That’s the problem. How do we design the cassettes to do that? It will be much easier to turn the bins, it will not be more complicated than turn the RWS on the turret of the T-90.
Each layer of munitions has three munitions and each munition in that layer can be designed to launch to a different angle... position one to the left, position 2 to the centre and position 3 to the right. The same direction for each position in each layer so position one will always go to the left on layer 1-4.
No moving parts required, so no complication at all.
If the perfect munition is all used up then adjacent munitions could be fired on the off chance that they might contact the incoming threat with enough fragments to be effective because of the spread of the fragments.
The Arena IMO operated in very simple way; the bin will launch the cassette in the same direction, to the same range, in the same elevation, and will always detonate the cassette at the same distance from the tank. The computer will have to calculate the timing for the launch.
This new Arena is no different... just think of it as being a case that each of the individual munitions are moved from where they were into 4 separate boxes, but they are sitting in those boxes angled so they don't all launch straight up to the same place... they are angled so that each one in each layer launches up to a different sector so that full 360 degree coverage is attained. Of course the size of the munitions could mean that each bin covers 90 degrees so the four bins offer full coverage and can be used 3 times each before needing reloading...
There is one big different between claymore and RPG, claymore need to hit people and the system will spread the fragments on a larger area, to shoot dawn RPG you need to concentrate the splinters so they will do serious damage to the RPG and drove it down. So the arc will be no more than 10 degrees each side.
The combined closing speed should ensure effectiveness, a modern shaped charge warhead is fairly fragile and smashing it with what equates to an enormous shotgun blast 6m away from its target and detonating it should make it fairly ineffective by the time it reaches the armour.
A HEAT charge relies on very precise shaping of the explosive and precise detonation timing and location to ensure a clean fully formed plasma torch with heat and mass to penetrate solid metal protection.
Even just detonating the warhead from the side instead of the rear will generally render it almost ineffective, let alone blowing holes in its shape.
That’s good to know, but the bins are not deep enough to except more then one cassette in depth.
How big are the munitions?
that's true, but the ADS will make any attack more complicated and more costly to the attackers.
Indeed, it is another layer of protection that enables the Tank to remain king of the battlefield.
Tanks in urban fighting will stay 2 km away and give support to the troops with there big guns.
Unless they can find some high ground in an overwatch position generally the shape of the land like hills and of course buildings will get in the way of tanks directly supporting infantry in an urban area.
Equally tanks need troops to operate with them to protect them from enemy infantry.
For the fighting zone, hybrid vehicle with the turret of the BMP-3 and the T-72 chassis, plus RWS with 14.5mm HMG will be the right one. The best vehicles in the urban fighting is the D-9s. In any case soldiers shouldn’t be to close to vehicles with ERA or ADS.
The best "fire power" vehicle for infantry in urban combat are BMPT like vehicles. Infantry have little to fear from modern ERA which don't actually explode anymore... the newest stuff deform internally and are called NERA.
Look at the dust kicked up from the fragments hitting the ground, you can clearly see just how wide ARENA's fragment cloud is. There's a reason ARENA was deemed "to dangerous for infantry" by the west.
First of all the west are idiots.
Second look at a video of a T-90 firing a standard round. The muzzle flash is a ball of orange fire about 6-10m long that extends to about 20m around the entire tank because of the length of the barrel. Standing within 25-30m of an operational tank that could open fire without warning at any time is lethal for all unprotected infantry... whether it has ERA, or APS or even if it just gets hit by an enemy HEAT round that sprays fragments everywhere too.
You will notice that while Russian infantry still might ride on the top of APCs, they don't do the same on tanks... even on exercise.
Actually in urban area it is infantry, who protect tanks against AT teams.
Currently tanks go in there because they are the only army vehicles with the protection levels to survive such a dangerous place. In terms of firepower an IFV would be much more useful but its light armour makes it too vulnerable for such a mission.
The new plans for vehicles in the Russian army mean that the armata based IFV or in fact the BMPT if there is one would be an ideal substitute for a MBT in that it has the mobility and protection of a tank, but has fire power more suited to supporting infantry operations down to very close ranges.
The interesting thing is that the BMPT was designed to take the infantry out of the equation.
Urban combat is dangerous and costly because infantry are too vulnerable, but they are needed to protect the tanks from enemy infantry.
The BMPT is supposed to protect the tanks, but in reality it should be able to protect itself and make the use of tanks unnecessary. In other words the BMPT should in one go replace the tank and the supporting infantry it needs to operate in urban areas...