Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Share

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  medo on Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:47 pm

    Yes certainly, the city jeeps the georgians used to transport infantry, is roughly equal to Bmp`s. A kind of ICV really.

    Who are you trying to fool?
    The Georgians gambled and didnt belive russia would intervene. I dont think they belived they had a fighting chance.
    Not with numbers, nor equipment and certainly not training and expertise.

    They have land rovers. Very Happy Russian army got equal number of tanks and BMPs and BTRs only in last days, because they could not sent the whole units through Roki tunnel in one day and ther were also a lot of civilians, which went in opposite direction, so in the first days Georgia was superior and was better equipped. After all Georgian BMP-1U is still better than Russian BMP-1, BMP-2 on both sides were equal. Georgian army also use Otokar Cobra vehicles. Georgia planed, that they will close Roki tunnel fast enough, that Russian army could not go through in any significant number, but they fail. Don't forget, that Vostok battalion replace their MT-LBs with BMP-2s, which they capture from Georgians and Russian army also capture a whole company of BMP-1U.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:02 am

    No, only mountainous regions like Afghanistan.

    There are plenty of places where there is little or no cover and enemy forces can be seen from quite a distance.

    The Arctic steppe is one.

    AFAIK, the Georgian air force collapsed faster than the Iraqi air force.
    Air dominance is a major advantage for whoever has it, and at that
    point, the Georgians were either in full retreat or full guerrilla mode.

    Russian air dominance was non-existent initially and even later on consisted mostly of strikes by Fencers and CAS by Frogfeet. It was hardly the bombing of Dresden and the Georgians had Frogfeet as well... they clearly weren't well used.

    Symmetric doesn't mean totally even forces, it means comparable forces, and in numbers and types of equipment the forces involved was quite comparable.

    To be quite honest, I wouldn't invest in APS systems like ARENA until
    they can provide 360 degree protection, rapid reloading, and maybe even a
    shooter detection system. Until then, ARENA isn't worth the cost.

    And if you don't buy their current models how do you think they will improve them?
    ARENA doesn't need a rapid reloading capability... the munition blocks overlap each other by a significant margin and repeated attacks from the same direction can be countered with several munition blocks.

    Quite so, that's another reason why not to fit tanks with ARENA, they
    don't need it as badly as other armored vehicles do, giving it to them
    would only mean greatly protected tanks but poor support vehicles.

    ARENA creates a danger area around the vehicle where an incoming threat can set off ARENA and lead to a munition covering an area in high velocity fragments. No point in fitting it to an APC if the system kills the deployed troops.

    I have nothing against ARENA? I'm simply stating that unit for unit, it's not worth the cost to the Russian MIC.

    The purpose of reducing the number of vehicles in the Russian armed forces was so that they could afford to give them regular upgrades and introduce new technologies. Mass production of ARENA will lead to its improvement in performance and most likely a reduction in costs.

    You have pointed out that in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan that western tanks tend to get hit in a specific place. Perhaps you might concede that the Russians do similar research into the results of combat for their vehicles and perhaps they have found that 360 degree APS coverage is not worth the extra cost and design complication...

    Yet we have no reason to believe that a modified ARENA exists. To say
    one or the other is pure conjecture, so for now, it's only logical to
    assume that ARENA is ARENA.

    We have reason to believe there is a new version of Shtora... and the reason they would make a new version of Shtora is a potential improvement in technology or requirements or both regarding IR dazzling systems... along with a need for such systems.

    Is it that far fetched that we might think that if the makers of Shtora are still working on their system to improve it to meet the needs of the Army that the makers of Arena are doing the same?

    Says 120 mm there.

    It also says it is an estimate.

    Precisely. With all the recent budget cutting, adding ARENA is just
    extra bucks for a system that doesn't really do much for the tank as the
    tanks in question are quite safe regardless.

    $450 million is peanuts compared to the cost of replacement sights or other equipment damaged by an RPG rocket that gets to the armour of a T-90.

