Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:52 am

    I'm not going to quote you as you're a horrible person who over explains things

    My apologies... it is just that I often get in to very long discussions on internet forums and I find it is less complicated if I am clear about everything I say, not only for the person I am chatting with but also for others following the discussion.

    I know it makes me sound preachy and like I am talking down to people and it is not intended that way.

    I just find it saves a bit of typing and a lot of (misplaced) anger and frustration when I am clear about what I mean and why.


    Wrong, Nakidka reduces IR from the sides, as that's where it's layed over. Really not sure why you say it's impossible.

    It is layered at the sides because Russian T-72s have rear mounted engines that have their exhausts at the side. If it only worked on the sides it wouldn't be worth the bother because it was primarily designed to reduce radar signature and optical signature and IR signature from aerial recon platforms. If it was only supposed to work from the sides why have anything over the top of the vehicle when simply strapping a couple of sheets to the side like the rubber material the side ERA is attached to would be quicker and easier?

    "Chuck, why is that large white square moving quite fast with exhaust fumes everywhere?"
    "Looks like a T-90, Bob."

    Nope. It would look white if it was freezing cold or very hot depending upon the polarity of the sensor. The material tends to show up as the same temperature and the things around the tank rather than hotter or colder, so the gray background will have a blob the same colour/brightness that you can't tell from the background... that is how it works to defeat the auto target tracker in Javelin. With the auto target tracker defeated the only way to fire a Javelin at it is to manually guided it in SACLOS mode like a normal TOW where it will have to penetrate the armour like any other non top attack missile.

    As I mentioned above quite some time ago... there was a video of a test where a Javelin was fired at an old T-55. The T-55 was an old range target and had been sitting there for years and was not operational. That meant it was the same temperature as the background because it had no engine and it hadn't been driven anywhere so before they could fire their Javelin in fire and forget top attack mode they had a structure that held lots of hair dryers together and they heated the outside of the tank up till it stood out in the thermal imager so they could get a lock on it and fire at it in...

    To add to that, FPA (Focal Plane Arrays) are more advanced seekers that the are less susceptible to counter measures such as a simple cloak.

    It is not a matter of how advanced the FPA is... in fact looking at the image in the viewer a modern second generation Thermal Imager has a much better image than this, but was probably too expensive to put in the nose of a missile to blow up when used properly.
    An object that is the same temperature as the other things around it will not stand out enough to be auto tracked... even if it is moving.

    Yeah, T-90s can generally on survive a Javelin if the Javelin hits anywhere on the front of the tank. Which would be a highly unlikely scenario to say the least.

    Except if ARENA is operating because in SACLOS mode the Javelin is no longer diving top attack. Yes I know ARENA is not currently in service, but it shows how the different systems compliment each other.

    Didn't we discuss this before? K-5 v.s. M829A1 = K-f, K-5 v.s. M829A2 = Tie?, K-5 v.s. M829A3 = M829A3.

    K-5 isn't Relict or Kaktus. The war between protection and attack is ongoing so which is in the lead at the moment only matters if both sides go to war right now. As that is rather unlikely then there is no point making a big deal about it now. Just put into service what you have at the moment and work on the new stuff.

    Oh, 2 cm longer gonna hurt the An-124? It can carry the tonnage to support bigger tanks.

    What improvement will a 2cm length increase actually make?
    Why redesign a tank for 2cm?
    An-124s are going to be busy moving much heavier items BTW, the Il-76, Il-476, and An-70 will be moving the Tanks when they are moved by air. That is why their payloads are in the roughly 50 ton or heavier range.

    Which coincidentally has to do with size, as more size means more places to store it.

    Not at all. Storing all ammo and fuel externally would make the crew completely safe from a fuel or ammo explosion. Would also make it vulnerable to enemy fire of course and a tank without fuel or ammo or both is a heavily armoured pill box, an expensive heavy 3 man troop transporter or a paperweight. pirat

    And any proof of said system?

    I can't prove you exist yet I talk to you. Smile

    The program in question is top secret, but said to be revolutionary breaking new ground in several technology areas including the combination of existing technologies to create new capabilities. Lets face it... 30 years ago they took an aircraft mounted radar and a helmet mounted sight and an aircraft mounted IRST and combined the systems in their fighter aircraft so that the different sensors could use their advantages and minimise their disadvantages. For example the Radar emitted energy that could be detected, but the IRST could determine angle to a target with much better angular accuracy than any radar. By combining the two the IRST could detect and track targets and the radar could be slaved to the IRST lock. The IRST could only determine range within about 8km with a laser rangefinder, but with an IRST lock you also had a radar lock so a ranging pulse from the radar would flash for a milisecond on an enemies RHAWs and not really be noticed amongst the noise of the average battlefield but it would be enough to get the range to the target. Enough for an IR BVR missile launch if the target was in range.
    The helmet mounted sight could also be used to direct the IRST and Radar to targets too, and the high offboresight seeker of the R-73 could be directed by all three.
    Helmet mounted sights, radars, and IRSTs were not new in the early 1980s but the way the Soviets used them all together with a high off boresight IR guided missile was revolutionary... though seldom acknowledged in the west.

    One more thing, T-95 = dead.

    Rubbish. The guy cutting funds controls the funds not the last remaining tank factory in Russia. Russian Army funding for the T-95 has been cut for the 2010-2015 period but where else are they going to look for a replacement for the T-90? I rather doubt the French will sell them the Leclerc... you can hardly compare a simple vessel like Mistral and a MBT. The Russians didn't even share the composition of the T-90s frontal armour with the Indians... why would France share such things with Russia... even for a large amount of cash?
    There is still no evidence that the frontal armour design of the Leclerc is any stronger than that of the T-90 anyway.
    The Russians have 20,000 tanks in storage and the Navy has the priority for funds. Tanks and APCs have been given a low priority.

    When it comes to what replaces the T-90 however it will be based on the T-95 that will probably be lighter, cheaper and have more Russian components.

    And I see this where?

    I am just saying that if 360 degree coverage is a requirement that this would be simple to achieve.

    Whatever KBP develops to replace the ARENA might be similar to ARENA or fundamentally different. I rather doubt they would drop out of the APS making business.

    Russia has fine Military equipment, but it's easily agreeable that T-90s are just T-34s with tonnes of make up on. Start from scratch, maybe you'd impress some customers.

    Why? The M1 Abrams... with its British Armour and Belgian coaxial Machine gun and its German smoothbore main gun and its electronics designed by Americans but probably made in China or Taiwan is fundamentally the same as the Sherman... it still even has a human loader.

