Russian Tanks ERA and APS

Y'all too tense. Duplet is better that anything too bad it has been mounted on 8 machines so far. Slava Ukropia.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Y'all too tense. Duplet is better that anything too bad it has been mounted on 8 machines so far. Slava Ukropia.

It's the Kiev-tard regime that defines the tone. Not those pointing out the obvious. There is a moral to the story of the boy who cried wolf
once too many times.

Russia is claiming that the Afghanit active protection system (APS) mounted on Moscow’s powerful new T-14 Armata main battle tanks has been proven effective at intercepting depleted uranium-core armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) cannon shells.


If Moscow’s claims are accurate, the new Russian active protection system would be a game-changing development in the realm of mechanized warfare. While active protection systems were thought to be effective mostly against incoming anti-tank missiles and rocket propelled grenades, most industry and defense experts had believed that active protection systems were ineffective against kinetic energy (KE) round such as the U.S. Army’s M829A4 120mm APFSDS. Thus, if the Russians have genuinely achieved a breakthrough in defeating KE anti-tank rounds, U.S. and NATO ground forces could face a very serious problem in the near future as the T-14 Armata family of combat vehicles becomes fully operational over the next several years.


The Russian-language news outlet Izvestia—citing a Russian Ministry of Defense source—has reported that the Afghanit APS has been successfully tested against incoming depleted uranium-cored APFSDS rounds flying at speeds of been 1.5km to 2km per second.

Currently KAZ “Afghani” is installed on T-14 tanks. the “Armata” platform will also be used as the basis of T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle.

KAZ “Afghans” – a complex electronic system that combines radar (RLS) with active phased array antenna processing subsystems, as well as mortars with special charges that, explode and send shrapnel that destroy in flight enemy weapons. The active protection on the T-14 Armata and T-15 can be seen as a typical tube-mortars.

Active protection, such as Russia’s “Arena” and “Blackbird” and the Israeli Trophy, do well with anti-tank missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. In particular, there is evidence that Palestinian militants in 2011 and failed to destroy a single tank “Merkava”, equipped with Trophy, – he told “Izvestia” historian Vladislav Belogrud tank building. – But the anti-tank ammunition and RPG order of magnitude easier target for KAZ than BPS. In particular, the anti-tank rocket speed about 300 m/s, and the product itself – it is actually a thin tube in the electronics, fuel and explosives inside, very vulnerable to debris undermined near CAS charge. BPS same – a monolithic steel structure, moreover, flying at a speed of 1.5-2 km/s.


Researcher Mikhail Barabanov, editor-in-chief of the Moscow Defense Brief—which is published by the Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) in Russia—said that it would make sense for the Russian military to focus on the most likely threats that its armored vehicles would face in combat. “I think that the characteristics of the Armata’s APS is the big secret,” Barabanov said. “But it is unlikely [the Russian military] developed the new generation of APS without directing them toward the most common threats—uranium APFSDS and top-attack missiles.”

Michael Kofman, a research scientist specializing in Russian military affairs at the federally funded Center for Naval Analyses, said he is skeptical about the Izvestia report. “I don’t see it as realistic,” Kofman said. “A discarding sabot is a depleted uranium dart, the entire concept is that the material is incredibly dense to serve as a penetrator. The Afghanit APS uses a fragmentation charge and is not liable to do much to the A4—the latest variant—of U.S. munitions. I can see it possibly pushing the dart off course with some sort of hit-to-kill approach, but I doubt much can stop it—besides combinations of ERA [explosive reactive armor] and composite armor.”

The Armata series is currently in limited production and should become operational around 2019. “As I understand it, the MOD [Ministry of Defense] ordered 100 pre-series Armata family vehicles including the T-14 Armata, T-15 and ARV [armored recovery vehicle], which will be built from 2016 to 2018,” Barbanov said

There is a second contract for 70 ‘first series’ Armata vehicles (or roughly two battalions worth) with delivery expected ‘by the end of 2019.’

There could be an up-gunned 152mm variant Armata main battle tank or there will be more types of ammunition for the 125mm gun.

Source

DU APFSDS are very hard very fast moving targets but in perspective they are very much like a nail.

A solid blow from a hammer will drive a nail into all sorts of materials fairly easily... but anyone who has used a hammer knows if you dont knock it in straight and it starts to bend then even the hardest hammer blow will merely bend the nail and there will be little to no penetration of the material.

Intercepting a HEAT charge in a missile or round is easy because such a target is soft and vulnerable.

An APFSDS round does not need to be blown a dozen metres off course so that it will completely miss its target... just making it yaw 15-20 degrees and when it hits its target its own kinetic energy will shatter it into hundreds of little pieces each unable to penetrate tank level armour.

Angled plate armour wont deflect an APFSDS round, but a yawed APFSDS round trying to penetrate a target sideways will always fail... think of a needle... point forward will penetrate skin easily... sideways it will not even with significant force applied.

Ancient news... Sorry.