    The money spent would most likely reduce the cost of the system by a significant factor, generate work that might promote export sales of the system, and further support the developer in working to create a better system.
    On top of the MMW sensor tower they could mount the microphones of a small arms detection system that could track the enemy fire to its source to enable enemy fire to be effectively suppressed.

    Sprut also got cancelled.

    Further funding was cancelled. It is in service in small numbers already and featured in the last May day parade. Its role as fire support vehicle for BMP level protection vehicles probably just means its armour needs an upgrade as it was based on the BMD-3 chassis which is less well armoured than the BMP-3 chassis.

    The Heavy brigades will do fine with Nakidka.

    All mobile forces need protection from air power so I would expect all vehicles would get such attention.

    Iraq is becoming the U.S. Navy's middle east stopping point and the
    home to a couple thousand U.S. soldiers. 150-200 km missiles would
    provide a fairly large safety umbrella for Iranian planes to bomb as
    they wish if they were to try to capture the oil rich persian gulf
    regions of Iraq/Kuwait.

    Hahahahaha... I think you are confusing Iran... with the US. They can take over Iraq via the ballot box in a free and fair election as the Shia are a clear majority there. There is no reason to bomb anyone. Why give the US an excuse to attack Iran? They aren't stupid.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am

    GarryB wrote:
    No, only mountainous regions like Afghanistan.

    There are plenty of places where there is little or no cover and enemy forces can be seen from quite a distance.

    The Arctic steppe is one.

    If the place has no cover Infantry wouldn't even dare, unless they dig tunnels.

    AFAIK, the Georgian air force collapsed faster than the Iraqi air force.
    Air dominance is a major advantage for whoever has it, and at that
    point, the Georgians were either in full retreat or full guerrilla mode.

    Russian air dominance was non-existent initially and even later on consisted mostly of strikes by Fencers and CAS by Frogfeet. It was hardly the bombing of Dresden and the Georgians had Frogfeet as well... they clearly weren't well used.

    Symmetric doesn't mean totally even forces, it means comparable forces, and in numbers and types of equipment the forces involved was quite comparable.

    I'd disagree. Russia had Air Dominance (Air Superiority if you want), Russia had modern ballistic missiles, Russia used modern MLRSs, Russia sent in more AFVs, etc. It was quite uneven.

    To be quite honest, I wouldn't invest in APS systems like ARENA until
    they can provide 360 degree protection, rapid reloading, and maybe even a
    shooter detection system. Until then, ARENA isn't worth the cost.

    And if you don't buy their current models how do you think they will improve them?
    ARENA doesn't need a rapid reloading capability... the munition blocks overlap each other by a significant margin and repeated attacks from the same direction can be countered with several munition blocks.

    I told you...direct funding. Overlapping blocks is not a redundant method. After 3 or 4 interception that area would be open for attack.

    Quite so, that's another reason why not to fit tanks with ARENA, they
    don't need it as badly as other armored vehicles do, giving it to them
    would only mean greatly protected tanks but poor support vehicles.

    ARENA creates a danger area around the vehicle where an incoming threat can set off ARENA and lead to a munition covering an area in high velocity fragments. No point in fitting it to an APC if the system kills the deployed troops.

    Troops go inside the APC AFAIK. Unless Russia still do outdated foot marches.

    I have nothing against ARENA? I'm simply stating that unit for unit, it's not worth the cost to the Russian MIC.

    The purpose of reducing the number of vehicles in the Russian armed forces was so that they could afford to give them regular upgrades and introduce new technologies. Mass production of ARENA will lead to its improvement in performance and most likely a reduction in costs.

    You have pointed out that in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan that western tanks tend to get hit in a specific place. Perhaps you might concede that the Russians do similar research into the results of combat for their vehicles and perhaps they have found that 360 degree APS coverage is not worth the extra cost and design complication...

    I wouldn't have read any Russian analysis that said 360 degree APS coverage is not worth it.

