpk.name/news/113359_traktornyie_zavodyi_sovershenstvuyut__zashitu_bronetankovoi_tehniki.html

Reactive armor is significantly less effective with two stage munitions able to defeat it as can hyper sonic hardened rounds.

RTN wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:
New generation of reactive protective elements (likely based on the NII Stali relatively latest breakthrough in energetic-active materials) already tested for implementation in Armata and Kurganet-25.


http://vpk.name/news/113359_traktornyie_zavodyi_sovershenstvuyut__zashitu_bronetankovoi_tehniki.html

Reactive armor  is significantly less effective with two stage munitions able to defeat it as can hyper sonic hardened rounds.

That is why 4S23 Relikt ERA was invented, it can deal with Tandem shaped charged warheads and long rods. Already Kontak 5 had shown effectivness against long rod APFSDS.

Werewolf wrote:

RTN wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:
New generation of reactive protective elements (likely based on the NII Stali relatively latest breakthrough in energetic-active materials) already tested for implementation in Armata and Kurganet-25.


http://vpk.name/news/113359_traktornyie_zavodyi_sovershenstvuyut__zashitu_bronetankovoi_tehniki.html

Reactive armor  is significantly less effective with two stage munitions able to defeat it as can hyper sonic hardened rounds.

That is why 4S23 Relikt ERA was invented, it can deal with Tandem shaped charged warheads and long rods. Already Kontak 5 had shown effectivness against long rod APFSDS.

I've heard that in the late 90's Russia tested the armor on the T-90 and found it could defeat many APFSDS rounds along with a couple RPG rounds. This could be false though.... Adding "Relikt" ERA would be huge, that along with newer armor and APS systems would create an almost "unbeatable" tank.

1999 T-90 was tested against RPG7 (650mm RHA pen).,RPG29 (750mm RHA pen.), Kornet (1200mm RHA pen.)and APFSDS 3BM42 (600-650mm RHA pen.).


The tests 1999 were tested on T-80U and T-90, the T-90 had the 7 layered composite armor like the T-72B not the same that is currently used in T-90A or even T-90A1 which is 8 layered, not to mention T-90MS.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations. No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA. Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.

ATGMs
T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target. No other ATGMs could penetrate.

APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

The following pictures show the locations of impacts by ATGL RPG-29 (in red) and ATGM Kornet (in black) against ERA-equipped vehicles. Which of these hits penetrated was not disclosed.

Werewolf wrote:1999 T-90 was tested against RPG7 (650mm RHA pen).,RPG29 (750mm RHA pen.), Kornet (1200mm RHA pen.)and APFSDS 3BM42 (600-650mm RHA pen.).


The tests 1999 were tested on T-80U and T-90, the T-90 had the 7 layered composite armor like the T-72B not the same that is currently used in T-90A or even T-90A1 which is 8 layered, not to mention T-90MS.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations. No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA. Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.

ATGMs
T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target. No other ATGMs could penetrate.

APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

The following pictures show the locations of impacts by ATGL RPG-29 (in red) and ATGM Kornet (in black) against ERA-equipped vehicles. Which of these hits penetrated was not disclosed.

Thank you so much! I couldn't find this information for the longest time!

It is funny that most people doubt the protective capabilities of the T-90, they are dead wrong.

Now imagine this with the thicker armor and Relikt!

Werewolf wrote:1999 T-90 was tested against RPG7 (650mm RHA pen).,RPG29 (750mm RHA pen.), Kornet (1200mm RHA pen.)and APFSDS 3BM42 (600-650mm RHA pen.).


The tests 1999 were tested on T-80U and T-90, the T-90 had the 7 layered composite armor like the T-72B not the same that is currently used in T-90A or even T-90A1 which is 8 layered, not to mention T-90MS.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations. No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA. Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.

ATGMs
T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target. No other ATGMs could penetrate.

APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

The following pictures show the locations of impacts by ATGL RPG-29 (in red) and ATGM Kornet (in black) against ERA-equipped vehicles. Which of these hits penetrated was not disclosed.

Supposedly this report is not real, confirmed by website author himself (he since long ago no longer updates the site).

