Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Share

    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 10:33 pm

    collegeboy16 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.[/quote]
    Russia has that land has an advantage...invading the South and East would slow US tank forces down and inevitably trap them. 

    But NERA's effects etc can be simulated as RHAe protection, he doesn't believe this and that's where our conflict began. 

    He made "that assertion" in a private discussion between him and myself.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:21 am

    I have a problem with RHA estimates for protection too.

    Depending on whether the penetrator is full calibre or a dart (ie APFSDS) has a huge effect on penetration... full calibre round can be deflected by angled plate, whereas APFSDS rounds just have a longer penetration path through angled plate.

    Equally different layers of materials have different effects on different penetrator materials too, which is why the penetration figures for kinetic rounds and HEAT rounds are so different.

    Protection combinations work differently against different penetrator combinations so there will never just be one figure for kinetic and one for HEAT even in one specific place on the armour.

    Equally there are plenty of weak points and hard points where various things reduce or increase the level of protection in different places on a real vehicle.

    Plus angles have to be allowed for in 3 dimensions and usually they are not... they are normally translated using angle of attack (ie 2D) to calculate armour penetrated (1D)... which totally ignores the actual case with 3 dimensions...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jun 29, 2015 5:33 pm

    I aggree with that and the author of that blog. I also have trouble or patience with people who throw RHAe values around like they are some facts.

    There are some major problems with that, a) those are estimations regardless if they are made by so called experts, those experts are not employees or designers of actual tanks, so their knowledge is based on old technologies and only research papers that have been published and available to everybody, those files are only declassified when they are not seen as national security issue anymore.

    The other problem is the common surrounded thingy about ratios between KE and CE ammunition against armor, this is also an old concept that already had shown some holes. The CE weapons and such values RHAe values for armor were always greater because they were usually based on MONO-block shaped charges, while tests with Tandem HEAT on Burlington armor have shown that Precursor which is always weak not more than 25-100mm RHAe penetration capability had weakened the armor and easened the main charge penetration with higher depth of armor perforated because the precursor has already comprimised the protective capabilities of ceramics and other layers that are specifically used against CE weapons.

    Today very powerfull Tandem HEAT warheads are common, already prototypes since a few years exist like 125mm BK-29M with triple shaped charges which will significantly increase penetration depth. The other thing and like a dogmatic believe is that KE always penetrates more armor than CE, basing this soley on old armor and tests off 2nd gen tanks off usually export models or with prototype armor which is also on paar with 2nd gen tanks. The ratio may even been destroyed with new technologies and armor types and armor could be equal to both in protection or be totally off in the opposite direction.

    Another point is RHA is used as a standardized measurement while a homogenous material never can be used as an accurate measurement for armor that consists of several different protective measurements (Spaced armor, NERA, ERA, different materials made to composites in different angles, layers or even like on Armata with a molecular structure laying in opposite direction to form a tighter and denser mesh on molecular level. All that can never be accurately measured or guesstimated by an old value like RHA which already had its different qualities in  WW2 while RHA in germany lost its quality over time same on US site the quality increased in Soviet Union over time.

    When i would take an evaluation of armor protection and capability of penetration i would have done the exact same thing like the author and not tossing around more falsified RHA values.

    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 Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:I have a problem with RHA estimates for protection too.

    Depending on whether the penetrator is full calibre or a dart (ie APFSDS) has a huge effect on penetration... full calibre round can be deflected by angled plate, whereas APFSDS rounds just have a longer penetration path through angled plate.

    Equally different layers of materials have different effects on different penetrator materials too, which is why the penetration figures for kinetic rounds and HEAT rounds are so different.

    Protection combinations work differently against different penetrator combinations so there will never just be one figure for kinetic and one for HEAT even in one specific place on the armour.

    Equally there are plenty of weak points and hard points where various things reduce or increase the level of protection in different places on a real vehicle.

    Plus angles have to be allowed for in 3 dimensions and usually they are not... they are normally translated using angle of attack (ie 2D) to calculate armour penetrated (1D)... which totally ignores the actual case with 3 dimensions...
    Which is why they have a separate estimate for rods. 

