Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:14 am

    I would suggest if you use Firefox as your browser that you look through the various addons that allow pdf files to be created and edited and manipulated.

    You might find freeware tools that will manipulate the text in a pdf on somewhere like Tucows.

    The program Adobe Acrobat as built in text editors and probably has translation software built in in its current version... the version I own is version 6... they are up to at least version 10 now.

    @Mindstorm
    It is amusing that western "experts" constantly claim western armour to be superior on its own and that the Russians manage an equivalent by adding ERA, yet the evidence you have provided clearly shows that heavy second generation ERA directly compliments the base armour by defeating the rounds most efficiently designed to defeat the base armour.
    The ERA perfectly compliments the base armour and together they offer far better protection than either could on its own.
    respekt to those crafty Russians... who do it using 20 tons less material than the Western solution. russia

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:24 am

    Mindstorm wrote:Austin have you gived a look to the first scientifical publication (when i find the link to the second i will add it to mine previous post) i have pointed out on the interaction betweeen long rod penetratrors and ERA defeating mechanism ?

    I took a look at it and yes I found it interesting , I will go it in detail later today.

    It can be very useful for debunk one time for all the low level ,ignorant claims (mainly triggered by that curse called Wikipedia...) sustaining that the new western KE ammunitions (in particular M829A2 and M829A3),with ever increasing L/D ratio, DU core and lower speed, was conceived to better defeat Russian K-5-like dynamic protections after the famous tests of '90 on the "impenetrable" T-72B : a pure, simply idiocy Laughing Laughing .

    Yes indeed , I used the article from the good Colnel to update wiki on T-90 for the India Test , sometimes wiki can be useful if its not deliberately tampered with false information , many in India believe that T-90S was purchase for other then its technical abilities and its a weak tank , I think the information on the test would be useful to debunk myth and put across right information.

    I just wished I could read the whole article though Smile Thanks for putting the major points in there.

    To obtain a KE rod more resistant to heavy ERA defeating mechanism,in fact, would be necessary to significantly increase its diameter and shorten its length; in this way you would obtain both the improvement of penetrator's resistance to side-force-induced plastic deformations and to compress the time of interaction with the ERA's flying plates (other important elements would be augment the speed of the round and not employ DU core rods )
    The problem,of course, would be that a similarly constructed rod would be significantly less efficient in penetrate the passive armor behind ERA tiles ; pratically those design solutions are mutually exclusives and anyone can image on what of those solutions falled the choice of KE round's designers.

    Its a mutually exclusive solution as i see it , For base composite armour you need slimmer longer APFSDS that can penetrate deep but for Heavy ERA like K-5 you need thicker shorter APFSDS. Quite interesting.

    A solution to it since tank cant fire two rounds at the same time at the same area would be to right the right match for L/D ratio that does a decent job for ERA and Composite armour.

    I think Chemical Energy too need to be improved atleast you would get long range shots with guided ammo and with say good penetration figures like that of Kornet ~ 1300 RHA you can deal with ERA/composite armour in a better way at long ranges.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:34 am

    GarryB wrote:I would suggest if you use Firefox as your browser that you look through the various addons that allow pdf files to be created and edited and manipulated.

    I think the problem is its still an image file , so you wont be able to manipulate text , have you been sucessful with that and read the whole article ?

    You might find freeware tools that will manipulate the text in a pdf on somewhere like Tucows.

    Ok sir will try , I have never been good with such stuff Sad

    The program Adobe Acrobat as built in text editors and probably has translation software built in in its current version... the version I own is version 6... they are up to at least version 10 now.

    You read the whole article , would be interesting to hear your view too.

    It is amusing that western "experts" constantly claim western armour to be superior on its own and that the Russians manage an equivalent by adding ERA, yet the evidence you have provided clearly shows that heavy second generation ERA directly compliments the base armour by defeating the rounds most efficiently designed to defeat the base armour.