    The change from the M60 to the M1 was made clear because of the design of the composite armour used in the M1 made it look different but it is basically the same layout and design... though twice the weight.
    The Soviets started using composite armour in the T-64 and its effect on the external appearance is rather less pronounced, yet the combination of armour and ERA it manages to approximate the protection level of the much larger M1A2 while being almost 30 tons lighter.

    BTW I have read the US is unhappy with the weight of the M1 Abrams and is looking at a tank... in the 40 ton range... who should replace what now?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:36 pm

    Oh lord, you've done it again. angry




    It is layered at the sides because Russian T-72s have rear mounted engines that have their exhausts at the side. If it only worked on the sides it wouldn't be worth the bother because it was primarily designed to reduce radar signature and optical signature and IR signature from aerial recon platforms. If it was only supposed to work from the sides why have anything over the top of the vehicle when simply strapping a couple of sheets to the side like the rubber material the side ERA is attached to would be quicker and easier?

    No, it's used on the sides for typical combat purposes. When enemy aerial recon becomes prevalent, it is supposed to just be used and drape it over the entire tank, while it's immobile.


    Nope. It would look white if it was freezing cold or very hot depending upon the polarity of the sensor. The material tends to show up as the same temperature and the things around the tank rather than hotter or colder, so the gray background will have a blob the same colour/brightness that you can't tell from the background... that is how it works to defeat the auto target tracker in Javelin. With the auto target tracker defeated the only way to fire a Javelin at it is to manually guided it in SACLOS mode like a normal TOW where it will have to penetrate the armour like any other non top attack missile.

    As I mentioned above quite some time ago... there was a video of a test where a Javelin was fired at an old T-55. The T-55 was an old range target and had been sitting there for years and was not operational. That meant it was the same temperature as the background because it had no engine and it hadn't been driven anywhere so before they could fire their Javelin in fire and forget top attack mode they had a structure that held lots of hair dryers together and they heated the outside of the tank up till it stood out in the thermal imager so they could get a lock on it and fire at it in...

    Again, tanks can only use Nakidka to full top-attack effectiveness when the tank in question is stationary and avoiding detection. Whilst moving, a top-attack IRR ATGM like Javelin will see the tank no problem, even with Nakidka, if Nakidka even gets deployed, that is.



    It is not a matter of how advanced the FPA is... in fact looking at the image in the viewer a modern second generation Thermal Imager has a much better image than this, but was probably too expensive to put in the nose of a missile to blow up when used properly.
    An object that is the same temperature as the other things around it will not stand out enough to be auto tracked... even if it is moving.

    Problem is the thing in question isn't the same temperature.



    Except if ARENA is operating because in SACLOS mode the Javelin is no longer diving top attack. Yes I know ARENA is not currently in service, but it shows how the different systems compliment each other.

    If it's not in service than it's not worth mentioning.



    K-5 isn't Relict or Kaktus. The war between protection and attack is ongoing so which is in the lead at the moment only matters if both sides go to war right now. As that is rather unlikely then there is no point making a big deal about it now. Just put into service what you have at the moment and work on the new stuff.

    But they're all just the same ERAs in different proportions. Not much really you can add to that.


    What improvement will a 2cm length increase actually make?
    Why redesign a tank for 2cm?
    An-124s are going to be busy moving much heavier items BTW, the Il-76, Il-476, and An-70 will be moving the Tanks when they are moved by air. That is why their payloads are in the roughly 50 ton or heavier range.

    Did you really think I meant 2 cm taller and that's it? For one thing, a longer turret means more space for the crew, equipment, and ammunition.



    Not at all. Storing all ammo and fuel externally would make the crew completely safe from a fuel or ammo explosion. Would also make it vulnerable to enemy fire of course and a tank without fuel or ammo or both is a heavily armoured pill box, an expensive heavy 3 man troop transporter or a paperweight. pirat

    Lol, a tank without it's fuel or ammo is just a sitting duck. We wouldn't even have to shoot Hellfires at T-90s, just carry them out on a plane. Stupider suggestion then any of mine. censored


    I can't prove you exist yet I talk to you. :smile:

    The program in question is top secret, but said to be revolutionary breaking new ground in several technology areas including the combination of existing technologies to create new capabilities. Lets face it... 30 years ago they took an aircraft mounted radar and a helmet mounted sight and an aircraft mounted IRST and combined the systems in their fighter aircraft so that the different sensors could use their advantages and minimise their disadvantages. For example the Radar emitted energy that could be detected, but the IRST could determine angle to a target with much better angular accuracy than any radar. By combining the two the IRST could detect and track targets and the radar could be slaved to the IRST lock. The IRST could only determine range within about 8km with a laser rangefinder, but with an IRST lock you also had a radar lock so a ranging pulse from the radar would flash for a milisecond on an enemies RHAWs and not really be noticed amongst the noise of the average battlefield but it would be enough to get the range to the target. Enough for an IR BVR missile launch if the target was in range.
    The helmet mounted sight could also be used to direct the IRST and Radar to targets too, and the high offboresight seeker of the R-73 could be directed by all three.
    Helmet mounted sights, radars, and IRSTs were not new in the early 1980s but the way the Soviets used them all together with a high off boresight IR guided missile was revolutionary... though seldom acknowledged in the west.

    So, no.



    Rubbish. The guy cutting funds controls the funds not the last remaining tank factory in Russia. Russian Army funding for the T-95 has been cut for the 2010-2015 period but where else are they going to look for a replacement for the T-90? I rather doubt the French will sell them the Leclerc... you can hardly compare a simple vessel like Mistral and a MBT. The Russians didn't even share the composition of the T-90s frontal armour with the Indians... why would France share such things with Russia... even for a large amount of cash?
    There is still no evidence that the frontal armour design of the Leclerc is any stronger than that of the T-90 anyway.
    The Russians have 20,000 tanks in storage and the Navy has the priority for funds. Tanks and APCs have been given a low priority.

    When it comes to what replaces the T-90 however it will be based on the T-95 that will probably be lighter, cheaper and have more Russian components.

    Heard of a Leopard? Yeah, full of Russian compenents, right, just straight copied from THALES.



    I am just saying that if 360 degree coverage is a requirement that this would be simple to achieve.

    Whatever KBP develops to replace the ARENA might be similar to ARENA or fundamentally different. I rather doubt they would drop out of the APS making business.

    So 360 degree protection isn't a requirement? Either Russia is dumb or the people designing are.



    Why? The M1 Abrams... with its British Armour and Belgian coaxial Machine gun and its German smoothbore main gun and its electronics designed by Americans but probably made in China or Taiwan is fundamentally the same as the Sherman... it still even has a human loader.