    I agree for the most part but the behavior of rods is extremely similar... Tungsten will always mushroom more than DU, but DU rounds will always travel slower because of mass. HEAT figures are always a joke and can't truly be compared to APFSDS rounds; just because no two warheads will behave exactly the same. 

    Which is (also) why separate figures are listed. 

    Care to explain more? Not sure what you're stating... 

    One area where I think RHAe is extremely accurate is in relativity to LOS thickness; turret front of an A2 Abrams is ~960 mm LOS but because Burlington-Chobham *are less effective against APF than RHA by thickness*, the actual rating would be closer to 800 mm. That's also why the immensely thick LFP is only equivalent to around 600 mm of RHA.

    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 Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:56 pm

    Werewolf wrote:I aggree with that and the author of that blog. I also have trouble or patience with people who throw RHAe values around like they are some facts.

    There are some major problems with that, a) those are estimations regardless if they are made by so called experts, those experts are not employees or designers of actual tanks, so their knowledge is based on old technologies and only research papers that have been published and available to everybody, those files are only declassified when they are not seen as national security issue anymore.

    Another point is RHA is used as a standardized measurement while a homogenous material never can be used as an accurate measurement for armor that consists of several different protective measurements (Spaced armor, NERA, ERA, different materials made to composites in different angles, layers or even like on Armata with a molecular structure laying in opposite direction to form a tighter and denser mesh on molecular level. All that can never be accurately measured or guesstimated by an old value like RHA which already had its different qualities in  WW2 while RHA in germany lost its quality over time same on US site the quality increased in Soviet Union over time.

    When i would take an evaluation of armor protection and capability of penetration i would have done the exact same thing like the author and not tossing around more falsified RHA values.
    No point in talking about HEAT, it's so inaccurate. 

    a) is true but once again...we practically already know the LOS of the Abrams, and same goes for the Leopard 2. One you look at the pure LOS thickness, you need a basic understanding of the tanks' armor and you can get a "good enough" measure. 

    I can agree with that to a certain extent... Composites are built up of multiple layers of multiple materials, and these materials can generally be estimated as an RHAe figure individually. As a whole the ### RHAe figure may be a decent bit off but it still show a basic equivalent to use. NERA/ERA are basically impossible to calculate which is why it is popular to use penetration-reduction-percentage figures.

    Coming from a guy that says K-5 will have no effect against the M829A2/3 (the author) I'd have a hard time using anything he says... Sure, listing it he way he did is more accurate than *the baseless* RHAe figures that are thrown around.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:08 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:I aggree with that and the author of that blog. I also have trouble or patience with people who throw RHAe values around like they are some facts.

    There are some major problems with that, a) those are estimations regardless if they are made by so called experts, those experts are not employees or designers of actual tanks, so their knowledge is based on old technologies and only research papers that have been published and available to everybody, those files are only declassified when they are not seen as national security issue anymore.

    Another point is RHA is used as a standardized measurement while a homogenous material never can be used as an accurate measurement for armor that consists of several different protective measurements (Spaced armor, NERA, ERA, different materials made to composites in different angles, layers or even like on Armata with a molecular structure laying in opposite direction to form a tighter and denser mesh on molecular level. All that can never be accurately measured or guesstimated by an old value like RHA which already had its different qualities in  WW2 while RHA in germany lost its quality over time same on US site the quality increased in Soviet Union over time.

    When i would take an evaluation of armor protection and capability of penetration i would have done the exact same thing like the author and not tossing around more falsified RHA values.
    No point in talking about HEAT, it's so inaccurate. 

    a) is true but once again...we practically already know the LOS of the Abrams, and same goes for the Leopard 2. One you look at the pure LOS thickness, you need a basic understanding of the tanks' armor and you can get a "good enough" measure. 