    No the issue was both Russian and West approached the solution in a different way, the west used composite armour and improved upon it and used thicker turret and geometry in frontal area atleast to improve penetration figure , ERA never really caught up with them and weight was not much of an issue as they opted for bigger tanks with powerful engines to compensate for it.

    The ERA perfectly compliments the base armour and together they offer far better protection than either could on its own.
    respekt to those crafty Russians... who do it using 20 tons less material than the Western solution. russia

    The Russian realised that just adding on composite will add on weight and they had weight limitations ( i read max 55 T dictated by rail wheel or ankle or what ever they call it Mad ) , so to achieve the same protection they went for ERA approach and arrived at same protection figures , the bonus as i see it now was the ERA and Composite armour need different kind of APFSDS design they would reduce the effect of the slender and longer Western APFSDS which would not have been possible by just composite ERA.

    The Russian were the first to opt for a integral armour ( ERA + Composite ) which reduced weight and afforded protection , certainly we see two approaches to solve a problem.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russian Tanks armour and protection

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:58 am

    It is amusing that western "experts" constantly claim western armour to be superior on its own and that the Russians manage an equivalent by adding ERA, yet the evidence you have provided clearly shows that heavy second generation ERA directly compliments the base armour by defeating the rounds most efficiently designed to defeat the base armour.
    The ERA perfectly compliments the base armour and together they offer far better protection than either could on its own.
    to those crafty Russians... who do it using 20 tons less material than the Western solution.

    Those ridiculous claims (by obviously false experts and,very likely, original PR mercenaries Very Happy ) are in reality market oriented ; them aim to "implant" in common immaginary constructed false idea and opinions on those subjects which, thanks to the theirs continue reiteration in open media (aided paradoxically by the same communication among theirs "users")and the "reassuring" effect of theirs wide diffusion, not only allow them to bypass the normal defences of critical thinking but become even cited as established data !!!

    Add ,at this point, the habit to attack with ridiculous overwhelming forces - employing always theirs most up to date weaponry - third world untrained enemies equiped with weapon systems two-three generation older and ,very often, with export version of them horribly downgraded (and in that you can see in action one of the most deadly "weapons" of URSS in Cold War..) selling the results as great achievements against the competiotor-made product and a great attention to pass under silence or ,where possible,render unavailable on open media any source capable to easily debunk the immense idiocies spreaded and you obtain a good recipe for "bash" the products of the main competitor and gain an easy share in the international arm market.


    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:05 am

    Like Mindstorm has already explained this discussion on the merits of the Soviet/Russian tank design vs Western school of armour was discussed on Tank net several years ago. Damian is a proponent of Western tanks so usually posts with that perspective in mind.

    While generally speaking, the Americans were trend setters in aviation, it's an undisputed fact that the Soviets were leaders in tank design since WWII and pioneered many developments that are only recently being introduced in Western tanks (auto-loaders, APS, ERA and so on...) decades ago. The break up of the Soviet Union caused a gap in development which resulted in the 'Black Eagle' and T-95 not being introduced in service. Even so, older designs like the T-80/90 are still competitive (and in some aspects superior) to Western designs.

    ________________________________________________


    Very interesting interview with Viktor Ivanovich Mokruhin (leading expert on armour) on the T-90MS and Russian Armour developments in general (has english translation)....a lot questions are answered in the interview

    Part-1


    Part-2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO_UppUeNyg

    Part-3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKFjoxllrT8

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:26 am

    The break up of the Soviet Union caused a gap in development which resulted in the 'Black Eagle' and T-95 not being introduced in service. Even so, older designs like the T-80/90 are still competitive (and in some aspects superior) to Western designs.

    Quite true... if the cold war had continued, or if the economic collapses hadn't happened there are a lot of things that would be rather different now... they tested APS in Afghanistan and the tests showed that the Drodz system was 70% successful against RPG attack. The Drodz 2 was the result of the experience and ARENA also evolved from a number of other systems including Shater. Right now the Russia tank fleet would not be mostly T-72s, and ARENA would likely be fitted to most vehicles along with a more developed Shtora.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:13 am

    Cyberspec wrote:
    Very interesting interview with Viktor Ivanovich Mokruhin (leading expert on armour) on the T-90MS and Russian Armour developments in general (has english translation)....a lot questions are answered in the interview

    Excellent find Cyberspec answers a lot of question.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:49 am

    Garry Thanks.