    Yet we have no reason to believe that a modified ARENA exists. To say
    one or the other is pure conjecture, so for now, it's only logical to
    assume that ARENA is ARENA.

    We have reason to believe there is a new version of Shtora... and the reason they would make a new version of Shtora is a potential improvement in technology or requirements or both regarding IR dazzling systems... along with a need for such systems.

    Is it that far fetched that we might think that if the makers of Shtora are still working on their system to improve it to meet the needs of the Army that the makers of Arena are doing the same?

    Yes...it is far fetched, as you discussed already, Shtora gets funding because it's actually deployed, ARENA doesn't. Perhaps the company making ARENA has reverted to some other manufacturing endeavor.

    Says 120 mm there.

    [quoteIt also says it is an estimate.

    I'd take an estimate over a random number.

    Precisely. With all the recent budget cutting, adding ARENA is just
    extra bucks for a system that doesn't really do much for the tank as the
    tanks in question are quite safe regardless.

    $450 million is peanuts compared to the cost of replacement sights or other equipment damaged by an RPG rocket that gets to the armour of a T-90.

    The money spent would most likely reduce the cost of the system by a significant factor, generate work that might promote export sales of the system, and further support the developer in working to create a better system.
    On top of the MMW sensor tower they could mount the microphones of a small arms detection system that could track the enemy fire to its source to enable enemy fire to be effectively suppressed.

    $450m is a lot of money, especially for Russia. Adding a BOOMERANG type system to Russian tanks would only add to the already growing price tag of a T-90. Sights don't always get damaged as the tank doesn't always get hit from there.

    Sprut also got cancelled.

    Further funding was cancelled. It is in service in small numbers already and featured in the last May day parade. Its role as fire support vehicle for BMP level protection vehicles probably just means its armour needs an upgrade as it was based on the BMD-3 chassis which is less well armoured than the BMP-3 chassis.

    2 or 3 dozen isn't exactly what I called a Brigade fire support force.

    The Heavy brigades will do fine with Nakidka.

    All mobile forces need protection from air power so I would expect all vehicles would get such attention.

    Pantsyr.

    Iraq is becoming the U.S. Navy's middle east stopping point and the
    home to a couple thousand U.S. soldiers. 150-200 km missiles would
    provide a fairly large safety umbrella for Iranian planes to bomb as
    they wish if they were to try to capture the oil rich persian gulf
    regions of Iraq/Kuwait.

    Hahahahaha... I think you are confusing Iran... with the US. They can take over Iraq via the ballot box in a free and fair election as the Shia are a clear majority there. There is no reason to bomb anyone. Why give the US an excuse to attack Iran? They aren't stupid.

    There's quite a lot of reasons for Iran to try to annex Iraq, winning by ballot box only makes Iraq their puppet but that doesn't mean Iran gets direct access and control of Iraqi oil. They want that oil, they'll need Iraq in their control.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:50 am

    If the place has no cover Infantry wouldn't even dare, unless they dig tunnels.

    In the Arctic tundra it would be easier to train your soldiers to fly than dig tunnels in frozen soil.

    Russia had Air Dominance (Air Superiority if you want), Russia had
    modern ballistic missiles, Russia used modern MLRSs, Russia sent in more
    AFVs, etc. It was quite uneven.

    If Russia had air dominance why did it lose so many aircraft? Its use of modern ballistic missiles was fairly limited and was mainly used for limited all weather "air strikes" where the air situation was in the balance or uncertain. The Georgians had no shortage of artillery and had more soldiers on the ground and much better access to the battlefield. The types of weapons used were totally comparable... both used BMP-1 and BMP-2s widely and I would suggest the Georgian BMP-1s were upgraded to a better standard to the Russian BMP-1s which were not upgraded at all.

    The Georgian guys you saw photos of driving round in utes were special forces... not standard infantry units.