    The change from the M60 to the M1 was made clear because of the design of the composite armour used in the M1 made it look different but it is basically the same layout and design... though twice the weight.
    The Soviets started using composite armour in the T-64 and its effect on the external appearance is rather less pronounced, yet the combination of armour and ERA it manages to approximate the protection level of the much larger M1A2 while being almost 30 tons lighter.

    BTW I have read the US is unhappy with the weight of the M1 Abrams and is looking at a tank... in the 40 ton range... who should replace what now?

    Difference between the Sherman and the Abrams is philosophy. The Shermans were designed to envelop, sacrifice, and destroy a Panzer or a Tiger. Abrams are designed to take on a T-90 one on one and win. T-90s are still designed off the same philosophy as the T-34, light, mobile, gun platforms. Besides, Abrams is irrelevant here. It's clear that the "small silhouette" of the T-72 family has not paid off, as just because it's shorter and smaller doesn't mean my sights can't see you, and coincidentally, my sights are even better than yours. Just build your tanks like how we did it, the Black Eagle was looking good until it was either not even real or just canceled.

    BTW, reading an article doesn't mean it's related to the entire country.

    The Abrams is still set to be here until the 2050s, in which time, we would probably dissolve our MBT divisions as we're not fighting conventional wars anymore.

    It's already happened now, we have 10 armor divisions in the Army at the moment, 7 light divisions composed of light armors and 3 historical divisions full of MBTs like the A2 Abrams.

    Russia should do the same, 10 Divisions of BMPTs.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:04 am

    No, it's used on the sides for typical combat purposes. When enemy aerial recon becomes prevalent, it is supposed to just be used and drape it over the entire tank, while it's immobile.

    And it would be impossible to modify to cover the signature of the tank from above when mobile why?

    It is the sides that a Javelin operator will be trying to get a lock to launch in automatic mode. If it can't get a lock from the side it can't lock on to launch in the first place.

    Again, tanks can only use Nakidka to full top-attack effectiveness when the tank in question is stationary and avoiding detection. Whilst moving, a top-attack IRR ATGM like Javelin will see the tank no problem, even with Nakidka, if Nakidka even gets deployed, that is.

    If Javelin can't lock on from the side how can it be launched at the tank in the first place... it is not a lock on after launch weapon.

    Problem is the thing in question isn't the same temperature.

    Why wouldn't it be? Thermal imagers have trouble in tropical regions where the ground can get up to 30 degrees or more during the day. Looking for humans with skin temperatures of 36 degrees on a background of 30-35 degrees makes a thermal imager not much use till the ground cools down... problem of course in some places it doesn't cool down all that much. My brother lives in Thailand and he has sent me emails telling me it is 10pm at night and 44 degrees. In such conditions a human would be colder than the ground they are standing on and almost impossible to find on a thermal imager because most are calibrated to show body heat targets as white blobs on a black background. A human target at 10pm in the dark with an air temperature of 44 degrees would be a white blob on a while background. In other words the thermal sight would be useless for finding targets unless you knew exactly where to look.

    If it's not in service than it's not worth mentioning.

    Hahahahaha. That is funny. So everything that is in service is it... if the Russian AF can't defeat an F-22 now there is no point and Russia should just sell all its airplanes and find another hobby?

    ARENA is available and it works in its designed function of defeating the most common threat on the battlefield... that of anti tank missiles and anti tank rockets. To reject it because it doesn't in its current form defeat Javelins or for that matter land mines is ridiculous. Putting it in service improve the performance of current vehicles and future growth of the system can be applied to deal with its current weaknesses. It doesn't matter what its performance is, by their very nature rival countries will devise methods to defeat it so it will need to be improved during its lifetime anyway. There is not such thing as an all perfect thing that will do everything. Having lots of little add-ons lead to a system that is much harder to defeat, simply because to defeat it you need to defeat more than one defensive measure.

    But they're all just the same ERAs in different proportions. Not much really you can add to that.

    Yeah, of course there is no more scope for improvement in ERA designs... they might as well stop right now. After all if the US doesn't use something like Relict then it can't be any good right? Twisted Evil

    Funny, they get criticised for copying and then criticised when they don't copy and start developing what America is developing.

    Maybe they could wait till Trophy is perfected and then steal it.

    Did you really think I meant 2 cm taller and that's it? For one thing, a longer turret means more space for the crew, equipment, and ammunition.

    The T-90M for export has a longer turret for more electronics and a new gun mount, while the Burlak upgrade that has had its funding cancelled had this longer turret and a turret bustle autoloader so there would be no ammo in the crew compartment.

    [qutoe]Lol, a tank without it's fuel or ammo is just a sitting duck. We wouldn't even have to shoot Hellfires at T-90s, just carry them out on a plane. Stupider suggestion then any of mine.[/quote]

    Clearly the solution is to seperate the crew from the fuel and ammo, while at the same time protect the fuel and ammo from external attack. BTW if you think a tank without ammo is a sitting duck you should check the armour protection for the top and rear of the Abrams turret. Those top blow out panels can be easily penetrated by any RPG ever made and there goes all the ready to use ammo. Fortunately so far the layout of the tank seems to be a bit of a mystery of those fighting American vehicles and so far it hasn't been targeted. In Chechnia on the other hand the enemy served in the Soviet Army and were quite familiar with where the ammo and fuel is stored, which leads to such things being targeted.

    So, no.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Heard of a Leopard? Yeah, full of Russian compenents, right, just straight copied from THALES.

    ? Leopards were designed well before THALES had access to Russian vehicles.

    The Panther was a German copy of the T-34 if that is what you mean, though it doesn't explain you mentioning THALES.

    So 360 degree protection isn't a requirement? Either Russia is dumb or the people designing are.

    The 360 degree coverage was provided by the sensor tower... if a target appeared outside the 270 degrees covered by the munitions then the turret was traversed to meet the threat which also moved the munitions so they could engage the threat. Being turret mounted the munitions faced where the turret faced so by having a unit of tanks with turrets facing in different directions there was 360 degree coverage already. It was considered good enough...

    Russia should do the same, 10 Divisions of BMPTs.

    Why should Russia do the same as the US?

    The US doesn't face a military alliance with over 20,000 tanks like Russia does.

    Difference between the Sherman and the Abrams is philosophy. The Shermans were designed to envelop, sacrifice, and destroy a Panzer or a Tiger. Abrams are designed to take on a T-90 one on one and win.