And where did he say it is not true?

I've heard many different reports, all of which say it did occur.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18913&p=401721

And why would he claim that on a tank nut forum instead putting a note on his actual own site which he pays money for?

Actually he did not clearify anything of it, he just said he has doubts.

Typically I would look deeper into this, but... There are many sources saying that this event did occur, and that "tank-net" thread is full of crap. Not only that, but there are reports of T-90's sustaining similar damage in Chechnya and Georgia among others. 

"Full of crap" - Notice how they only mention it in a couple comments, and that they quickly changed the subject to something else. Had they had a thread on the subject, and/or provided actual sorces, it would be much more believable. One or two people's opinions doesn't equal the truth, as in this case.

Also, please provide the source of " confirmed by website author himself (he since long ago no longer updates the site)".

I just did.  He stopped updating that site a long time ago.

Please feel free to provide an original source for the report if you don't think Fofanov's doubts raise concerns about its veracity.  Everything I can find on this report points back to Fofanov's website, except some vague references to the original source being a post in a Russian language forum.

Soooo? The mans got a life, him "getting out of the business" doesn't change a fact.

 - Have you provided your source? NOPE! While "Fofanov's site" appears to be the original source of that info (on the web), it could be found elsewhere. Many forum goers (not only RD) see this test as actually happening, and TND mentions in on the article about the T-90.

Mike E wrote:Typically I would look deeper into this, but... There are many sources saying that this event did occur, and that "tank-net" thread is full of crap. Not only that, but there are reports of T-90's sustaining similar damage in Chechnya and Georgia among others. 

"Full of crap" - Notice how they only mention it in a couple comments, and that they quickly changed the subject to something else. Had they had a thread on the subject, and/or provided actual sorces, it would be much more believable. One or two people's opinions doesn't equal the truth, as in this case.

Also, please provide the source of " confirmed by website author himself (he since long ago no longer updates the site)".

T-90 wasn't in Chechnya it was a T-72 version probably S version intended for export and in Georgia no newer tank than T-72 were used, not that anything new would be needed for Georgia.

I just did. He stopped updating that site a long time ago.

Well, not really a reason to put his concerns about the report on a forum instead of his own website, i mean he still pays for it every year like any other person that runs a website for whatever purposes and that is also the point that does not make it 100% clear if it is even his account and he did not stated any statements what exactly his concerns are based on, i can surely understand which points in the report could bring concerns up but so far even he did not confirm it to be a hoax.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:Typically I would look deeper into this, but... There are many sources saying that this event did occur, and that "tank-net" thread is full of crap. Not only that, but there are reports of T-90's sustaining similar damage in Chechnya and Georgia among others. 

"Full of crap" - Notice how they only mention it in a couple comments, and that they quickly changed the subject to something else. Had they had a thread on the subject, and/or provided actual sorces, it would be much more believable. One or two people's opinions doesn't equal the truth, as in this case.

Also, please provide the source of " confirmed by website author himself (he since long ago no longer updates the site)".

T-90 wasn't in Chechnya it was a T-72 version probably S version intended for export and in Georgia no newer tank than T-72 were used, not that anything new would be needed for Georgia.

I just did.  He stopped updating that site a long time ago.

Well, not really a reason to put his concerns about the report on a forum instead of his own website, i mean he still pays for it every year like any other person that runs a website for whatever purposes and that is also the point that does not make it 100% clear if it is even his account and he did not stated any statements what exactly his concerns are based on, i can surely understand which points in the report could bring concerns up but so far even he did not confirm it to be a hoax.

My bad!!! It was just Georgia then... (I believe) 

 - Let me add that if the article is wrong/fake/hoax or whatever else, chances are the writer would admit it is a "fake" now that he doesn't run the site anymore.

Anyone knows if the Russian army use Arena protection in their active T-90a in service ?
Saw the parade in 2014 and didn't noticed their tanks using Arena.. any know?

Vann7 wrote:

Anyone knows if the Russian army use Arena protection in their active T-90a in service ?
Saw the parade in 2014 and didn't noticed their tanks using Arena.. any know?

I don't think they do... I could be wrong though.

ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

ARENA will be for export.

Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).