    BTW i came to know that the west tested the K5 ERA and T-72 extensively and they build the A2 round to defeat it but later on they also purchased few T-80 from Ukraine via Morroco and then to UK where they tested the T-80 and then US purchased 4 T-80 directly from Ukraine in beginning of 2000.

    Does that mean that US and West have a good insight in T-80 armour strength and weaknesses considering it forms a significant portion of Russian Armour and perhaps developed the A3 and the new A4 to meet those threats

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:55 am

    Modern real world experience also tells us the greatest threat to armour is not other tanks, it is air power.

    Despite appearances there is a significant shift away from the tank mentality in warfare... the tank is not going to be replaced by another vehicle, but its role in combat will be greatly reduced to situations where it is most suitable.


    Edit:

    Does that mean that US and West have a good insight in T-80 armour strength and weaknesses considering it forms a significant portion of Russian Armour and perhaps developed the A3 and the new A4 to meet those threats

    Yes, it does, but remember there are multiple different models of the T-80 in Russian service today including the early models and the late ones.

    Different vehicle models had different armour structures and such analysis does not take into account any subsequent upgrades or modifications since made.

    It means their development work can be based on real figures rather than guesses.

    The British also bought a Tunguska in the 1990s, that doesn't make their aircraft safe when flying over a battery of them either.

    Of course basing development on hard figures is not always the best thing... I know it sounds counter intuitive, but the US developed the F-15 to fight what they assumed the Mig-25 was rather than what it really was and ended up with a much better plane than they would other wise have developed if they had known that the Mig-25 was a very limited fighter, and was optimised purely for interception... though it was probably the best interceptor of its period.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

    Mindstorm do we know about figures for Internal version of Relikt ERA ?

    You have mentioned that for export version of Kontact-5 the figures were protection level of 1,2 [ 20% ] against Kinetic Energy (APFSDS) rounds and 1,7 -1,8 [70 %] against Chemical Energy rounds and for internal K-5 variant it was 60 % for KE and 100 % for Chemical energy.

    The export version of Relikt K-6 has figure similar to the now internal version of K-5 is that true ? Any think more know in internal figures for K-6 ?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:22 pm

    Mindstorm , Garry Relikt from horses mouth Smile

    RELIKT COMPLEX IS A RELIABLE PROTECTION
    Valery Grogoryan Military Parade, No. 5, 2011

    Valery Grogoryan - president, science director for JSC NII STALI (Research Institute of Steel), PhD (technical science), professor, RASRA academician


    At present, the armor protection of even most advanced domestic tanks of type T-90 against high explosive antitank (HEAT) and armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) projectiles needs improvement. It follows from the expert evaluations of the most representative antitank projectiles and antitank guided missiles (ATGM) that, for example, penetration ability of the APDS of the tank guns of the ABRAMS M1 tank modifications is growing approximately according to the linear law with a factor of proportionality of about 35 mm per year. As regards the HEAT guided missiles, then alongside with the growth of the penetration ability of the warheads (WH) due to the increase in caliber, power of explosive charges and use of the precision technologies for manufacture of the warheads, a qualitative change in the principle of influence on the armor protection takes place. Specifically, we can see a transfer to the tandem warheads capable of destroying the reactive armor of the first generations, expansion of the delay time between operation of the main and auxiliary warheads, improvement of their effectiveness thanks to the scheme contrivances of different kinds, etc.

    It is quite obvious that to maintain parity, we should find an adequate answer to improve for the armor protection of the domestic tanks.