    The Sherman and the T-34 were designed to concentrate firepower to breakthrough points in enemy lines. Once through they were to use their mobility to attack supply and support vehicles and units as well as command and control centres. The most common target for both vehicles was bunkers and mg positions and buildings and unarmoured vehicles. HE firepower was much more use to them than their armour piercing ammo because there were less than 2 thousand German heavy tanks built during the war (Tigers) and less than 7 thousand medium tanks (Panthers). The vast majority of engagements were much lesser tanks that really didn't warrant a better tank. The 85mm gun was introduced to the T-34 but they could just as easily have developed a much higher velocity 76.2mm gun like the Panthers 75mm if it was for enemy tanks. The simple fact is that the 85mm gun had a better HE shell than any higher velocity smaller calibre guns and that is why they chose it.
    The M1 Abrams is based more on the Panther than the Sherman, but I was refering to the design... ie driver in the front, turret in the centre with a three man crew and an engine to the rear. The only major change from the sherman is that there is just a driver in the front hull so the radioman/bow machinegunner is gone. Wow.
    For the T-90 the bow gunner and the loader are gone, so more change there I guess. Otherwise both have large guns and both have composite armour etc etc.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:21 am

    BTW the Sherman was not designed to sacrifice.

    The old cherry that it took 4-5 Shermans to kill a Tiger should not be taken literally. 4-5 Shermans were not destroyed for every Tiger.

    It took a force of 4-5 Shermans working together to defeat a single Tiger... several of those Shermans would move from cover to cover to distract the Tiger. The Tiger could not fire while moving so while those shermans were keeping the attention of the Tiger the other Shermans would work their way around for a side shot at close range.

    Sometimes the Tigers killed the distracting Shermans and could move away before the closer shermans could fire. Sometimes the Shermans made a kill without a loss of Shermans.

    Obviously when in a meeting engagement with lots of Tigers and lots of Shermans the Shermans were in trouble, but at least they could use tactics with their radios... unlike the T-34s... but then with the early unreliability of the German heavies there was a good chance the T-34 might never see a Tiger or Panther anyway.
    The Russians knew how the Tiger crews felt because their KV-1 was in a similar position, in that when it first appeared it was not the best mechanically, but with heavy armour and a decent gun it was a formidible vehicle. The mobility of the T-34 made it more effective, but then the KV led to the IS series tanks with the IS-3M being better armoured and better armed than either the Tiger or Panther.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:21 am

    My whole point in this argument was Russia needs a new, better tank design, not just some refits and remodeling, simply scratch it all off the table or face buying foreign tanks which is something they're considering anyways.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:17 am

    First of all no one will sell them a tank that is better than the current T-90.

    Second they already have plenty of tanks, there is no current shortage.

    Third they have already stated that armour (tanks and APCs) is not a high priority for the budget period up to 2015.

    Fourth they have also said that they rejected the new T-95 design on mobility and cost issues so a much heavier western tank is not going to cut it as it will no doubt not only be more expensive but also much heavier.

    And fifth the foreign purchases are aimed at improving Russian military industrial complex levels to an equivelent western standard. What will likely happen is that they will look at new western engines and transmissions and licence produce something that can go into a T-90. In 2-3 years time they will restart production of the T-90 but it will be the new T-90M with enlarged turret and rear turret bustle autoloader and new improved armour and improved ERA and probably ARENA-3 and SHTORA-4 and Russian made Thermal sights of French design, plus comms and navigation system based on the new Russian C4IR system that hopefully will be rather more mature by then etc etc.

    By 2015 the T-95 will have been made cheaper and lighter and more of it will be Russian made and they will introduce it in small numbers to compliment the main force of upgraded T-72s and T-90Ms.

    Personally I think the T-90 with the proposed Burlak upgrade actually deals with most of the problems in a way that can also be applied to the T-72s and T-90s already in service. This is the cheapest and simplest way of upgrading the Russian Armour force in the shortest possible time IMHO.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:30 pm

    First of all, just because no one would doesn't mean they should.

    Second of all, they have plenty of outdated crap, lets be honest, a couple thousand Cold War era tanks won't stand toe to toe with any competent invasion force.

    Third of all, that statement contradicts your fifth statement. If Armored vehicles are of no priority until 5 years time, then Russia is just a sitting duck, waiting for PAK FAs to come.

    Fourth of all, it wasn't all because of mobility issues, but also design issues. It's really simple, Russia hasn't changed from a single design philosophy in regards to MBTs for a while now and adapting Western designs are comparable if not superior to Russian designs.

    Finally, many people have said this before, it doesn't matter how much ERA, how much Shtora (even though Indians think it's crap), how much ARENA (even though only S.K. seems to like it) or even Russian copy cat electronics you put on a T-90, it's still a T-90, and a single hellfire will blow it up, kill the crew, and make excellent propaganda for us Western Devils.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:08 am

    First of all, just because no one would doesn't mean they should.

    I can't say you are wrong here... after all a British Labour government did sell Stalin the Rolls Royce Nene and Derwent jet engines that were at the time rather than any other jet engine available at the time... even uncle Joe couldn't believe it... in fact I think he said something along the lines of "who would be stupid enough to sell us the brand new jet technology".
    Because many who went to look in the Rolls Royce factory wore shoes with special soles that allowed them to step on metal shavings near where component parts were made the production of Soviet engines started in record time because they already knew the alloys required to make the parts.

    Having said all that there is only one tank making factory left in Russia and there is no way the military can afford to kill it or the next Russian tank will be made in either the Ukraine or China.

    Second of all, they have plenty of outdated crap, lets be honest, a couple thousand Cold War era tanks won't stand toe to toe with any competent invasion force.

    Indeed they do have a lot of outdated crap, but any force they will fight with better stuff is in NATO so in the case of an invasion force the solution is tactical nuclear weapons to show you can't be pushed around and any nuclear response to that will result in a full strategic nuclear attack. There is nothing NATO would attack Russia for that is worth starting a full scale nuclear war over... or a small scale nuclear war plus any tactical nuke use will put everyone on a hair trigger anyway... so I rather doubt this attack will come. Japan? Not likely... it is mostly fishermen and oil companies that are interested in the Kuril Islands. China? Nah... it is easier to buy land than take it by force.

    The reality is that the T-80s and late model T-72s and T-90s are fine and everything else is obsolete as a front line tank but fine for mobile firepower in a lower scale conflict.
    The Russians need to sort out their C4IR before they worry about what tanks or APCs they want in their front line units.

    Third of all, that statement contradicts your fifth statement. If Armored vehicles are of no priority until 5 years time, then Russia is just a sitting duck, waiting for PAK FAs to come.