    I told you...direct funding. Overlapping blocks is not a redundant
    method. After 3 or 4 interception that area would be open for attack.

    The vehicle and turret will be moving... 3-4 interceptions would be tricky. Lets say the tank is stationary and only the turret is moving (which is BS because after the initial attack any normal tank will move to a better protected position and return fire). The first shot is directly from the side, but the tank commander doesn't see the rocket launch and his first warning is ARENA sending a munition to intercept... when it intercepts it warns the commander of the attack... he will at the very least turn his turret to face the threat... which means your second shot has to come from the rear to initiate a munition near the munition already fired. Now the commander might turn to deal with the new threat or he might merely start using his roof mounted HMG remotely to deal with the incoming threats. If he turns the turret to the rear and gets fired on again, this time directly from the opposite side the initial attack came from then that would be three munitions gone but to hit that area again... would require a rocket launched from the front.
    Are you starting to see a problem?
    Unless the tank is operating on its own there is little chance of shooting and setting off the same area of munitions. What if the commander turns the turret 45 degrees to get a view with his sight and uses the roof mounted HMG to deal with the threats? What angle do you fire at?

    ARENA is not perfect, but defeating it is not as easy as you suggest... BTW it can be manually reloaded in the field and any infantry will be looking for enemy forces too.

    Troops go inside the APC AFAIK. Unless Russia still do outdated foot marches.

    Troops inside an APC in contact with the enemy is pretty stupid... troops will generally deploy from the vehicle and the vehicle will provide fire support from a short distance.

    I wouldn't have read any Russian analysis that said 360 degree APS coverage is not worth it.

    The turret of a tank moves around alot and is generally looking for threats. This directs ARENA towards the biggest threat to the vehicle at the time. It seems it is good enough.

    Yes...it is far fetched, as you discussed already, Shtora gets funding
    because it's actually deployed, ARENA doesn't. Perhaps the company
    making ARENA has reverted to some other manufacturing endeavor.

    KBM make Igla, Igla-S, ATAKA, Krisantema, Iskander, and Tochka... they are not short of orders or work.

    Note the $300,000 cost of ARENA was a 1995 export cost, so I rather doubt it would cost the Russian Army that much.

    I would say again the difference of 2.2 million to 4 million per tank suggests they have added some expensive stuff.
    The Soviets had the Drozd system in service in the late 1980s with T-55AD vehicles in service with the Soviet Naval Infantry. The problem was the Drozd uses fragmentation rockets to intercept the incoming munition which caused too much collateral damage so the ARENA was devised and shown in 1995.
    Its design greatly improved the radar detection performance and greatly reduced the collateral damage issue by directing the fragments intercepting the target down into the ground. In the 15 years since it was revealed publicly I am sure they have looked at how the design could be improved.

    I'd take an estimate over a random number.

    You are taking an estimate over the number given by the manufacturer of the PTAB.

    Adding a BOOMERANG type system to Russian tanks would only add to the already growing price tag of a T-90.

    A slightly enlarged turret with new radios and electronics and a turret bustle autoloader is hardly going to make the price almost double. What would make the price almost double is if they put the best of everything they could put on there including Shtora 2 and Arena 2.

    Sights don't always get damaged as the tank doesn't always get hit from there.

    And unguided rockets don't always hit... not a good reason to not bother with ERA though.

    2 or 3 dozen isn't exactly what I called a Brigade fire support force.

    I would suggest they were designed and built for a reason and the likely reason for their production being halted as it was would likely be a fairly significant change in their design.

    Personally I think they will reintroduce it based on a more heavily armoured vehicle chassis.


    Pantsyr.

    All brigades will have air defence vehicles on the chassis base of the relevant brigade. This means BTR-80, BMP, and T-90 like chassis for Pantsir-S1 turrets most likely for light, medium, and heavy forces respectively.



    There's quite a lot of reasons for Iran to try to annex Iraq,
    winning by ballot box only makes Iraq their puppet but that doesn't mean
    Iran gets direct access and control of Iraqi oil. They want that oil,
    they'll need Iraq in their control.