    The necessity of the urgent retaliatory steps to improve armor protection of the domestic tanks is also dictated by its higher role in the local conflicts where probability of use of the close combat weapons such as a handheld grenade launcher (RPG) with the HEAT grenades against the thin-armored side projections of the tank abruptly increases.

    The specialists of the Research Institute were tasked to develop the appropriate armor protection complex. As a result, the RELIKT complex of the frontal armor protection was developed and entered service. Also developed were the reactive-armor special modules which were initially developed to protect the thin-armored BMP-3 infantry combat vehicles against RPG, and which well protect the side projections of the hull and turret of the tank against the widespread close combat weapons of type PG-9S.

    The rear section of the hull (in the area of the engine compartment) and the turret is covered by the latticed screens to reduce by more than a half probability of an explosive jet from the shaped charge cone of the warhead of the antitank grenade launcher due to the violation of the normal operation of the warhead in case of a hit between the ribs of the screen.

    Both complexes are principally new. Thus, the RELIKT complex employs a 4S23 element of reactive armor (RA) of high sensitivity and modern, more effective, propelling scheme where destructive and destabilizing influence on the ammunition striking elements (explosive jet, APDS rod) prevails relative to the thick armor plates propelled in opposite sides. In this case, the dominant contribution to the said destructive effect is made by the plate propelled in pursuit. Owing to fact that energetically a in-pursuit propelling is more advisable than an on-head propelling, the structures of such kind are more proof (in 4 to 5 times) against the APDS as compared with the KONTAKT-V RA series complex. At the same time we can see that the anti-tandem properties of such armor essentially increase, i.e. armor acquires better proofness against the most advanced tandem antitank guided missiles of type TOW-2A with a delay time of at least 400 us and with the penetration ability behind the mounted shape-charge-proof reactive armor of at least 1,000 mm.

    Thus, the use of RELIKT on the domestic tanks is a meaningful step of protection of the domestic tanks against the majority advanced antitank traverse weapons designed to destroy a tank from the front.

    According to the estimates of the specialists they expressed at the exhibition at Nizhni Tagil, RELIKT developed by the Research Institute of Steel is an adequate answer to the advanced antitank weapons. Today, it is one of the best armor protection complexes for the armor materiel and possibility of its installation both on the new, upgraded and being in-service tanks makes RELIKT really unique.

    Protection of the tank side projections against the HEAT grenades was borrowed from the technical solutions developed for the light-weight vehicles. As applied to the protection of such light-weight vehicles, the solution of the task was drastically more difficult because of several limitations:

    - it was necessary to initiate the explosives and dispersion of plates so as to prevent their destructive effects on a relatively thin principal armor;

    - it was necessary to prevent transfer of detonation from the RA element initiating under the action of the explosive jet of the charge to the entire volume of their block;

    - if possible, localize the area of damage by limiting it by the area of one or two modules;

    - make the protective modules universal, bearing in mind simultaneous reinforcement of protection against the kinematic weapons such as bullets of up to 14.5 mm in caliber and the projectiles to the small-caliber guns.

    The whole complex of the tasks listed above was solved in no small measure due to the development and acceptance for operational service of the RA element (index 4S24) with twice as little amount of explosive as indexes 4S20 and 4S22. This drastically increased, without reducing the effectiveness of the jet suppression, the design survivability when attacked by fire and practically eliminated flam-mability both of the RA elements themselves and of the modules on the whole that was a problem with the previous RA elements of type 4S20.

    It should also be specially underlined that when mastering this complex, a very complicated task was solved to delay a leading portion of jet that by virtue of a certain inertial dispersion of the RA plates (especially when propelled in pursuit) had time to "slip" having at the same time a rather high penetration ability of at least one caliber of the warhead for a relatively thin principal armor.

    It should be also noted that RELIKT allows installation on the tank of a stealth complex against precision weapons. The main component of this complex is a set of the NAKIDKA anti-radar multi-spectral composite material widely tested and well-proved.

    Even a simple visual inspection of the vehicles shows that percentage of the so-called weak zones was essentially reduced.