    Sitting duck to whom? And where did those tactical nukes all disappear to? In the Georgian conflict the Russian Army used Iskander missiles to make up for lack of all weather ground attack capability. The airforce is getting worked on, new upgraded planes and much much more importantly they are actually buying modern guided munitions to go with them.
    As I said getting the C4IR sorted out first with the navy for better global reach (and because it was the most neglected service) and the airforce getting sorted out too it seems like the ground pounders are being neglected, but the C4IR needs to be sorted out first and tanks can wait... they have some weaknesses, sure, but then they also have some advantages too like the Aniet fusing system for standard HE Frag rounds and tube fired guided missiles that can be used against helos and tanks at fairly long range are just two examples.

    Fourth of all, it wasn't all because of mobility issues, but also design issues. It's really simple, Russia hasn't changed from a single design philosophy in regards to MBTs for a while now and adapting Western designs are comparable if not superior to Russian designs.

    The T-95 is a radical rethink in tank design, western tanks are simply Russian tanks taken slightly further down the same path.
    In fact if there was no 2 decade funding gap current T-90s would probably be quite comparable to M1 Abrams today.

    Finally, many people have said this before, it doesn't matter how much ERA, how much Shtora (even though Indians think it's crap), how much ARENA (even though only S.K. seems to like it) or even Russian copy cat electronics you put on a T-90, it's still a T-90, and a single hellfire will blow it up, kill the crew, and make excellent propaganda for us Western Devils.

    Funny, T-90s take multiple hits and survive in Chechnia and others are destroyed by multiple hits and the tank is rubbish.
    Hellfires are fired at Abrams tanks and all of a sudden the Abrams is a super tank but no one suggests that Hellfires might be crap...

    I think the real difference is the story teller and I just think Americans are great story tellers.

    Funny thing is that when Israeli tanks come up against the same weapons that the T series tanks came up against in Chechnia... and what do you know... some tanks get knocked out.

    The Russians found out the hard way that it was loose ammo in the crew compartment that was catching fire and exploding if the vehicle was penetrated and in the second Chechen conflict they only carried ammo in the armoured autoloader under the turret ring. This greatly reduced casualties and led to the decision with the upgrade to add a rear turret bustle autoloader. In addition to 22 rounds in the armoured underfloor ammo magazine the rear turret bustle auto loader has about 30-32 rounds ready to load, so the vehicle not only had the ammo protected and separate from the crew compartment but also it carries about 10 rounds more than the standard vehicle and can use longer penetrators in the rear loader.
    The T-95 completely separates crew from gun and autoloader and fuel storage.
    avatar
    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2173
    Points : 3069
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

    The Russians need to sort out their C4IR before they worry about what tanks or APCs they want in their front line units.

    C4ISR can be retrofitted to anything. No need to build a platform around it. It can be added later. We need armour that can slug it out with the best the PLA can throw at it for the next 20 years.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Agreed with most points from Vlad except 2.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:35 am

    I don't think they will delay armour improvements for work on C4IR, I think they will delay armour improvements while more of the components are foreign made.
    I think the funding and development and thinking effort will be focused on C4IR while the armour gets more Russian content.

    I see that the Russian Army has ordered the Tiger-M but will not actually take deliveries till 2011. It seems that a Russian engine will be ready at the end of this year which explains why production and delivery wont start till next year... they don't want the American engine.
    For export the Tiger-M will continue to be sold with the American engine, though after 2011 it might have the Russian engine as an option.

    Apart from French components that Russia can licence produce in Russia, then I think the upgrade of the T-90 will be delayed till it is all Russian before they make more tanks. It doesn't make sense right now to make T-90s if you are nearly finished development of a new standard design for the T-90 and it is made of a lot of foreign parts at the moment. Set up licence production of the comms and the anything else you need and then start producing T-90x's. In the mean time however it would make sense to start upgrading some T-72s because of the 7-8,000 tanks Russia is planning to have more than 2/3rds are going to be upgraded T-72s so starting on upgrading those makes a lot of sense to keep the UVZ working with those... say a start of 100-200 but building up to 500 per year till they are ready to start on the new T-90 models with all their changes and new stuff.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6398
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:37 am

    Mindstorm awaiting your response , couple of questions to you , its some real learning experince.

    1> i saw your post on beam rider in kornet thread ,so tank say T-90 can you get the same function with beam rider as you get with kornet-em , considering auto-tracker is a function with MS , hope they could get top attack capability with reflex missile.

    2> Are you aware of new developments in field of tank MG launched missile , I mean something beyond reflex.

    3> i hear kontact-5 was well tested in 1993 by German and US round and they developed something that could defeat K-5 based on those test ,but i assume K-5 development is not static since 93 and must have moved on , can you confirm that K-5 has many variants to it ?

    4> Also awaiting your reply from previous post , when ever you get the time.

    Thanks

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6398
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:01 am

    Why wasnt Shotra-1 system ( with Arena hard kill and Softkill system ) mass deployed in Russian tank forces , did it have any inherent weakness or drawbacks that prevented its mass induction.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:26 pm

    but i assume K-5 development is not static since 93 and must have moved on

    Relikt, and Kaktus have both been developed since, plus whatever was developed for the T-95.

    Why wasnt Shotra-1 system ( with Arena hard kill and Softkill system ) mass deployed in Russian tank forces , did it have any inherent weakness or drawbacks that prevented its mass induction.

    Shtora was a passive defence suite that included laser sensors and smoke grenade launchers and IR lamps designed to deal with second generation ATGMs like TOW and HOT and Milan and AT-3/-4/-5 and Metis. It had an angle of effective use that meant it would not work on Javelin or Spike in their top attack modes.

    ARENA was an active protection system that would work on most conventional anti tank weapons, guided or unguided, but not diving top attack weapons. It would work on weapons like BILL2 that flew over targets and fired their warheads down as they overflew the target, but not Javelin and Spike.

    Why didn't they enter mass service?

    Why didn't every T-72 and T-90 get full upgrades?

    These two systems might be incorporated in the T-72 upgrades, or their replacements might.

    They no doubt developed hard and soft active protection systems for the T-95 and these will likely be used in the Armata.

    If effective then they might be retro fitted to older tanks too... things like active defence systems and ERA were often fitted to older tanks like the T-55AD which was a test tank for the Drodz system that was tested and used by naval infantry tanks in Afghanistan, where it proved effective against RPG attack.

    Considering the number of RPGs in the world compared with the number of Javelins Russian tanks are likely to come up against I think both systems are well worth while as they compliment each other and the other protection measures on the tanks.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6398
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:Relikt, and Kaktus have both been developed since, plus whatever was developed for the T-95.


    No my point was Kaktus development would not have remained since 1993 , I am sure K-5 would have evolved. Relikt is a new development and it would also evolve and get better with time


    Shtora was a passive defence suite that included laser sensors and smoke grenade launchers and IR lamps designed to deal with second generation ATGMs like TOW and HOT and Milan and AT-3/-4/-5 and Metis. It had an angle of effective use that meant it would not work on Javelin or Spike in their top attack modes.