    Taking the oil by force would be pointless. The US would certainly intervene and give the US justification for regime change in Iran... something the US has wanted for some time.

    Iran doesn't need more oil, it would benefit from the oil refinement capacity of Iraq... Iran currently exports crude oil and imports fuels like petrol and diesel.

    Iran will be happy to have Shia regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan... just like the US likes to have its own chosen dictators in power in central and south america... it makes them feel safer.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:03 am

    I came across this post at mp.net which claimed that the Soviets designed those T tank in the way it is with all its short coming and pluses becuase they were designed for maneuver warfare doctrine with NATO , Is this true ? Can some one explain what manouver warfare is ? Thanks

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:16 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Russia had Air Dominance (Air Superiority if you want), Russia had
    modern ballistic missiles, Russia used modern MLRSs, Russia sent in more
    AFVs, etc. It was quite uneven.

    If Russia had air dominance why did it lose so many aircraft? Its use of modern ballistic missiles was fairly limited and was mainly used for limited all weather "air strikes" where the air situation was in the balance or uncertain. The Georgians had no shortage of artillery and had more soldiers on the ground and much better access to the battlefield. The types of weapons used were totally comparable... both used BMP-1 and BMP-2s widely and I would suggest the Georgian BMP-1s were upgraded to a better standard to the Russian BMP-1s which were not upgraded at all.

    The Georgian guys you saw photos of driving round in utes were special forces... not standard infantry units.

    Friendly fire, mismanagement, and maybe the Buks.

    I told you...direct funding. Overlapping blocks is not a redundant
    method. After 3 or 4 interception that area would be open for attack.

    The vehicle and turret will be moving... 3-4 interceptions would be tricky. Lets say the tank is stationary and only the turret is moving (which is BS because after the initial attack any normal tank will move to a better protected position and return fire). The first shot is directly from the side, but the tank commander doesn't see the rocket launch and his first warning is ARENA sending a munition to intercept... when it intercepts it warns the commander of the attack... he will at the very least turn his turret to face the threat... which means your second shot has to come from the rear to initiate a munition near the munition already fired. Now the commander might turn to deal with the new threat or he might merely start using his roof mounted HMG remotely to deal with the incoming threats. If he turns the turret to the rear and gets fired on again, this time directly from the opposite side the initial attack came from then that would be three munitions gone but to hit that area again... would require a rocket launched from the front.
    Are you starting to see a problem?
    Unless the tank is operating on its own there is little chance of shooting and setting off the same area of munitions. What if the commander turns the turret 45 degrees to get a view with his sight and uses the roof mounted HMG to deal with the threats? What angle do you fire at?

    ARENA is not perfect, but defeating it is not as easy as you suggest... BTW it can be manually reloaded in the field and any infantry will be looking for enemy forces too.

    Most tanks literally stop moving once hit, regardless of shot placement, the sheer shock literally stops the driver for a bit. I can fire 2 RPGs from my vantage point with another guy at the same spot of the turret and then have a guy downstairs fire his when he sees my firing, 3 PG-7Vs, within 15 cm of each other, that section of the tank is now ARENA-null.

    Troops go inside the APC AFAIK. Unless Russia still do outdated foot marches.

    Troops inside an APC in contact with the enemy is pretty stupid... troops will generally deploy from the vehicle and the vehicle will provide fire support from a short distance.

    Not unless an APS is active. Then it'd be stupid to go outside.

    I wouldn't have read any Russian analysis that said 360 degree APS coverage is not worth it.

    The turret of a tank moves around alot and is generally looking for threats. This directs ARENA towards the biggest threat to the vehicle at the time. It seems it is good enough.

    That's not how it works in asymmetrical wars. With a panoramic sight, the TC doesn't have to move the turret around to acquire threats. With a Remote weapons system, the TC doesn't have to rotate the main turret to see targets. The majority of the movement of a tank, that tank's turret will be looking at generally the same direction.