    If we take into account that all the represented protection complexes were only a part of the amazing work on deep upgrade of the T-90 tank that has been performed by the Uralvagonzavod practically for all aspects related to the improvement of the vehicle combat effectiveness, then we may draw a conclusion that both our army and the foreign partners in the event they buy such vehicle will obtain one of the world's best tanks capable of standing up to the today's threats.

    However, the potential of growth both of protection and of the other combat properties of the vehicle have many latent reserves.


    Last edited by Austin on Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:42 am

    So Relikt is 4 to 5 times more effective compared to Kontakt-5 ERA against APFSDS is quite impressive ( we were calculating 2x times against K-5 ) , also its anti-tandem properties is quite good as well. NII STALI did a very good job with Relikt Congrats to them.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:04 am


    Austin wrote:So Relikt is 4 to 5 times more effective compared to Kontakt-5 ERA against APFSDS is quite impressive ( we were calculating 2x times against K-5 ) , also its anti-tandem properties is quite good as well. NII STALI did a very good job with Relikt Congrats to them.



    Yes, all true...... but Valery Grogoryan alas ,very likely, refer to domestic version of it (like in the past had happened with K-5).

    The export version of Relikt mounted on T-90MS (the version that will become naturally accesible also to "undesiderable eyes" for examination ..) will almost surely show only an increase of x2 over K-5 ERA.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:29 am

    I think the Relikt is more optimised for APFSDS round performance compared to Heat , becuase the performance figures for heat is declared as atleast 1000 mm/RHA but for APFSDS its a very dramatic 4-5 x times of K-5.

    What do you think ? How much will be 4-5 x for K-5 taking a very conservative figure for K-5 ?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:29 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:Modern FCS systems are good, but hitting moving targets at combat ranges of say, 2,000 meters is still an iffy thing. Has to do with the environment.


    It has to do almost nothing with environment , it has to do, instead , almost anything with arbitrary variations in the vector of motion of the intended target (completely not computable by any FCS ,indipendently from theirs sophistication) in the time required to the unguided ammunition to reach the interception point , since the instant of the found fire solution .

    Almost nothing? Big adverbs you use there. Granted if the target knew what was happening and was maneuvering in a more "intense" fashion, sure, it'd be the biggest deterrent to an incoming projectile. Though, that still does not discount the environment, who's effects as we know varies more greatly as the distance increases (in the sense that it gets less certain), thus, to say that the environment plays a minuscule role is an understatement.

    @Austin, if what Valery claims is true (Relikt ERA being 4-5 times better at protecting against APDS than Kontakt-5), than that'd mean that Relikt ERA would provide roughly 1,000 mm of RHAe v.s. KE, which would be a truly astounding feat, though of course, as any learned man of Armor would tell you, until there is more proof of that, we'd "shuffle" it back down to 500 mm of RHAe v.s. KE for now.

    Though, that isn't improbable. For example, Kontakt-1 ERA had but a classical ERA set up, Steel plate in front of Explosive material. Kontakt-5 ERA had a more unique design, 2 Steel plates sandwiching a more reactive explosive material. Relikt ERA, is purported to have 7 Steel plates (all 'active'), in a dip bowl of even more reactive explosive material. Thus, it is not improbable to conclude that all those flying plates will have more than double the protective effect of Kontakt-5, but like I've said, until more is known, that statement would be shuffled down.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:06 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:@Austin, if what Valery claims is true (Relikt ERA being 4-5 times better at protecting against APDS than Kontakt-5), than that'd mean that Relikt ERA would provide roughly 1,000 mm of RHAe v.s. KE, which would be a truly astounding feat, though of course, as any learned man of Armor would tell you, until there is more proof of that, we'd "shuffle" it back down to 500 mm of RHAe v.s. KE for now.

    If it was not from NII STALI i wouldnt have even cared to look at any figure on Relikt , there are many internet figures floating around including some that we discussed in this thread and even stuff that you are speculating on 7 Steel Plate.

    Ofcourse there was this famous 850 RhAe figure that was quoted by the Tank Designer.