    I think Shotra-1 includes both sensor , passive system and active system.

    I was wondering if Shotra-1 could jam Kornet low power laser I suppose it could
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:35 am

    I was wondering if Shotra-1 could jam Kornet low power laser I suppose it could

    Very unlikely.

    Shtora works by defeating the missile tracking IR goniometer in ATGMs, and by firing smoke grenades... Kornet doesn't have an IR goniometer because the launch platform doesn't track the missile, it just tracks the target. The missile doesn't look at the target tank, it looks back at the laser beam coming from the launch platform and "flys down it".

    The auto tracker in the Kornet-EM uses digital video and thermal sights, so if Shtora can jam Kornet EM it would need to be able to jam thermal imagers... and it can't.

    In good weather on a clear day the Kornet EM would likely use the day time video channel to track the target and the only defence against such a thing would be to fire smoke.

    The problem for the target however is that the very low power laser beam requires a very sensitive detection setting and would result in smoke being fired a lot. In fact reflections from the targets own laser range finder could set the smoke launchers off...

    No my point was Kaktus development would not have remained since 1993 , I am sure K-5 would have evolved. Relikt is a new development and it would also evolve and get better with time

    Kaktus was developed for the Black Eagle AFAIK and was developed by the tank company that made the T-80 that went bust. The intellectual property of that company along with the engineers were transfered to UVZ which might have continued their work or might not have.

    They have already publicly stated they are working on new NERA and NxRA armours that work even better than Relikt, which I would presume are intended for the Armata.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6398
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:02 am

    Garry and every one check this site for details of Reflex missile

    http://www.kotsch88.de/f_9k119.htm

    Its a german site so use translation , Please check the site in details has very good and detailed information on many Russian tank and systems

    Shotra-1

    http://www.kotsch88.de/al_shtora-1.htm

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6398
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:21 pm

    Just thinking over the 21 guranteed shot from 22 rounds that Gur Khan mentioned was possible with new Kalina FCS , that should give it 38 round of hits with the 40 that she carries so its quite good.

    Garry I am not sure when Kaktus was developed as even lately they were exporting K-5 which I am sure has evolved over time and is quite good.

    How do these Thermal and IR opaque scree works as Mindstorm was mentioning in one of his post , I would assume the top attack missile while using IIR seeker would try to dive on the target tank turret the smoke launches would launch its smoke grenade and that would create a opaque screen , the missile seeker does not see any thing so it just continues to dive along the path without making any correction and the target tank takes this few seconds to speed up and go away from the path , when the missile is out of the smoke it does not find the target tank there but is also too low and fast to require it or perhaps even out of FOV of seeker
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:20 pm

    If it was a human guiding the weapon manually when the smoke screen is deployed the human will try to guide the missile to the last position they knew there was a tank.

    With fire and forget guidance the weapon is likely to simply go ballistic if it is unable to reacquire its target after launch.

    avatar
    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1937
    Points : 2104
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:28 pm

    Russian and Ukranian sources claim the K-5 is resistant to the M829A2 round and anything in it's class. It's believed the M829A3 can defeat K-5.

    The Relict EAR is of modular design. The reactive element within the outer casing can be changed as better ones become available. Even now there is an export and domestic variant with slightly different elements.

    I saved some info from a discussion I took part in a few years ago in which an interesting test was discussed which had been mentioned in 'Tehnika i Vooruzheniye' by A. Tarasenko and Lt Col S. Tupitsyn titled "The Situation in Domestic Tank Manufacturing: Turth and Fantasy". The test was undertaken during the negotiations for the purchase of the T-90 by the Indian Army back in the 1990's

    "High-tensile ceramic fillers and armour with 'baffle plates', which are regarded as the semi-active type, are employed as fillers in domestically-produced tanks. An improved filler is being employed on the new welded turret, which is being installed on the latest versions of the T-90 and its export modifcation the T-90S. The tests that were conducted in the presence of an Indian delegation with shelling using the latest foreign munitions (the M829A2 APFSDS projectile) showed the turret's invulnerability even without the installation of built-in reactive armour. The shelling was conducted from minimal distances (250 metres)."

    A 120mm tank gun and APFSDS rounds had been obtained clandestinely from a Middle Eastern country (believed to be Egypt). But since the export Abrams don't receive DU tipped M829A2 rounds it's most likely that that the round used in the test was KEW-A2 with a tungsten penetrator.

    __________


    On the Shtora - Kornet question....

    I think the smoke dischargers fire a multi spectral smoke screen which would block the guidance of the Kornet
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:01 pm

    I think the smoke dischargers fire a multi spectral smoke screen which would block the guidance of the Kornet

    The question is how thick is the smoke, how quickly can it deploy, will the low power beam trip the automatic defence system, and how far does it deploy from the tank.

    The Kornet flys at 300m/s so an engagement of a tank at max range of 8.5km would require almost 30 seconds flight time, but the laser beam is so weak that it is rather unlikely to give any warning of attack.

    If the smoke is less than 100m thick one could make assumptions about the missile penetrating several metres before it can no longer see its guidance beam, and so for the remaining 90m or so does it continue on a ballistic path or dive into the ground?

    Using an offset laser could delay any warning at all to the very last few seconds making an attack more effective... equally a target that obscures itself with smoke might lead to the operator selecting a new target nearby so all vehicles in the group would need to fire smoke to be safe.
    All this smoke will make things difficult for operations as thermal imagers will not work through such smoke either.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6398
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:00 pm

    [quote="Cyberspec"]
    "High-tensile ceramic fillers and armour with 'baffle plates', which are regarded as the semi-active type, are employed as fillers in domestically-produced tanks. An improved filler is being employed on the new welded turret, which is being installed on the latest versions of the T-90 and its export modifcation the T-90S. The tests that were conducted in the presence of an Indian delegation with shelling using the latest foreign munitions (the M829A2 APFSDS projectile) showed the turret's invulnerability even without the installation of built-in reactive armour. The shelling was conducted from minimal distances (250 metres)."

    Thats good info

    Is there any information available about domestic T-90A armour and export variant of it ? As in how much degradation of armour do they do for export compared to domestic ?

    A 120mm tank gun and APFSDS rounds had been obtained clandestinely from a Middle Eastern country (believed to be Egypt). But since the export Abrams don't receive DU tipped M829A2 rounds it's most likely that that the round used in the test was KEW-A2 with a tungsten penetrator.

