Russian Tanks ERA and APS

Nakidka and Bramble combined with a DIRCM system will significantly increase the survivability of vehicles against better equipped hostiles.

Shtora is a cold war weapon, designed to fight an enemy which relied heavily on the BGM-71 and it would have been frighteningly effective.

Wouldnt the aerosol screen can also be effective against Kornet as the screen would block the view of Kornet operator for couple of minutes and that would give time for the tank to slide off in any direction to its safety.

I mean as long as the smoke screen blocks the view of the tank in IR/Laser/Thermal and Optical Spectrum it would remain effective against all type of guidance barring perhaps RF MMW seeker that is used in F&F missile

Don't forget that Kornet's laser will not trip a laser warning system, so there wont be any aerosol screen there in the first place. IIRC the screen is also effective at disrupting radar due to metallic particulates in the smoke.

Wouldnt the aerosol screen can also be effective against Kornet as the screen would block the view of Kornet operator for couple of minutes and that would give time for the tank to slide off in any direction to its safety.

It would depend on when during the engagement the smoke is fired... there would be a critical period where the smoke as obscured the operators view long enough for the tank to have moved so the missile will miss, but not long enough for the operator to just move his point of aim to another target nearby to engage instead.

Otherwise too late with the smoke and the tank will likely get hit anyway, and too long and the operator can simply retarget another platform nearby.

Anotehr issue of course is that if the Kornet-EM is air launched from a UCAV at medium to high altitude and has been released perhaps at 5-6km range and 3-4km altitude even popping smoke might not suffice as the closure by the launching UCAV means by the time the missile impacts the UCAV will be well above the target so the missile and the beam directing the missile will be near vertical, whereas most defensive smoke screens are developed in front of the tank.

I mean as long as the smoke screen blocks the view of the tank in IR/Laser/Thermal and Optical Spectrum it would remain effective against all type of guidance barring perhaps RF MMW seeker that is used in F&F missile

But then that works both ways... what if a team are hiding in a forest with a Laser target marker/rangefinder and simply move to the edge of the forest and lase a few tanks for a short period and then withdraw back into the forest. The tanks that get lased will of course pop smoke and move rapidly to where they think they will have cover based on the general direction they got lased from.

Once they pop smoke they will be blind too, so a battery of Kristantema vehicles can open up on them from 6km away safe in the knowledge they are being blocked by their targets own countermeasures...

The result will likely be that they will stop popping smoke immediately and will become more cagey about doing so which means Kornet units will become much more dangerous as their low power beams are difficult to detect.

That is not to say Shtora is useless... it is just an added layer of protection just like ERA, just like DIRCMS, just like APS, just like Nakidka... just like paint and a few branches.

I don't think the Shtora system is fully present in the T-90MS, I can only see the LWS embedded on either side of the turret and the accompanying smoke and aerosol grenades.

Wouldnt the aerosol screen can also be effective against Kornet as the screen would block the view of Kornet operator for couple of minutes and that would give time for the tank to slide off in any direction to its safety.

Aerosol screen generated by 3D17 grenades do not last for minutes but for seconds (15-25 seconds depending on environmental wind and thermal conditions).

This segment of efficiency ,obviously, refer exclusively to the time window where density of the active screening elements ,in the generated layer, is still high enough to prevent enemy laser beams to being still capable to designate the protected vehicles or prevent missile seekers employing IR homing to maintain its lock (an event that cause enemy missiles to go lost almost instantly ), but in the visible spectrum ,placed on the boundary of its covered wavelengths, an observer could be capable to recognize useful details of the protected vehicles much before the specified time.

In substance the efficiency of the Shtora's screen ,as a function of time, degrade starting from the less critical high frequency electromagnetic spectrum covered.

This is also the main reason for which efficiency of Shtora against television guided missiles is significantly lowered in respect to that against laser and IR guided ones ; this happen in spite that, as previously explained ,a second or two of lock's loss is almost always more than sufficient to ultimately neutralize the missile menace.