    But since this is from STALI i would take their word , for argument sake take the conservative 4x times , you cant get any better quote from any one in this game then from the makers themself , if you read it carefully he even mentions two breakthrough almost 2x times less amount of explosive now needed to be used compared to K-5 and as he mentions

    "a very complicated task was solved to delay a leading portion of jet that by virtue of a certain inertial dispersion of the RA plates (especially when propelled in pursuit) had time to "slip" having at the same time a rather high penetration ability of at least one caliber of the warhead for a relatively thin principal armor"

    Reading between the lines it makes me feel Relikt is more optimised for APFSDS and does not dramatically improve the HEAT capability atleast not in the way it does for KE.

    Most likely the export variant will be limited to 2x times of K-5 and HEAT figures.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:26 am

    Austin wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:@Austin, if what Valery claims is true (Relikt ERA being 4-5 times better at protecting against APDS than Kontakt-5), than that'd mean that Relikt ERA would provide roughly 1,000 mm of RHAe v.s. KE, which would be a truly astounding feat, though of course, as any learned man of Armor would tell you, until there is more proof of that, we'd "shuffle" it back down to 500 mm of RHAe v.s. KE for now.

    If it was not from NII STALI i wouldnt have even cared to look at any figure on Relikt , there are many internet figures floating around including some that we discussed in this thread and even stuff that you are speculating on 7 Steel Plate.

    Ofcourse there was this famous 850 RhAe figure that was quoted by the Tank Designer.

    But since this is from STALI i would take their word , for argument sake take the conservative 4x times , you cant get any better quote from any one in this game then from the makers themself , if you read it carefully he even mentions two breakthrough almost 2x times less amount of explosive now needed to be used compared to K-5 and as he mentions

    "a very complicated task was solved to delay a leading portion of jet that by virtue of a certain inertial dispersion of the RA plates (especially when propelled in pursuit) had time to "slip" having at the same time a rather high penetration ability of at least one caliber of the warhead for a relatively thin principal armor"

    Reading between the lines it makes me feel Relikt is more optimised for APFSDS and does not dramatically improve the HEAT capability atleast not in the way it does for KE.

    Most likely the export variant will be limited to 2x times of K-5 and HEAT figures.

    Actually, the 7 Reactive Plate part is more factual than the actual RHAe claim (since there are pictures of cross sections of RELIKT somewhere in the Russian internet). And as I've mentioned, even though they're using more reactive explosives, that alone would not account for the dramatic increase in protection. But regardless, even though that is from NII STALI, any person learned in Armor will still tell you that 1,000 mm RHAe from an ERA is near absurd, and more evidence is required.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:15 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:Actually, the 7 Reactive Plate part is more factual than the actual RHAe claim (since there are pictures of cross sections of RELIKT somewhere in the Russian internet). And as I've mentioned, even though they're using more reactive explosives, that alone would not account for the dramatic increase in protection. But regardless, even though that is from NII STALI, any person learned in Armor will still tell you that 1,000 mm RHAe from an ERA is near absurd, and more evidence is required.

    So essentially it tells me you would rather believe the 7 Reactive Plate argument or picture floating on the internet but would not believe what NII STALI has to say ?

    Well if say he would have said that Relikt was 2 times better then K-5 then it would have been more believable ?

    It all depends on the breakthrough that NII STALI would have achieve in material science and in equal measure a more effecient way to deal with KE rounds.

    K-5 has its legacy dating back 2 decades or early 1990 may be even earlier so they had nearly 2 decades to improve it.

    You would need evidence , what kind of evidence has the maker of Abrams has presented that its frontal armour is what most internet folks claim to be ? If there is any technical document from the builder or maker i would be happy to see it.