    Interesting , It wont be difficult for them to find out DU rounds penetration for M829A2 round if they know penetration capability of tungsten round , atleast they can get good estimates if they have reference for similar rounds using different metal.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:24 am

    Finally i have a bit of work-free time to write something. Let start :

    1) The ever open question of Probability to Hit of a MBT equipped with a modern FCS and importance -or lack of it - of target's surface area for this crucial parameter

    An advanced, modern FCS ,provided with all the necessary chrono-spatial and environmental information (precise range from target ,accurate measure of its motion's vector, overall environmental temperature, wind speed, specific humidity, barrel level of thermal expansion and its level of structural fatigue etc..etc..)can effectively allow a modern MBT to find a fire solution and reliably hit a relatively small target -smaller than the frontal projection of a MBT- at long range (in the right conditions even more than 3000-3500 meters), but what is almost always, strangely, "forgotten" is that ,at medium-long range (2000 m and over) considering actual HEAT and APFSDS rounds ,all that remain true only against stationary/near-stationary targets or those changing theirs motion vector in a proportional way .

    Image an engagement attempt against a target at 2200 meters moving at 36 Km/h (10 meter/second), for simplicity we can image this target moving perfectly perpendicular to the barrel's axis of the shooting tank (choosing therefore the most advantageous geometry for the shooter); from the processed data and the precise instant of the found fire solution to the moment of the APFSDS arrival on the computed point of interception, taking into account: gun collimation ,fire initialization, velocity and gravity drop of the round and travelling time long the parabolic trajectory to this point 2200 m far, elapse about 2 seconds for a round like M829A3 (1540 m/s at gun exit).
    Now any change of the target motion from the vector computed by the FCS at the instant of fire solution capable to modify the actual spatial position of the silhouette's centre of a distance superior to its semi-projection (half of the projection of its target area at the shooting point) will cause an assured miss, anyone can easily realize as a variation as small as +/-15 Km/h in the target speed or a simply turn ,even of only few degrees, or even the effect of some terrain morphology is more than sufficient for a tank with an average silhouette to cause a miss by part of the named round at this range.

    What is very important to point-out is that what now expressed remain totally valid independently from the FCS's sophistication (unless someone will manage to create a future-reading FCS Very Happy Very Happy ) because those variations of target's vector in the mentioned time window are totally arbitrary ,therefore completely out of the computing capabilities of any data processing system in the past ,in the present or in the future.
    The unique factors, conversely, capable to influence a similar engagement sequence against a target randomly changing its motion's parameters are : round's speed, distance from target, target capability to quickly change its motion vector, round average dispersion at this date range, and size of the target actual aspect projection from the shooting point.

    Now anyone can easily realize as even small variations in a MBT's area projection (in the order of some dozen of cm ) produce a disproportionate effect in the related PtH -Probability to Hit- parameter for engagements at 2000-2500 m ,or over, between randomly moving opposing MBTs not employing guided ammunitions, because those features allow both to increase the time window useful for initialize a motion variation capable to cause a miss and/or mitigate the "required" entity of the same motion's variable.
    We must also add that a MBT with a smaller silhouette show, almost always, also a smaller internal volume and a significantly lower inertial mass, elements that don't allow only to maintain a greater armoured-mass-to-surface index but also a far better capability to quickly change direction and speed in the unitary time segment of reference , one of the variables in the Probability to Hit function for medium-long range engagements.
    The operational factors previously described wouldn't be simply important but literally crucial in any major MBT's engagement between peer opponents employing armoured brigades ,both in offensive and in defensive missions, in theirs classical CONOPS and even more considering modern concepts of adaptive ground manoeuvring warfare.
    Naturally, one more time, Gulf War, with Iraqi ground forces employing theirs MBT as....fixed pillbox/field artillery pieces Shocked Shocked....have generated a lot of low level platitudes (among which capability to engage enemy MBT with APFSDS or HEAT at 3 km or over “thanks to advanced FCS” )very difficult to eradicate from common immaginary and completely irreconcilables not only with physical reality but with what would actually happen ,or would have happened, for example, in the highly mobile engagement in the Thar Desert between India and Pakistan armoured forces (or, in the past , in the Fulda Gap and the Great European Plain between URSS and NATO) where the heavy effects of lower probably to hit triggered by lower target area and lower inertial mass of some of the MBTs involved would generate an huge impact on the final attrition ratio .

    2) The question of K-5 efficiency against various menaces

    I want to begin this response pointing out that defeating mechanism of the so called second generation heavy Soviet ERA has obviously variable effects against specific type of menaces at the variation of some of theirs parameters but ,one more time , in way completely different (often even at the exact opposite) from some ridiculous ideas circulating on the subject.
    For KE rounds against this type of ERA ,a topic very often debated in open media, main factors involved in deciding the residual penetration power of the rod after ERA action are : penetrator speed, geometry of round incidence, length to diameter ratio of the penetrator (in a paradoxical way) ,speed of the ERA plates in the inducing action (in a paradoxical way) ,ERA plates spatial configuration, KE penetrator’s main mechanical characteristics, critical plastic strain limits and tendency to bend/deform, degrees of the yaw angle .

    Among the named variables, experimental emergences have proved that those characteristics of the KE penetrators codifying for a prolonged interaction between ERA plates (in particular rear plates) with the rod increase ,often even dramatically, the efficiency of the defeating mechanism of K5-like type of ERA .

    What is interesting and important to point out is that some of those “negative” characteristics of KE penetrators in the interaction with dynamic reactive armours are conversely just those required to increase penetration capabilities against modern ,ever growing, multilayered passive armour of MBTs .
    I should still have somewhere the link to a pair of scientific publications on that specific subject in English (two others i own are in paper books in other languages) when i find them if will add here; all what said will appear surely more clear and simple.


    Ok , found the first link to one of the scientific publications

    www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/papers.2007-12-21/armor.x.ijie.vol_unk_pp_unk.protection_performance_of_dual_flying_oblique_plates_against_a_yawed_long_rod_penetrator.paik_kim_yoo_lee.2006.pdf


    Worth a mention are : the increase of length to diameter ratio : this element increase the interaction time with the ERA plates greatly “aiding” the neutralization capabilities and effectiveness of oblique plate side action of the K-5-like ERA ,the increase of L/D ratio is a forced trend among world KE penetrator’s designer ,induced obviously by the necessity to maintain a certain capability to penetrate at operational useful distances ever growing frontal passive armour level of modern MBT (and not, of course to better defeat heavy ERA ,against which it become effectively even a negative characteristic ! -where increased diameter and shortening length would be the “paying” design choices- ) ; speed of the penetrator: also here we see a clear trend for heavier and longer APFSDS with a contextual loss of speed at barrel exit and an increase of speed drop - one more time a design compromise required by the implementation of characteristics useful at improve performances against fast improving protection levels of modern passive armour but lowering efficiency against dynamic protection systems ; employment of DU core : also here the different level of adiabatic shear band formation, representing an advantage in the tunnelling action against majority of dense materials of multilayered passive armour, is linked, to the other side, to significantly lower threshold for plastic deformation and an higher tendency at tangential particle ablation and mass loss, one more time characteristics “aiding” the defeating mechanism of heavy ERA .