    I can agree with that to a certain extent... Composites are built up of multiple layers of multiple materials, and these materials can generally be estimated as an RHAe figure individually. As a whole the ### RHAe figure may be a decent bit off but it still show a basic equivalent to use. NERA/ERA are basically impossible to calculate which is why it is popular to use penetration-reduction-percentage figures.

    Coming from a guy that says K-5 will have no effect against the M829A2/3 (the author) I'd have a hard time using anything he says... Sure, listing it he way he did is more accurate than *the baseless* RHAe figures that are thrown around.

    K-5 has a good effect against M829A2, not optimal but still functions effectively, while M829A3 figures of velocity have been specifically reduced so the Kontakt-5 does not effectively detonate upon impact. Again military figures for "effective" functioning, hitprobability, killprobability etc pp are all at mark of 80% at least in Russia which has already greater requirements then US. The figures provided by UVZ for Kontakt-5 vs M829A3 is that 40-50% probability that the ERA does not detonate upon hit, meaning Kontakt-5 vs M829A3 is not effective by military requirements just as M829A3 is not effective of sustaining its purpose of defeating Kontakt-5, however the later is lower concern than the former, the one wastes another round, so what,
    ... while the other has to pray or kill him before he has chance to kill you. Both are by military definition not effective, that is why Relikt and other ERA's are in development, potential is great and they can not reduce each time the Velocity of their Sabots just  to prevent ERA from safe detonating, which will them end up having Sabots with no penetration capability whatsoever.

    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 Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:16 pm

    Werewolf wrote:K-5 has a good effect against M829A2, not optimal but still functions effectively, while M829A3 figures of velocity have been specifically reduced so the Kontakt-5 does not effectively detonate upon impact. Again military figures for "effective" functioning, hitprobability, killprobability etc pp are all at mark of 80% at least in Russia which has already greater requirements then US. The figures provided by UVZ for Kontakt-5 vs M829A3 is that 40-50% probability that the ERA does not detonate upon hit, meaning Kontakt-5 vs M829A3 is not effective by military requirements just as M829A3 is not effective of sustaining its purpose of defeating Kontakt-5, however the later is lower concern than the former, the one wastes another round, so what,
    ... while the other has to pray or kill him before he has chance to kill you. Both are by military definition not effective, that is why Relikt and other ERA's are in development, potential is great and they can not reduce each time the Velocity of their Sabots just  to prevent ERA from safe detonating, which will them end up having Sabots with no penetration capability whatsoever.
    Not denying that, but saying the K-5 has no literal use against it is...not very bright in ideology. 

    40-50% is still useful, the the shear impact of the large-mass A3 rod may cause detonation inevitably despite travelling at slightly lower speeds. 

    I agree.

    AK-Rex
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 40
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2015-12-22

    Militant TOW Missile Hits T-90 Tank ??

    Post  AK-Rex on Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:17 am

    Militant TOW Missile Hits T-90 Tank ??


    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:36 am

    AK-Rex wrote:Militant TOW Missile Hits T-90 Tank ??


    Thrid time the charm:

    Yep hit the Gunner position from about 1200/1500m. The Gunner escaped, no aftermath, no cooking. Allegedly not the first time the T90 recieves ATGM love.

    Once again Syrian tankers have big issues with their tools. The Gunner should have seen the ATGM and movement on thermal and it was well within range.

    There's 5 seconds between launch and impact.

    Tow max velocity= 240m/s. Well within fire enveloppe and in front of the tank. Also Shtora was off. Tank looks OK.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:37 am

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Some people say barrel or stabilizer trouble with this particular unit, stabilizer was off, etc.

    It is quite clear that the stabilizer was off in both firing videos, the barrel is not 'cushioned' at all.

    They definitely should have fixed any problems with the stabilizer or the barrel before releasing the video.

    Why do you think there are problems? They did not use the stabilizer for a reason, it was unnecessary for stationary test and makes analysis harder from video footage.

    Thrid time the charm:

    Yep hit the Gunner position from about 1200/1500m. The Gunner escaped, no aftermath, no cooking. Allegedly not the first time the T90 recieves ATGM love.

