Wonder what effect this follow through has on soft target inside the room.
It seems like a lot of effort just to get a relatively small explosive charge into a room, but even though the centre of the HE charge is hollow to allow the EFP to pass through, the ring of explosive and fragments would be vastly more effective exploding inside the target than a much larger charge exploding outside the target. Because it blows a small hole in the target the target remains largely structurally intact till the explosive charge goes off so the target itself contains the blast and increases its effect against those inside.
This means even the Arena APS on the T 90MS will not be able to stop it . The same can be said about the other APS like LEDS 300 or Trophy .
This is not an anti tank weapon... it will only penetrate light vehicles or indeed rooms.
Think of it as being a light APHE round for getting at troops in a room or a light vehicle.
One other thing: this is a very old system; I personally had seen the first two and the last two pictures 20 years ago.
I remember reading about an RPO model which had an EFP to blow a small hole in the wall of a building to allow the thermobaric material to then flow into the room and detonate inside.
This meant when firing on a building you didn't have to get the rocket to go through a window for the best effect. If you just let it go off against the outer wall the wall would protect the people inside from some of the blast effect of the weapon. With an EFP the main charge explodes inside the room and is vastly more effective... in comparison to a heavily armoured tank a 2kg HE charge outside the tank would make a noise and get the crews attention but should not penetrate the armour. 2kgs inside the tank would kill everyone.
The main problem of course is getting that HE charge inside the target and the two obvious solutions is a 100kg HE charge so the blast wave just kills everyone inside, or sophisticated shaped charges to burn your way in.
Later the Indian Army tried the same simulation using the LEDS 300 & Trophy APS . The results were the same . The APS were unable to stop the RPG 30 .
The Standard and Afghanistan systems are supposed to be able to intercept APFSDS rounds which suggests an order of magnitude improvement in performance.
I was referring to APS of types other than the base models of Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena and the export model Arena-Eh.
These systems are all at least 2 decades old too...
ah, yes i prolly missed that part where the quote came from. But still such a small EFP wont do much damage to an AFV if it hits anything but the rear/top.
It is not really for defeating heavy armour it is just a way of posting a small HE charge into a container... ie motor vehicle, Room in a building, bunker, light armoured vehicle etc.
A sandbagged MG or sniper position is another target where the EFP would punch through the sandbags and the HE charge will kill those inside.
But then Rosoboronexport would surely have fielded the more potent version of the Arena APS ( the domestic version maybe) because it's a big contract that OEMs are after . Almost 300 T 90s to be equipped with an APS in the first tranche .
I rather suspect Standard and Afghanistan are secret at the moment and would not be for export.
Early reports I have read described Afghanistan as the new APS system for heavy tank like vehicles, while Standard was described as being for medium and light vehicles, but I have recently read a short article that said Standard was designed for the T-95 and that Afghanistan is for the T-99 and other vehicle families.
AFAIK Drozd was tested in Afghanistan and was found to be 70% effective... which makes it sound well worth the minor increase in weight and cost. No APS will be 100% effective, but then ERA and the armour on the vehicle will add to protect them from enemy fire.
You mean, let's say, it won't do much damage to an MBT if it hits its frontal armor. The "AFV" in your statement makes the statement incorrect (as a Collegian, you should be more careful with these things).
Now, even the corrected statement is out of context, and I have explained it, somewhat cryptically, in my previous posts.
It penetrates up to 50mm of RHA so we are talking about penetrating Humvees and M113s, but not Bradleys or Abrams.
This round is a Bunkerfaust not an Anti-Tank weapon. It is highly doubtful it would even be useful against IFVs side armor, newer IFVs have increasingly higher side armor, i can only imagine it to be usefull against APCs like BTR, Stryker, Fuchs, Fenneck and similiar vehicles when hitting side,rear or top armor.
The majority of the time it will be used against building structures and light bunkers... it would be very effective against a hovering helo if you could hit it....
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