    Yes...it is far fetched, as you discussed already, Shtora gets funding
    because it's actually deployed, ARENA doesn't. Perhaps the company
    making ARENA has reverted to some other manufacturing endeavor.

    KBM make Igla, Igla-S, ATAKA, Krisantema, Iskander, and Tochka... they are not short of orders or work.

    Note the $300,000 cost of ARENA was a 1995 export cost, so I rather doubt it would cost the Russian Army that much.

    I would say again the difference of 2.2 million to 4 million per tank suggests they have added some expensive stuff.
    The Soviets had the Drozd system in service in the late 1980s with T-55AD vehicles in service with the Soviet Naval Infantry. The problem was the Drozd uses fragmentation rockets to intercept the incoming munition which caused too much collateral damage so the ARENA was devised and shown in 1995.
    Its design greatly improved the radar detection performance and greatly reduced the collateral damage issue by directing the fragments intercepting the target down into the ground. In the 15 years since it was revealed publicly I am sure they have looked at how the design could be improved.

    As you know, they are also working on projects to improve the listed missiles.

    I'd take an estimate over a random number.

    You are taking an estimate over the number given by the manufacturer of the PTAB.

    Where would I find those?

    Adding a BOOMERANG type system to Russian tanks would only add to the already growing price tag of a T-90.

    A slightly enlarged turret with new radios and electronics and a turret bustle autoloader is hardly going to make the price almost double. What would make the price almost double is if they put the best of everything they could put on there including Shtora 2 and Arena 2.

    There's new ERA, there's a larger profile, there's an extra 5.5 tonnes of weight, there's so many things the T-90M has compared to the T-90A, having ARENA installed would probably increase cost by 2.5 times.

    Sights don't always get damaged as the tank doesn't always get hit from there.

    And unguided rockets don't always hit... not a good reason to not bother with ERA though.

    But if unguided rockets do hit the tank can survive it, not a good reason to bother with ARENA.


    Pantsyr.

    All brigades will have air defence vehicles on the chassis base of the relevant brigade. This means BTR-80, BMP, and T-90 like chassis for Pantsir-S1 turrets most likely for light, medium, and heavy forces respectively.

    And thus, another nail in the coffin of ARENA.



    There's quite a lot of reasons for Iran to try to annex Iraq,
    winning by ballot box only makes Iraq their puppet but that doesn't mean
    Iran gets direct access and control of Iraqi oil. They want that oil,
    they'll need Iraq in their control.

    Taking the oil by force would be pointless. The US would certainly intervene and give the US justification for regime change in Iran... something the US has wanted for some time.

    Iran doesn't need more oil, it would benefit from the oil refinement capacity of Iraq... Iran currently exports crude oil and imports fuels like petrol and diesel.

    Iran will be happy to have Shia regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan... just like the US likes to have its own chosen dictators in power in central and south america... it makes them feel safer.

    Of course, Iran either does no this but don't care or don't know this and don't care. Ahmadinejad pretty much doesn't like juice so it'd be in his favor to see the juice get thrown down the toilet. Of course, he'd have to deal with the U.S. armed forces, which, lets admit it, is not something he can do well.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank protection

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:58 am

    Friendly fire, mismanagement, and maybe the Buks.

    Lack of C4ISR and of course a lack of planning... the latter quite understandable considering it was a surprise attack... it doesn't matter, what matters is that no one had air superiority for the first few days of the conflict.


    Most tanks literally stop moving once hit, regardless of shot
    placement, the sheer shock literally stops the driver for a bit. I can
    fire 2 RPGs from my vantage point with another guy at the same spot of
    the turret and then have a guy downstairs fire his when he sees my
    firing, 3 PG-7Vs, within 15 cm of each other, that section of the tank
    is now ARENA-null.