    Once again Syrian tankers have big issues with their tools. The Gunner should have seen the ATGM and movement on thermal and it was well within range.

    There's 5 seconds between launch and impact.

    Tow max velocity= 240m/s. Well within fire enveloppe and in front of the tank. Also Shtora was off. Tank looks OK.

    Was pretty close to the gun but no effect, not even smoke from the inside like you see on every other tank when the gunner/commander bails out you see usually smoke. No penetration i would conclude.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:58 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Some people say barrel or stabilizer trouble with this particular unit, stabilizer was off, etc.

    It is quite clear that the stabilizer was off in both firing videos, the barrel is not 'cushioned' at all.

    They definitely should have fixed any problems with the stabilizer or the barrel before releasing the video.

    Why do you think there are problems? They did not use the stabilizer for a reason, it was unnecessary for stationary test and makes analysis harder from video footage.

    Thrid time the charm:

    Yep hit the Gunner position from about 1200/1500m. The Gunner escaped, no aftermath, no cooking. Allegedly not the first time the T90 recieves ATGM love.

    Once again Syrian tankers have big issues with their tools. The Gunner should have seen the ATGM and movement on thermal and it was well within range.

    There's 5 seconds between launch and impact.

    Tow max velocity= 240m/s. Well within fire enveloppe and in front of the tank. Also Shtora was off. Tank looks OK.

    Was pretty close to the gun but no effect, not even smoke from the inside like you see on every other tank when the gunner/commander bails out you see usually smoke. No penetration i would conclude.

    The TOW cut the meteorological mast, dredged the SoSna-U and probably the gunners sight. Actually Either the ATGM got deflected by ERA (le LOL) either the TOW gunner misjudged the distance (close and aimed too high). Also huge kudos to the gunner for leaving his combat post. Your dudes are defenseless now dibil. While I understand he wouldn't want to be turned into a Gyros Meat Bulk, that decision in the long term might cost a lot more next time. You picked up a fight, you keep the fight up.

    Edit. Nope it didn't touch the mast, only the sights and TIS. Yay...


    Last edited by KoTeMoRe on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4799
    Points : 4846
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Militarov on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:01 pm

    I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:06 pm

    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    Possible, problem is that he would never have had the time to bail out if pen.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:09 pm

    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:10 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    Furthermore the Gunner is on the trajectory. Penetration means he's a goner. No two ways about it.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:18 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    Furthermore the Gunner is on the trajectory. Penetration means he's a goner. No two ways about it.

    Depends which sights.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:31 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    Furthermore the Gunner is on the trajectory. Penetration means he's a goner. No two ways about it.

    Depends which sights.

    The side the TOW hit, if penetration is effective, is the gunner side. While some spall and friction can cause a "death shower" in the fighting compartiment, the TOW linear axis aims at the gunner. So the gunner would be unable to move that fast in a single piece.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:34 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    Furthermore the Gunner is on the trajectory. Penetration means he's a goner. No two ways about it.

    Depends which sights.

    The side the TOW hit, if penetration is effective, is the gunner side. While some spall and friction can cause a "death shower" in the fighting compartiment, the TOW linear axis aims at the gunner. So the gunner would be unable to move that fast in a single piece.

    Was refering to something different than you, but it makes no difference whatsoever because we know the driver was bailing out "uninjured".

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4799
    Points : 4846
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:39 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    It can be caused by friction sparks and liquid metal shower too, and those can spread almost everywhere inside in case of penetration. He was in "better safe than sorry" mode.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:45 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    It can be caused by friction sparks and liquid metal shower too, and those can spread almost everywhere inside in case of penetration. He was in "better safe than sorry" mode.

    Look the next post. "Death Shower" would have killed him or at least incapacitated him badly. There he is moving out like it was a drill.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4799
    Points : 4846
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Militarov on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:47 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    It can be caused by friction sparks and liquid metal shower too, and those can spread almost everywhere inside in case of penetration. He was in "better safe than sorry" mode.

    Look the next post. "Death Shower" would have killed him or at least incapacitated him badly. There he is moving out like it was a drill.