In order to prevent to a Kornet-E operator ,or even worse a Kornet-EM vehicle operator - capable to move in any direction at any speed while guiding the ATGM - to continue at provide useful guidance for its missile toward its target, the crew of the attacked vehicle should deliver manually other overlapping aerosol screens ,at relatively quick rate ,depleting very quickly the 3D17 reserve, and also that action would not assure the hindering of enemy guidance ; a vehicle's detail in the visible spectrum, as small as an antenna a side skirt or even the dust produced by the vehicle in motion would allow enemy operator to guide its Kornet toward the vehicle without any problem.



I repeat, that happen simply because Shtora's screen, to the contrary of what happen with laser or IR homing missiles, wouldn't break any "lock" between the missile seeker and the attacked vehicle , an event that almost instantly neutralize the menace, but should cover ANY direct and indirect signature element of the vehicle in the visible spectrum from Kornet operator for the entire length of missile's flight.

I can only see the LWS embedded on either side of the turret and the accompanying smoke and aerosol grenades.

You see well


Forward projecting frequency modulators of "Shtora" ,operating in a rather restricted spectrum, was purposely designed to provide a continuous, not depleteable, defensive measure highly effective against the flare collimators of BGM-71s and HOT ATGMs which was considered ,by analysts, the most common battlefield menaces that advancing forces would have encountered in the three major vectors of attack in Europe.

It was highly optimized (and very very highly efficient) for the specific role for which it was implemented at the time ; naturally today, with the prevailing estrangement of modern ATGM designs from this type of guidance, this element of Shtora , ,contrarely to the wide spectrum aerosol screening element, has lost a great portion of its defensive potential and, therefore, operative value.

Some intersting points on the new "hard kill" active protection system for "Armata" and brief history of active defense systems for heavy AFV in URSS.

Confirmed that "Афганит" ("Штандарт" was that developed for object 195) will surpass all foreign analogues now in development and will be capable to cope with both guided ammunitions and high velocity shells.

The version for Kurganet-25 will be likely a lighter version of thaty mounted on Armata.





http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/index.php?module=news&act=show&c=4&id=5006

Thanks for the link.

Any idea how shells are going to be dealt with?....shrapnel?...darts?...lasers?

GIven that future APS can intercept even Apfsds rounds, imo Russia should resign from building conventional tank guns(except for export and low threat use), and go into solid propellant electrothermal chemical hybrid gun tech instead. If the 2a82 gun uses tech above and they cant adapt it for t-90, they should go for Armata mbts all the way. Also, armata mbts unmanned turret provides much better modernization potential in the future ie replace turret module with railgun turret. Also now that there would be BMPT rmata , the mbt could be optimized for purely anti armor sniper use.

Also IMO if armata mbt would be as how i described it above, the APS for mbt wouldhave more longe range interceptors(for apfsds and guided missile) while bmpt could have more anti rpg, heat round short range interceptors

The thing is that APS systems can be directly attacked... if they track targets with radar then jam the radar... if they use IR or optical tracking then decoys and disguise... if all else fails... overwhelm with false targets till all its defence munitions are expended and then start firing with real ammo.

Don't think of APS as a solution to guns and missiles.

Treat it like the Russians treated everything... from Composite armour, ERA, EO jammers like Shtora, APS systems like ARENA and Drozd... they didn't decide their composite armour structure could just be made super thick and stop everything... they added ERA and they added Shtora and smoke grenades and Nakidka and APS systems so that even if each defence wasn't perfect on its own together with other technologies they would improve the protection of the vehicle from a wide range of threats without adding too much weight or cost.

I would expect new EM guns would lack accuracy and performance in their first models and the first guns will likely be artillery weapons for the navy because the size and power requirements are no problem on a large ship.

As the technology matures and performance improves it will be reduced to small arms size eventually unless another technology doesn't surpass it sooner.

Russians relied heavily on ERA because their composite armor technology was lagging behind the west. Even now they still don't have armor similar to Dorchester or armor installed on eg. M1A2 SEP or Leo 2A6

because their composite armor technology was lagging behind the west

What makes you think the properties of the T-90's armor is inferior to that of western tanks?

Zivo wrote:

because their composite armor technology was lagging behind the west

What makes you think the properties of the T-90's armor is inferior to that of western tanks?

Don't know about T-90MS armor but older T-90A still uses old armor technology which only gives ~500mm of RHA against HEAT at 0 degrees, as compared to ~1000mm of modern western tanks. Relatively its thickness is higher because the armor is heavily sloped.

