Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Share
    avatar
    hoom
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 371
    Points : 373
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  hoom on Sat Aug 27, 2016 9:24 am

    Slat armor's efficiency is lower than that of dynamic protection, but slat armor is much easier [to produce] and cheaper.
    That sounds kinda like 'slat instead of reactive'?
    avatar
    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Zivo on Sat Aug 27, 2016 6:00 pm

    hoom wrote:
    Slat armor's efficiency is lower than that of dynamic protection, but slat armor is much easier [to produce] and cheaper.
    That sounds kinda like 'slat instead of reactive'?

    The T-14 already uses both slat and dynamic protection.

    keep reading:


    "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..."


    IMO this report reads like a plan to mass produce standardized slat armor kits for the army, so even if not widely used, they would be available for deployment when needed.

    Enera
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 5
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2017-01-05
    Location : Malaysia

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Enera on Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:47 pm

    I'm sorry if I necro'ed this topic but I'm not sure where to post the following information and question. I was originally following T-14 Armata thread and noticed the bit where collegeboy talked about the new NII Stali no explosive-containing reactive armour. Well, I've done some digging around and found two interesting patents:-

    • (russianpatents.com/patent/239/2398175.html)Non-explosive power material and reactive armor element made using said material
    • (russianpatents.com/patent/206/2060438.html)Device for protection against high-speed weapons


    The first patent might be the one that describe the new NII Stali's SLERA whereby it doesn't use any explosive but a gas-generating substance to initiate the reaction. Why this is important is because I suspect majority of packed explosives in an ERA would be wasted needlessly rather than help the RA; a high explosive generate both overpressure/blast and heat which would be wasted through the unconfined sides of the RA plate. We could see this trend by reduced explosive content in successive ERA generations as shown by posters of the thread. And also in this PDF: (dfnc.ru/images/magazines/PDF/august%202012.pdf) New Defence Order Strategy, August (2012), page 65 for English.

    As I understand, a high explosives kill people by combination of factors and overpressure being one of them. This overpressure is generated from rapid evolution of gas from the compound. So if we can mimic the overpressure effect with a gas-generating compound, we can eliminate the high explosive part. But as majority of gas-generating compound is slow acting, the first patent refers to usage of 'spheres' which I suspect a nano-additive. As I understand, nano-particles have high surface area for reaction and so this help to speed up the combustion of the gas-generating layer.

    The second patent on the other hand might have something to do to prevent sympathetic detonation to other RA blocks. In terms of NII Stali new RA, such structures should help to reduce confinement needs for them and thus the blocks can be made smaller and more numerous. This could directly translate to better protective capabilities as given a hostile munition is less likely to hit at the exact same places at significant combat ranges (≥ 3 km?), a denser and smaller RA tile setup can take more munitions than a RA tile with larger surface area. The same patent should also help to improve current operational RAs such as Relikt but since they're patents, all of these are just my guesses.

    Alternatively sans the two linked patents, I would like to discuss on collegeboy's idea on how the new SLERA (or MERA) worked. I looked into impact-initiated thermites and thought, it might work after all if you select at what density and pressure to ignite a distributed thermite compound inside a RA layer. But as RA main mechanism is to throw/present more apparent depth for the offending munition to go through, I'm not convinced on the idea brought by him. I'm instead think the above two linked patents might be able to explain the new Nii Stali RA for a bit, or what can be gleamed from public sources. Disclaimer, I didn't cross-check with Russian-language sources but at least it's a start!



    Now to my question, I would like to ask on how K-5 actually worked. Does K-5 acted on the penetrator by throwing plates at opposing directions and thus potentially able to yaw or snap the incoming penetrator? A disclaimer, my prior knowledge on Soviet/Russian RA comes from sturgeonhouse forum.

    P.S, sorry for including links but I don't know the corresponding PDF names or articles that can be easily searched on Google. Add http in front to view them. https for the Defence Order pdf.
    avatar
    militaryword
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 8
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2016-11-05

    Secret active protection system T-14 Armata main battle tanks

    Post  militaryword on Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:39 am

    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
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16072
    Points : 16763
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:00 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:32 pm