    Its just typical Western Bias , I am sure if the same claim was to be made by Western Tank builders , there would be many Western armoured journal praising the breakthrough as revolutionary and how western material science triumphs but the same claim by Russian or other country would be looked down upon by contempt and asked to show evidence , which even the Western Armoured manufature claims in Armour development would never show any evidence but would be rather believed.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:53 am

    I agree with Austin... for years during the cold war and after any information from the Soviet Union or Russia that was negative was immediately believed without any evidence... the Stechkin machine pistol was useless... big and heavy and inaccurate... the autoloading mechanism of the T-64 removed the arms of those who dared trying manual loading... etc etc.

    Anything positive was propaganda.

    Such attitudes persist to this day.

    Of course there are fanboys on both sides who think anything negative is propaganda to keep secrets from the enemy, and anything good is an understatement and it is actually much better.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:19 am

    Austin wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:Actually, the 7 Reactive Plate part is more factual than the actual RHAe claim (since there are pictures of cross sections of RELIKT somewhere in the Russian internet). And as I've mentioned, even though they're using more reactive explosives, that alone would not account for the dramatic increase in protection. But regardless, even though that is from NII STALI, any person learned in Armor will still tell you that 1,000 mm RHAe from an ERA is near absurd, and more evidence is required.

    So essentially it tells me you would rather believe the 7 Reactive Plate argument or picture floating on the internet but would not believe what NII STALI has to say ?

    Well if say he would have said that Relikt was 2 times better then K-5 then it would have been more believable ?

    It all depends on the breakthrough that NII STALI would have achieve in material science and in equal measure a more effecient way to deal with KE rounds.

    K-5 has its legacy dating back 2 decades or early 1990 may be even earlier so they had nearly 2 decades to improve it.

    You would need evidence , what kind of evidence has the maker of Abrams has presented that its frontal armour is what most internet folks claim to be ? If there is any technical document from the builder or maker i would be happy to see it.

    Its just typical Western Bias , I am sure if the same claim was to be made by Western Tank builders , there would be many Western armoured journal praising the breakthrough as revolutionary and how western material science triumphs but the same claim by Russian or other country would be looked down upon by contempt and asked to show evidence , which even the Western Armoured manufature claims in Armour development would never show any evidence but would be rather believed.


    Actually, yes, there are numerous reports, usually providing tidbits of information (such as what materials are included), there are numerous "hands on" measurements (particularly of armor thicknesses), numerous photos of Abrams being assembled or destroyed, and when you add that with numerous patent documents, you get a fairly accurate picture of what the Abrams has. The same, to a lesser extent is true for the T-90; we know how thick it's armor arrays are, and we have a good sense of what it's composed of. We've also have had a good sense of what K-1 and K-5 are, what they do, how they do it, and what they're made of. HOWEVER, thus far on Relikt, we've only had pictures and we've had an essay from NII STALI about it. You got to remember that no one from General Dynamics officially advertises any specifics about the Abrams, in part because it's "technically classified" and in part because you don't want to give people an idea what they're facing. Not to mention the bias. So yes, despite the fact that it's agreeable that the Russian military has gotten bad press over the last few decades, to simply take 2 samples of evidence (pictures of Relikt and the paper you posted) as fact is off the reservation. Until further evidence is provided, no one of the Armor community will simply take NII STALI's word on it.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:02 am

    NII STALI really does not owe any thing to the Armoured Community or to us to prove a point , its main and principal customer is the Russian Army and it would just care about it.

    Armour Thickness does not tell you much an armour composition most certainly will and armour composition and that would remain a secret for any armour , people in the armoured community just do some good guess work about it thats it.

    Its your prerogative to believe what you want to , as for me I see Relikt achievement as a breakthrough as far as KE round goes and an interative progression as far as HEAT goes.

    Atleast for me the word from NII Stali is better then guess work or speculating on what it could or may be.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:48 am



    Almost nothing? Big adverbs you use there. Granted if the target knew what was happening and was maneuvering in a more "intense" fashion, sure, it'd be the biggest deterrent to an incoming projectile. Though, that still does not discount the environment, who's effects as we know varies more greatly as the distance increases....