Note that even some Russians tankers don't like T-90 so much and prefer older T-80U.

You didn't get what I meant. I said that the armor mounted on T-72/80/90 is heavily sloped so it provides a lot of additional protection. Just compare turrets of let's say T-90 with M1.

You overlooked one thing - T-72B indeed does have 1300mm frontal armor but that's together with Kontakt-5. Without ERA it's 900mm at the thickest point and normally 600-700mm. These data are from the same site you linked me to. 

As Sa'iqa wrote:

Zivo wrote:

because their composite armor technology was lagging behind the west

What makes you think the properties of the T-90's armor is inferior to that of western tanks?

Don't know about T-90MS armor but older T-90A still uses old armor technology which only gives ~500mm of RHA against HEAT at 0 degrees, as compared to ~1000mm of modern western tanks. Relatively its thickness is higher because the armor is heavily sloped.

Note that even some Russians tankers don't like T-90 so much and prefer older T-80U.

This post is laughable nonsense.

Sorry, but seriously....

As Sa'iqa wrote:You didn't get what I meant. I said that the armor mounted on T-72/80/90 is heavily sloped so it provides a lot of additional protection. Just compare turrets of let's say T-90 with M1.

No it isn't. .

Where are you getting this nonsense? No modern arrays rely on slope, not on the turret.

Slope increased protection vie richochet back in the day. Modern shells don't ricochet as much.
If you slope armor it is in no way a wright saver, since you could just make simpler, but thicker flat plate.

Russians relied heavily on ERA because their composite armor technology was lagging behind the west. Even now they still don't have armor similar to Dorchester or armor installed on eg. M1A2 SEP or Leo 2A6

Actually the opposite is true... the Soviets were deploying T-64s into service with composite armour well before the Challenger I or M1A1 Abrams or the Leopard 2 got anywhere near service...

Don't know about T-90MS armor but older T-90A still uses old armor technology which only gives ~500mm of RHA against HEAT at 0 degrees, as compared to ~1000mm of modern western tanks. Relatively its thickness is higher because the armor is heavily sloped.

Perhaps you need to source more reliable sources for your armour specs.

Note that even some Russians tankers don't like T-90 so much and prefer older T-80U.

I suspect you mean some Ukrainian nationalists like the T-80U over the T-90 because of national pride.

The T-80U has a different underfloor ammo storage arrangement where the propellent stubs are kept vertically and are not covered or protected from the crew compartment.

This means that any penetration of the turret area including sides and rear would result in a shower of sparks and hot burning material showering down on cardboard propellent stubs filled with propellent and designed to be consumed when fired. The result of any crew compartment penetration resulted in all of the propellent stubs igniting at once which as you might imagine is not good news for the crew.

The T-72 and T-90 series on the other hand have an armour plate over top of the propellent stubs that are lying flat and parallel to the floor so sparks and ash and hot metal would not reach them.

Talking about the slope of the armour is interesting, but only a fool would not slope their armour to further improve protection. The layers inside Dorchester armour and Chobham armour before it were designed to break up long rod penetrators like APFSDS rounds.

APFSDS rounds cannot be deflected by sloped armour only full calibre penetrators can be deflected by sloped armour and they are not used today except by heavy artillery (like the 152mm APHE shells still carried by Russian artillery).

The fact that Russian tanks manage to get the same overall protection as western tanks by using ERA and by sloping their armour yet in a tank that is 20 tons lighter than the western tank is very amusing.

Are you also going to criticise them for having a big powerful gun or effective new thermal imaging night vision devices too?

Are you going to complain that their 50 cal HMGs don't have to be head spaced or the timing checked every time they change a barrel like the old M2 US 50 cal?

How about Shtora... are you going to suggest it is inferior to western equivalents because they don't exist and therefore it is clearly a waste of time and money?

Note that even some Russians tankers don't like T-90 so much and prefer older T-80U.

Some Russian tankers prefer to drive BMP rather than tanks. My father in law for example. Does it mean anything?
And Russia might be lagging behind when it comes to armour materials, but i'm pretty sure it's not big gap. Not to mention composite armour was pioneered by Russians themselves. And I'm pretty sure it's more to do with Soviet union trying to save penny or two and not technological gap.