    At the end of day we can assert that, at the contrary of what commonly repeated in low level speculations, several features of KE round design implemented in the latest APFSDS rounds show physical capabilities the efficiency of which are at the exact antipodes for interactions with multilayered passive armours or modern ERA dynamic protection systems; therefore the most rational option remaining to the designers remain only to optimize the KE round for the best performances and penetration capabilities against composite and spaced passive armour considering that : ERA tiles never cover the entire surface of a MBT , almost always them work only for a single APFSDS hit in a particular spot and that several MBT don’t employ them at all.


    3) K-5’s versions or modernizations and level of protection .

    Kontakt-5 ERA has received in the years only secondary modifications (mostly aimed at reduce the required explosive charge , geometry and specific arrangement of the system for a specific platform and a moderate retarding of rear plate reaction sequence ), but the fundamental of the system are remain unchanged .
    What is more interesting is point out ,as already exposed in other mine intervention, the substantial difference between the export version of K-5 offered aboard ,with a capability to increase the level of protection of existing passive armour of 1,2 [ 20% ] against Kinetic Energy rounds and 1,7 -1,8 [70 %] against Chemical Energy rounds and ,conversely, the last Russian internal version with claimed capabilities in specialized publications of about 1,5 -1,6 against KE [50-60%] (equal or better than the actual performances of Relikt ERA now offered for export !) and 2 [100%] against Chemical Energy rounds.

    For render much clear the actual point make and those previously exposed ,i find that an article from "Tehnika i Voorujenie" of November 2006 by Colonel S. Tupitsyn and A. Tarasenco can be truly enlightening (edit note : appear that Cyber has almost magically mentioned the same article i have pointed out while i was writing ,in any istance with my link you can read it entirely in first person and with it, hundreds of others - Very Happy )

    Please go at this link and download in PDF the issue n 11 of 2006 and open at pag 10-15 (in link format it don't work here : simply copy and paste)



    publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/T/''Tehnika_i_voorujenie''/_''Tehnika_i_voorujenie''_2006_.html


    Some interesting informations from the article on internal russian versions of notorious systems and some westrn ones that someone would find surprising :

    1) The gun shooted 9M119M1 has a penetration power of 900 mm RHA against not ERA equiped target , in the computations of the developers more than sufficient for penetrate and destroy modern version od Leopard-2 and Abrams

    2) The increase resistance to armour level offered by internal Kontakt-5 ERA is,as previously mentioned, 1,5 - 1,6 against KE penetrators and 2 against CE ammunitions.

    3) Is present a table with the velocity drop of several russian and western APDS (3BM42,3BM42M, DM53 from L44 and L55 gun, M829A2 )

    4) Protection level of M1 Abrams of 1980 against APDS round was about 350-380 mm of RHA and 500 mm for the M1A1 vesrion

    5) APFSDS with a minimum guaranteed penetration level of 300 mm RHA at 60 degrees at 2 km (therefore about 600 mm at usual penetration route length) was already introduced in Russian armoured forces.

    6) In a report by L. Mann in "Deutsche Airspace" of 1993 on tests effectuated on T-72M1 resulted a frontal turret armour level of 420-480 mm against the best 105-120 mm Federal Republic of Germany rounds available at the time.

    7) An M1 Abrams had a frontal projection more than 25% bigger than a T-72 -5,1m2 against 4 m2- (do you remember the question of PtH in mobile engagement at 2000m + range?)

    Cool The level of frontal protection of the Soviet T-72B (likely like those tested by L Ness and M. Held after Germany reunification) was 550 mm RHA against APFSDS increased at more than 750 mm against APFSDS when fitted with K-5 ERA !!

    9) Semiactive baffle plates and ceramic layers with high tensile proprieties are employed in T-90. Even more advanced fillers was implemented in the welded turretts of domestic T-90 and on export T-90S for India .

    10) In several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign munitions of the M829A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in reactive armor the turrett resulted completely impentrable !! (that can give an idea of the level of protection reached by modern russian 10 layer composite passive/semiactive armour in the frontal sector and aid us also to avoid to remain surprised in front of the figures for armour level -850 mm against APFSDS and 1200 against CE - provided for frontal sector of the new export T-90MS ).
    That absurd resiliency to enemy fire (systematically proved by Russian MBT any time live tests was conducted in the past on any not-monkey model specimen....with good peace of ignorant claims of "tanks not designed to sustain hits" !!! Laughing Laughing Laughing ) resulted ,at the end, as one of the most crucial selling point for T-90S MBT to India.

    11) Even only tyhr physical thickness of T-90 turrrett armor is in the range of 70-95 cm ,with 45 cm in the firing port area, a Leopard -2A5 show a physical thickness for the same area of 65 cm and 35 cm in the area of gun mantlet

    Good reading Very Happy



    Last edited by Mindstorm on Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:04 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1937
    Points : 2104
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Cyberspec on Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:59 am

    Excelent find Very Happy

    BTW, the link for the T&V archive you posted doesn't work for me...this one does

    Arrow http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/T/%27%27Tehnika_i_voorujenie%27%27/


    Is there any information available about domestic T-90A armour and export variant of it ? As in how much degradation of armour do they do for export compared to domestic ?

    IMO, there isn't any difference between the T-90S and T-90A in armour protection....the welded turret with improved armour for the T-90 was made as a result of the Indian contract

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:08 am

    Simply copy and paste the link ; for some strange reason the link format here give some problem.


    In any instance good reading Smile .

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6398
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:40 am

    Mindstorm wrote:Please go at this link and download in PDF the issue n 11 of 2006 and open at pag 10-15 (in link format it don't work here : simply copy and paste)



    publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/T/''Tehnika_i_voorujenie''/_''Tehnika_i_voorujenie''_2006_.html

    Thanks Mindstorm , the whole article is so very interesting with diagrams and tables etc but unfortunately we cannot use translator on the pdf or even cut copy to translate as its just an image of pdf.

    Can some one tell me how can we translate the page in English , its is quite comprehensive for it to be missed.

    Mindstorm as always good post , My vote for it Smile

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue May 23, 2017 2:49 pm