Russian Tanks ERA and APS

GarryB wrote:ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

ARENA will be for export.

Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).

That makes sense... Only question I have is why it will be called "Afghanistan".

Mike E wrote:

GarryB wrote:ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

ARENA will be for export.

Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).

That makes sense... Only question I have is why it will be called "Afghanistan".

Direct experience they have made with DROZD in afghanistan.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

GarryB wrote:ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

ARENA will be for export.

Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).

That makes sense... Only question I have is why it will be called "Afghanistan".

Direct experience they have made with DROZD in afghanistan.

Figured... Next thing you know, Israel is going to come out with the "Gaza" APS system...

GarryB wrote:ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

ARENA will be for export.

Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).

So no Russian tank in active service in the Russian army ,have any active protection system?
any active protection until now is only for exports market? and if yes is the question ..why? Makes no
sense to wait for Armata to have active protection specially knowing they will not have them in enough numbers for at least a couple or more years..

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

ARENA will be for export.

Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).

So no Russian tank in active service  in the Russian army  ,have any active protection system?
any active protection until now is only for exports market?  and if yes is the question ..why? Makes no
sense to wait for Armata to have active protection specially knowing they will not have them in enough numbers for at least a couple or more years..

Actually I think GarryB stated that the tank factories in Russia are capable of producing thousands of tanks a year, and they haven't done so because no one has demanded thousands of tanks a year. But at the same time your right, they'll have to refit the factories first with new machinery and plant equipment, which will at least take 2 years in totality (Some factories will be able to refit quicker and might be able to produce Armata platforms right away.)

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

ARENA will be for export.

Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).

So no Russian tank in active service  in the Russian army  ,have any active protection system?
any active protection until now is only for exports market?  and if yes is the question ..why? Makes no
sense to wait for Armata to have active protection specially knowing they will not have them in enough numbers for at least a couple or more years..

Actually I think GarryB stated that the tank factories in Russia are capable of producing thousands of tanks a year, and they haven't done so because no one has demanded thousands of tanks a year. But at the same time your right, they'll have to refit the factories first with new machinery and plant equipment, which will at least take 2 years in totality (Some factories will be able to refit quicker and might be able to produce Armata platforms right away.)

So far Russia has proven its ability to retool factories, the only thing we have to do is wait!

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

ARENA will be for export.

Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).

So no Russian tank in active service  in the Russian army  ,have any active protection system?
any active protection until now is only for exports market?  and if yes is the question ..why? Makes no
sense to wait for Armata to have active protection specially knowing they will not have them in enough numbers for at least a couple or more years..

T-90A has active protective system.

I want to request something; could one of you fact-check this article on the T-72? 

http://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html?m=1

 - Lengthy article on the T-72 and all of its' subsystems (not my own). 

And also cause this just popped in my head... Does anyone have a source back to "Russia exported an inferior version of K-5 ERA" or is that just bollocks?

collegeboy16 wrote:

Mike E wrote:
I want to request something; could one of you fact-check this article on the T-72? 

http://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html?m=1

 - Lengthy article on the T-72 and all of its' subsystems (not my own). 

wow, nice blog. keeping my eye on it from now on, thx for heads-up. prolly the most complete gathering of soviet armor info without it being user's manual.

I don't get your point... US vehicles are spread out. 

It's a nice blog but I don't agree with the guy on a few things;

He believes RHAe is a useless estimate of armor against KE... Which I think is BS because the general design and principal of KE and how armor reacts to them is similar. 

For some reason he also rags on the welded turret for being weak on the frontal profile...despite it being continuously stronger the further it goes out away from the gun.

Mike E wrote:
It's a nice blog but I don't agree with the guy on a few things;

He believes RHAe is a useless estimate of armor against KE... Which I think is BS because the general design and principal of KE and how armor reacts to them is similar. 

dunno, prolly. in some ways RHAe dont take into account the anti-armor effects aside from penetration by KE rounds. things like resisting bending and yawing due to NERA, efforts to outtime ERA etc. people put all sorts of modifiers to counter this but at the end of the day it is yet another estimate.

Mike E wrote:
For some reason he also rags on the welded turret for being weak on the frontal profile...despite it being continuously stronger the further it goes out away from the gun.

could you point me where he made this assertion? kinda having trouble chewing through all this new chunks of info.

collegeboy16 wrote:
It's a nice blog but I don't agree with the guy on a few things;

He believes RHAe is a useless estimate of armor against KE... Which I think is BS because the general design and principal of KE and how armor reacts to them is similar. 

dunno, prolly. in some ways RHAe dont take into account the anti-armor effects aside from penetration by KE rounds. things like resisting bending and yawing due to NERA, efforts to outtime ERA etc. people put all sorts of modifiers to counter this but at the end of the day it is yet another estimate.

Mike E wrote:
For some reason he also rags on the welded turret for being weak on the frontal profile...despite it being continuously stronger the further it goes out away from the gun.

could you point me where he made this assertion? kinda having trouble chewing through all this new chunks of info.[/quote]
Russia has that land has an advantage...invading the South and East would slow US tank forces down and inevitably trap them. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is why they have a separate estimate for rods. 

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

Which is (also) why separate figures are listed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

No point in talking about HEAT, it's so inaccurate. 

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

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

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

Mike E wrote:

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

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

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

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

No point in talking about HEAT, it's so inaccurate. 

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

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

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

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

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

Not denying that, but saying the K-5 has no literal use against it is...not very bright in ideology. 

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slat armor's efficiency is lower than that of dynamic protection, but slat armor is much easier [to produce] and cheaper.

That sounds kinda like 'slat instead of reactive'?

hoom wrote:

Slat armor's efficiency is lower than that of dynamic protection, but slat armor is much easier [to produce] and cheaper.

That sounds kinda like 'slat instead of reactive'?

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

keep reading:


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

This is why complex solutions should be taken when it comes to protecting armored vehicles..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/313416.html
guys this article basically says that nii stali themselves are saying that relikt cannot stop m829a2 at 1000 meters and cannot stop a3 at 6000 meters
which doesnt add up since i remember an article of even non equipped with k5 t90s stopping m829a2 http://itmiliter.blogspot.com/2013/06/tank-t-90-rusia-bag-2.html#.WLxv3Ts1_IU

any thoughts?

Meh, it reads like Ukropi boasting... Ukro duplet winning across the board in all categories? Yeah sure, just like their tinfoil T-64s and "Cyborgs" and ex-NATO uber-Saxons and Azov granny-burners and... and... yeah whatever... Ukropi orc idiots...

It's a load of shit and it is very easy to tell. First off, Andrey is using what is sourced as Nii Stali's documents and compares it to claims and apparent tests (with no evidence) of what the Americans/Ukrainians are saying about Knife as an example. So they are comparing against apples and oranges really and its sad. When people call him out on it, he just dodges the question by using cheap attack tactics.

So it is easily discreditable. Especially since Knife isn't really used by anyone besides a total of maybe 80 machines and no real world tests. Pointless to use a blog to provide such "facts" without real backup to the claims.