    Words in that fields have zero value; at the range taked into examination in mine previous post (2200 m) a modern FCS employing an up-to-date APFSDS achieve a fire dispersion at point angle of few millirads with a contribution of not-standard deviations from this figure (due to not computable environmental factor variation during the round's flight pact) of at maximum 30% of that figure .

    The increase in the dispersion's value linked to not computable environmental factor are ,therefore, in the range of some cm ; now even a very small variation in the vector of the intended target can cause,in the same situation, a miss of several meters ,a difference of some orders of magnitude, clear ?

    Therefore the adverbe employed not only is not "strong" but even conservative ,considering the parametrical figures involved.


    And as I've mentioned, even though they're using more reactive explosives, that alone would not account for the dramatic increase in protection. But regardless, even though that is from NII STALI, any person learned in Armor will still tell you that 1,000 mm RHAe from an ERA is near absurd, and more evidence is required.



    1) NII Stali declare to have continually and significantly reduced the quantity of explosives employed in theirs dynamic protection systems ,while obtaining a constant increase of the effciiency (the Institute is closer to a true breackthrough in the dynamic protection field ,at the point that it declare that Relikt ERA -stimed today a true monster and creating enormous problem to foreign KE and CE penetrator's designers- is today for Russian sector a thing of the past !! )

    2) The question of 1000 mm equivalency, is a gross inference from a pasted estimation (about 250-280 RHA mm equivalent) of the rough equivalence in RHA mm provided by first version of K-5 ERA ,operationally deployed in Soviet tanks in 1984 ...., also in that instance the western intellicence and analyst community (exactly like for R-73 ),was totally deceived by the the false tracks provided by the same Soviets with guided information leaks and horribly ,and purposely downgraded, export models .
    The shocking awakening for westren scientifical community of the sector ,caught completely "off guard", happened only a decade later since K-5 operational introduction when the extensive live tests of Manfred Held ,before, and Leland Ness ,after, camed like a pair of true punch in plain face; them opened suddenly an unexpected and nightmarish scenario for the entire western sector ,still busy at celebrate theirs "performance" in Gulf War against Iraqi T-55s ,Type-59s and monkey models of T-72M Laughing


    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Lengthy article on the T-72 and all of its' subsystems (not my own).

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:38 pm

    I want to request something; could one of you fact-check this article on the T-72? 

    http://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html?m=1

     - Lengthy article on the T-72 and all of its' subsystems (not my own). 

    And also cause this just popped in my head... Does anyone have a source back to "Russia exported an inferior version of K-5 ERA" or is that just bollocks?

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Mike E on Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:42 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    I want to request something; could one of you fact-check this article on the T-72? 

    http://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html?m=1

     - Lengthy article on the T-72 and all of its' subsystems (not my own). 
    wow, nice blog. keeping my eye on it from now on, thx for heads-up. prolly the most complete gathering of soviet armor info without it being user's manual.
    I don't get your point... US vehicles are spread out. 

    It's a nice blog but I don't agree with the guy on a few things;

    He believes RHAe is a useless estimate of armor against KE... Which I think is BS because the general design and principal of KE and how armor reacts to them is similar. 

    For some reason he also rags on the welded turret for being weak on the frontal profile...despite it being continuously stronger the further it goes out away from the gun.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:46 am

    Mike E wrote:
    It's a nice blog but I don't agree with the guy on a few things;

    He believes RHAe is a useless estimate of armor against KE... Which I think is BS because the general design and principal of KE and how armor reacts to them is similar. 
    dunno, prolly. in some ways RHAe dont take into account the anti-armor effects aside from penetration by KE rounds. things like resisting bending and yawing due to NERA, efforts to outtime ERA etc. people put all sorts of modifiers to counter this but at the end of the day it is yet another estimate.
    Mike E wrote:
    For some reason he also rags on the welded turret for being weak on the frontal profile...despite it being continuously stronger the further it goes out away from the gun.
    could you point me where he made this assertion? kinda having trouble chewing through all this new chunks of info.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:06 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:06 am