Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues

    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 353
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  hoom on Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:24 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'?

    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 5:00 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.


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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Enera on Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:47 am

    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:-

    • ( power material and reactive armor element made using said material
    • ( 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: ( 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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Sponsored content

      Current date/time is Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:01 am