I canot seem to find any data on tank armor values for modern tanks could someone help with this?

what is the armor of tanks like the T-80U,T-90A&T90AM without ERA I doubt they would not update base the armor drastcally compared to the T-72B

Also if a konkurs can penetrate an export abrams turre can a Kornet penetrate a domestic m1a2 abrams is chobam just crappy armor that is made out to be good in the media?

Im curious on what band of radar Afghanit use.

Would be very short range and need high frequency for precise information with small antenna, so I would guess it is MMW radar frequencies.

MMW radar would be impossible to use ARMs against it which is even better for the user.

(Thread was merged feel free to move to a more apropriate topic.)

About chobham armor

There are a few things that seem contradictary in what I have read about this armor type that i would loke to straighten out.

1 If chobham does not benefit from sloping explain the challenger 2s turret?

2 If a Konkurs ATGM can pen the front turret of a Suadi abrams can a Kornet penetrate the front turret of a US army m1a2 sep abrams?

3 If chobham armor is realy ceramic tiles then would it not be very valnrable to repeated hits by even 1950's weapons?

Could someone answer?

All armour types benefit from being angled with respect to the penetrator.

Very simply the steeper the angle the more armour need to be penetrated and the more work a penetrator must to to penetrate the same thickness of armour.

Konkurs penetrated the side turret armour, not the front turret armour of a Saudi Abrams.

The same impact on pretty much any tank will penetrate as no tank in service has 800mm side turret armour protection except if you count APS and ERA systems.

Old Chobham and newer Dorchester armour are not just ceramic tiles... they are multiple layers of different types of materials that damage penetrators and reduce their ability to penetrate.

The combination of layers is fixed which means it performs better against specific penetrators.

What is compostion and layout?

Also what do Russian tanks use nowdays?

Armour composition is one of those aspects militaries prefer to keep as state secrets. I doubt anyone knows the proper armour composition of any modern tank, or even some cold war era tanks. Case in point the Challenger 2. Everyone throws around words like ceramic and composite materials, but no one could accurately mention exactly what constitutes said materials, and their relative presence within the armour.

Hello everyone. I am the owner of the Tankograd blog, which was mentioned on Page 6 some time ago by my friend Mike. Just finished my analysis of Kontakt-5, including the method of initiation and the mechanisms used to defeat long rod projectiles. Interested readers can see it here: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html#kontakt_5

To be blunt: many of the information posted on the early versions of that T-72 article were wrong, and there is a surprising amount of information out in the public domain. With what I have learned since 2015, I hope that I will be able to contribute to the discussions here.

HM1199 wrote:http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/313416.html
guys this article basically says that nii stali themselves are saying that relikt cannot stop m829a2 at 1000 meters and cannot stop a3 at 6000 meters
which doesnt add up since i remember an article of even non equipped with k5 t90s stopping m829a2 http://itmiliter.blogspot.com/2013/06/tank-t-90-rusia-bag-2.html#.WLxv3Ts1_IU

any thoughts?

Andrey-BT is generally well known Ukrainian fanboy, who praises anything Ukrainian made... I won't take him seriously at all to be honest, bruv.

Ives wrote:
Andrey-BT is generally well known Ukrainian fanboy, who praises anything Ukrainian made... I won't take him seriously at all to be honest, bruv.

At least he is always willing to share the information that he has. All we can do is critique it.

Interlinked wrote:

Ives wrote:
Andrey-BT is generally well known Ukrainian fanboy, who praises anything Ukrainian made... I won't take him seriously at all to be honest, bruv.

At least he is always willing to share the information that he has. All we can do is critique it.

Nice try Andrey, Actually I always had a weird feeling about you... that your bullshit remind me someone... now Its all sorted out. Thanks for making it clear, bruv .

Sent from Topic'it App

Ives wrote:
Nice try Andrey, Actually I always had a weird feeling about you... that your bullshit remind me someone... now Its all sorted out. Thanks for making it clear, bruv .

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Interlinked wrote:Hello everyone. I am the owner of the Tankograd blog, which was mentioned on Page 6 some time ago by my friend Mike. Just finished my analysis of Kontakt-5, including the method of initiation and the mechanisms used to defeat long rod projectiles. Interested readers can see it here: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html#kontakt_5

To be blunt: many of the information posted on the early versions of that T-72 article were wrong, and there is a surprising amount of information out in the public domain. With what I have learned since 2015, I hope that I will be able to contribute to the discussions here.

Good stuff.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

About chobham armor

There are a few things that seem contradictary in what I have read about this armor type that i would loke to straighten out.

1 If chobham does not benefit from sloping explain the challenger 2s turret?

2 If a Konkurs ATGM can pen the front turret of a Suadi abrams can a Kornet penetrate the front turret of a US army m1a2 sep  abrams?

3 If chobham armor is realy ceramic tiles then would it not be very valnrable to repeated hits by even 1950's weapons?

Could someone answer?