And about Khlopotov remarks.
It's better to be pessimistic rather than over-enthusiastic. Nothing to do with weather but rather with cancelled projects :)Still it's very bold statement that Armata is dead. Too early to say that.

Regular wrote:

Note that even some Russians tankers don't like T-90 so much and prefer older T-80U.

Some Russian tankers prefer to drive BMP rather than tanks. My father in law for example. Does it mean anything?
And Russia might be lagging behind when it comes to armour materials, but i'm pretty sure it's not big gap. Not to mention composite armour was pioneered by Russians themselves. And I'm pretty sure it's more to do with Soviet union trying to save penny or two and not technological gap.

And about Khlopotov remarks.
It's better to be pessimistic rather than over-enthusiastic. Nothing to do with weather but rather with cancelled projects :)Still it's very bold statement that Armata is dead. Too early to say that.

Pleas clarify what you mean by "armour materials".

AlfaT8 wrote:
Pleas clarify what you mean by "armour materials".

Sorry, what I meant to say that Western countries put a lot of emphasis on working with advanced composite materials especially in late Cold war till this day. Russia on other hand had big development pause after SU collapse, not to mention it stands alone when NATO countries cooperate in their research.
It would be only logical to assume that Russia today is lagging to these materials in PRACTICE when western countries have tested, produced and employed them. But now there is no need to simplify design for mass production, I'm not sure what is behind their sleeves.

Regular wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Pleas clarify what you mean by "armour materials".

Sorry, what I meant to say that Western countries put a lot of emphasis on working with advanced composite materials especially in late Cold war till this day. Russia on other hand had big development pause after SU collapse, not to mention it stands alone when NATO countries cooperate in their research.
It would be only logical to assume that Russia today is lagging to these materials in PRACTICE when western countries have tested, produced and employed them. But now there is no need to simplify design for mass production, I'm not sure what is behind their sleeves.

Armour materials have not changed much over the years.  It is pretty much the same thing: DU plating used on Chobham armour, which is the same since the 80's.  Actually, besides some improvement designs of lets say the M1A1, things regarding armour has not changed much other than additional plating and ERA added.

Armour materials in Russia has changed even during the 90's (Ukraine did as well).  Difference is, they had to go the cheap route rather than the overtly expensive route.  Hence why, the armour ratings is increasing the weight of the tank quite a bit, while Westerners are leaning towards trying to increase armour and decrease weight.

ERA, as much as a lot of people do not want to admit it, is really the future of modern tanks, and Russian's were at it longer.  Relict ERA is an example of where everyone is trying to lean to, and Russia is there first.  It is no secret that Kontact-1 was one of the reasons why USA wanted to learn about it, and improve their ERA capabilities, as they found East German tanks equipped with it, to be quite good in survivability.

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.

When it came to tanks and IFV, what made Russia behind others was the Thermal imager camera's that the rest of the world was using and Russia avoided development for so long as it was very costly and they did not have the industrial base to even produce thermal imagers until recently.  Now that gap has been filled and they develop inhouse equivalent of the Catherine-FC, and they manufacture Catherine-XP.  Armour though, was not lacking at all.  What was lacking was the crew protection from the ammunition in the tank itself, hence making it a bomb truck if it got hit in the right position.  M1A1 has a separate crew compartment from the ammunition so even if ammunition cooks off from being hit, the crew would be able to exist safely.

Also, it is funny that they work on advanced composites, since they import composites from Russia for even things like wings for aircrafts.

The fact that Russian tanks manage to get the same overall protection as western tanks by using ERA and by sloping their armour yet in a tank that is 20 tons lighter than the western tank is very amusing.

Just repeating... very simply the Russians have different goals from the west and even the west is changing its goals... for years the US stuck with the M1 Garand and the modernised M1 called the M14 while they poured scorn on the short ranged AK. Then they introduced the M16 which has even shorter range and it was the best in the world and the AK was criticised for being inaccurate!!!

Now the west has been operating 70 ton tanks for the last 3 decades or so and the new tank designs they are working on are lighter weight vehicles... they talk of ideal weight ranges of 40-45 tons... can you work out what is happening?

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.