    The ARENA munitions are not ERA blocks... launched up into the air they fire a spread of fragments which each cover a fairly wide area at line of sight level for an incoming rocket. Having to fire 3-4 rockets just to start getting past ARENA means it is already doing its job... after firing 2 rockets your position will be well and truely compromised... normal operating procedure for RPG attack is to fire and then move... it became procedure to keep the person launching the rockets alive...

    Not unless an APS is active. Then it'd be stupid to go outside.

    Obviously with APS the tactics will change and troops will be supported from further back.

    That's not how it works in asymmetrical wars. With a panoramic sight,
    the TC doesn't have to move the turret around to acquire threats. With a
    Remote weapons system, the TC doesn't have to rotate the main turret to
    see targets. The majority of the movement of a tank, that tank's turret
    will be looking at generally the same direction.

    And a formation of tanks will have each vehicle directing its main weapon in a different direction where that makes sense.

    As you know, they are also working on projects to improve the listed missiles.

    Indeed they are, which means as programs finish... like ATAKA, that more engineers and designers can be moved to new programmes like Krisanetma. Notice the pattern? Igla... and improved Igla-S. Tochka-U and improved Iskander-E. Arena...


    Where would I find those?

    My source is "Russias Arms 2004".

    In the section on the RBK-500U which is a standard cluster bomb able to use the standard cluster munitions carried by cluster bombs and cluster bomb munition dispensors (ie KGMU-2) and of course tube and rocket artillery.

    The specs for the RBK-500U loaded with PTAB submunitions is:

    Diameter: 450mm
    Length: 2,495mm
    Weight: 520kg
    Number of submunitions: 352
    Armor penetration: 200mm
    Drop conditions:
    altitude: 80m-16,000m
    speed: 500km/h-2,000km/h
    Fuse: built in fuse unit.


    But if unguided rockets do hit the tank can survive it, not a good reason to bother with ARENA.

    ARENA will also stop a range of other threats including Milan and TOW et al.

    And thus, another nail in the coffin of ARENA.

    Why? Air defence vehicles will not operate in amongst armour no matter what vehicle they are based on and Pantsir is no protection from ATGMs. Igla-S could shoot down relatively high flying ATGMs (has been tested successfully against AT-3s) but there needs to be some warning time and if that is the case why prepare for an Igla shot when firing at the ATGM launcher would be more productive.

    Of course, Iran either does no this but don't care or don't know this
    and don't care. Ahmadinejad pretty much doesn't like juice so it'd be in
    his favor to see the juice get thrown down the toilet. Of course, he'd
    have to deal with the U.S. armed forces, which, lets admit it, is not
    something he can do well.

    Continued support for Israels enemies is enough for Iran to be able to lord it over most middle east arab countries... the persians are doing more to help the palestinians than all the made up royal families of all the arab nations.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: 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 : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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 : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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 : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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 : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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.


    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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 : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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 : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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 : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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 : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:27 am

    You might not like this, but it is treated as an image by Adobe Acrobat Reader... the free reader program.

    What you want is the full Adobe Acrobat program which allows many more features.

    A while back I bought the CD with Mil Parade issues from 1996 to about 1999 on it and it was very hard to find the interesting bits to be honest.

    I got an early copy of Acrobat from a friend and all of a sudden there was full search ability and the CD was much more useful.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:31 am

    Yes Garry I am aware the normal acrobat read just treats it as image making copying pasting of its contents to a translator impossible.

    If there was a way to copy paste the contents/word to a translator it would have been very useful and much better an english version of the article becuase it seems to be an excellent write up by military authors

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:06 am

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

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

    In reality ,how well proved just some week ago by the figures of passive frontal armour protection achieved by the new export T-90MS ,the increase in L/D ratio (anyhow a constant trend present in APFSDS's design from well before the tests of M. Held and L. Ness) is rendered absolutely necessary to match the rapid improvements of passive and semiactive multilayerd armours.

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


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:28 am


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:28 am