"Chobham" is not a real name. The official designation for the armour used by tanks like the Abrams is "HAP" - Heavy Armour Package.

1. "Chobham" uses NERA plates, and NERA plates require sloping to have any significant effect. The thing that Garry mentioned -

GarryB wrote:
All armour types benefit from being angled with respect to the penetrator.

Very simply the steeper the angle the more armour need to be penetrated and the more work a penetrator must to to penetrate the same thickness of armour.

- is actually not correct with regards to modern long rod shells. Heavy metal long rod penetrators penetrate more steel at higher slopes than at lower slopes. This is due to the asymmetry of forces acting on the back surface of the sloped plate during the final stage of penetration.

3. IMHO almost every modern tank in the world relies on a combination of NERA and spaced armour, and they are all arranged in the same general layout. There is a steel front plate of medium thickness (around 100mm or less), an array of NERA plates, and a steel back plate of high thickness (200-100mm). The only mystery is what is in front of the back plate, and what is the NERA made from. As far as anyone knows, the addition of ceramic tiles or whatever into the armour system - if used at all - is definitely for the backplate, behind the NERA array, where the residual penetrator or shaped charge jet is supposed to be absorbed or shattered after being weakened, damaged or yawed by the NERA/spaced armour. If placed in any other location, ceramics may actually have a negative effect on the overall protection level of the armour system because they won't contribute enough to make up for the valuable volume and mass reserve that they occupy. It ought to be noted that ceramic tiles can only be used when supported by a back plate, or otherwise the ceramic will shatter easily and offer very little erosive effect and inflict very little damage on the penetrator. This precludes the use of ceramics for anywhere else except the front surface of the back plate or in a layered arrangement, which would make the back plate a true composite armour plate. We know for a fact that the front plate of all modern tanks is just plain RHA, because we can see weld seams, so there is no ceramic on the front surface.

It makes sense for NATO tanks like the Leo 2 and Abrams to have ceramic tiles on the surface of the steel backplate, because NATO knew that Soviet 115mm APFSDS used a steel penetrator with a hard but brittle tungsten carbide core (the original requirements for the Abrams was to be immune to 115mm APFSDS at a few hundred meters). Ceramic tiles would be ideal for shattering the tungsten carbide core and the hard (600 BHN) but relatively weak steel penetrator, especially after they have been weakened from perforating the steel front plate. Whether ceramics are actually used or not has not been confirmed thus far, and even if it is used, we have no way of knowing which armour uses it.

All that aside, it should be kept in mind that the interaction between ceramics and heavy metal long rod penetrators is still not fully understood. Scientists have been studying the interactions between regular ogived AP shells (bullets) and ceramic tiles for much longer, and the understanding of those interactions is more complete. That's why we often see ceramic tiles being used as anti-bullet protection for soldiers and for vehicles where weight is a serious concern - light vehicles, airplanes, helicopters, etc. IMO, ceramics aren't used in the early iterations of the armour of the Abrams or the Leopard or the Challenger 2. The only nation that implemented ceramics in a major capacity was the USSR, where ceramic armour was used extensively in the T-64 (from 1975 onwards) and T-80. However, that is not to say that they did not conduct experiments. Kraus-Maffei and Rheinmetall both produced complex multilayered composite armour that incorporated ceramics.



Picture taken from "Защита Танков".

However, the famous photocopied diagram (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V7jSjqa-1gA/WH_2utkv6eI/AAAAAAAAAhk/VMwqTCcRy8Qjc1n7fJsTvW-yaWaG2bEOACEw/s1600/F5nVTZU3.jpg) of the armour layout of the M1 Abrams shows that it has a very simple configuration with a medium thickness steel front plate, an array of NERA plates, a spacer, and then a high thickness steel back plate. No ceramics, nothing fancy, just homogeneous steel, not even layered steel (as far as we can tell). In fact, it is actually rather crude. This early armour is called BRL-1, if memory serves. If ceramics are used in the Abrams and/or Leopard 2, I'd wager that it started in the late 80's or 90's or later as part of HAP or something like that, and not in the early to mid-80's.

РАРАН academician Михаил Сильников say about the successful testing of first model of plasma-induced-dynamic protection system for stationary and moving ground vehicles dhowing performance level over an order of magnitude higher than today traditional protection systems.

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/42720

Mindstorm wrote:
РАРАН academician Михаил Сильников say about the successful testing of first model of  plasma-induced-dynamic protection system for stationary and moving ground vehicles dhowing performance level over an order of magnitude higher than today traditional protection systems.

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/42720

Exelent news tovarish.

I wonder what scifi technology Russia will bring to life next.

Anyway this sounds interesting do you have any more information?

Mindstorm wrote:
РАРАН academician Михаил Сильников say about the successful testing of first model of plasma-induced-dynamic protection system for stationary and moving ground vehicles dhowing performance level over an order of magnitude higher than today traditional protection systems.

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/42720

Thanks for posting!