    True, true. Just saying that he might did not know where tank was hit, so he just went apeshit to bail out.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:52 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    It can be caused by friction sparks and liquid metal shower too, and those can spread almost everywhere inside in case of penetration. He was in "better safe than sorry" mode.

    Unlikely to be the case, it's a T-90A(SSA) which has isolated ammunition in magazine and from russian expertize they are most probably trained how to use them properly without ammunition in the turret and even the ammunition in the turret are in canisters and spalling is unlikely to cause a cook off.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:59 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I think he was afraid of cooking off.

    There could not be a cook off even if it would penetrate the turret. There is no ammunition in the trajectory of the penetrator. It hit the roof in very flat trajectory. The hatch was open and that guy definetley got a concusion. If he is lucky he has a tinnitus for life, if not so lucky deaf for life.

    It can be caused by friction sparks and liquid metal shower too, and those can spread almost everywhere inside in case of penetration. He was in "better safe than sorry" mode.

    Look the next post. "Death Shower" would have killed him or at least incapacitated him badly. There he is moving out like it was a drill.

    True, true. Just saying that he might did not know where tank was hit, so he just went apeshit to bail out.

    Which is the right answer. He got scared and bailed.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  George1 on Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:32 pm

    Simple Yet Reliable: New Russian Armored Vehicles to Receive Slat Armor

    All advanced Russian armored vehicles will be protected from modern tandem weapons with the help of slat armor, according to the newspaper Izvestia.

    The newspaper Izvestia quoted a Russian Defense Ministry source as saying that all sophisticated Russian wheeled and tracked armored vehicles will be equipped with slat armor.

    Also known as bar armor, cage armor and standoff armor, slat armor is specifically designed to protect armored vehicles against anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade attacks.

    "The decision on the development and subsequent use of slat armor has already been made", the source said, adding that the Russian Defense Ministry is currently considering what type of slat armor is needed for certain new generation armored vehicles being produced for the Russian Armed Forces.

    In addition to the T-14 Armata tank, a whole array of state-of-the-art Russian armored vehicles is expected to be equipped with slat armor.

    These include the Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle, the Bumerang armored personnel carrier, the Platforma-M multi-purpose robotic system, the Dragun infantry combat vehicle, the Taifun wheeled armored vehicle, the Ural-VV wheeled armored vehicle and the Tornado multiple launch rocket system.

    Slat armor takes the form of a rigid slatted metal grid fitted around key sections of the vehicle, such as its engine and transmission.

    The grid disrupts the shaped charge of the warhead by either crushing it, preventing optimal detonation from occurring, or by damaging the fusing mechanism, preventing detonation outright.

    In Russia, slat armor has been developed by the Steel Scientific Research Institute, Izvestia said, referring to the company's representative Yevgeny Chistyakov.

    "Slat armor's efficiency is lower than that of dynamic protection, but slat armor is much easier [to produce] and cheaper. These metal grids help protect military equipment from cumulative grenades, something that especially matters during an urban combat when [a vehicle can be fired upon] from any direction," Chistyakov told Izvestia.

    It is worth noting that although slat armor is effective against incoming missiles, it doesn't offer complete protection, given that about 50 percent of missile impacts remain unimpeded by the slat design.

    This is why complex solutions should be taken when it comes to protecting armored vehicles, Viktor Murakhovsk, editor of the Russian magazine Arsenal Otechestva said in an interview with Izvestia.

    He explained that when in action, the crew members of an armored vehicle typically die from the impact of fragments rather than that of a cumulative jet.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160821/1044483904/russia-armored-vehicles-slat-armor.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:11 am

    An added advantage of slat armour is that in real combat when you have all that extra equipment you want to carry like mattresses to sleep on and extra water or food or other bits and pieces can be strapped inside these metal cages around the outer armour... it is like extra protection as well as secure storage for the extra bits the original armour designers never think about.

    It also offers lots of easy locations to tie on camouflage too when needed.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:21 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:21 pm