Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Share
    avatar
    militaryword

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

    Secret active protection system T-14 Armata main battle tanks

    Post  militaryword on Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:39 am

    Russia is claiming that the Afghanit active protection system (APS) mounted on Moscow’s powerful new T-14 Armata main battle tanks has been proven effective at intercepting depleted uranium-core armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) cannon shells.


    If Moscow’s claims are accurate, the new Russian active protection system would be a game-changing development in the realm of mechanized warfare. While active protection systems were thought to be effective mostly against incoming anti-tank missiles and rocket propelled grenades, most industry and defense experts had believed that active protection systems were ineffective against kinetic energy (KE) round such as the U.S. Army’s M829A4 120mm APFSDS. Thus, if the Russians have genuinely achieved a breakthrough in defeating KE anti-tank rounds, U.S. and NATO ground forces could face a very serious problem in the near future as the T-14 Armata family of combat vehicles becomes fully operational over the next several years.


    The Russian-language news outlet Izvestia—citing a Russian Ministry of Defense source—has reported that the Afghanit APS has been successfully tested against incoming depleted uranium-cored APFSDS rounds flying at speeds of been 1.5km to 2km per second.

    Currently KAZ “Afghani” is installed on T-14 tanks. the “Armata” platform will also be used as the basis of T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle.

    KAZ “Afghans” – a complex electronic system that combines radar (RLS) with active phased array antenna processing subsystems, as well as mortars with special charges that, explode and send shrapnel that destroy in flight enemy weapons. The active protection on the T-14 Armata and T-15 can be seen as a typical tube-mortars.

    Active protection, such as Russia’s “Arena” and “Blackbird” and the Israeli Trophy, do well with anti-tank missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. In particular, there is evidence that Palestinian militants in 2011 and failed to destroy a single tank “Merkava”, equipped with Trophy, – he told “Izvestia” historian Vladislav Belogrud tank building. – But the anti-tank ammunition and RPG order of magnitude easier target for KAZ than BPS. In particular, the anti-tank rocket speed about 300 m/s, and the product itself – it is actually a thin tube in the electronics, fuel and explosives inside, very vulnerable to debris undermined near CAS charge. BPS same – a monolithic steel structure, moreover, flying at a speed of 1.5-2 km/s.


    Researcher Mikhail Barabanov, editor-in-chief of the Moscow Defense Brief—which is published by the Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) in Russia—said that it would make sense for the Russian military to focus on the most likely threats that its armored vehicles would face in combat. “I think that the characteristics of the Armata’s APS is the big secret,” Barabanov said. “But it is unlikely [the Russian military] developed the new generation of APS without directing them toward the most common threats—uranium APFSDS and top-attack missiles.”

    Michael Kofman, a research scientist specializing in Russian military affairs at the federally funded Center for Naval Analyses, said he is skeptical about the Izvestia report. “I don’t see it as realistic,” Kofman said. “A discarding sabot is a depleted uranium dart, the entire concept is that the material is incredibly dense to serve as a penetrator. The Afghanit APS uses a fragmentation charge and is not liable to do much to the A4—the latest variant—of U.S. munitions. I can see it possibly pushing the dart off course with some sort of hit-to-kill approach, but I doubt much can stop it—besides combinations of ERA [explosive reactive armor] and composite armor.”

    The Armata series is currently in limited production and should become operational around 2019. “As I understand it, the MOD [Ministry of Defense] ordered 100 pre-series Armata family vehicles including the T-14 Armata, T-15 and ARV [armored recovery vehicle], which will be built from 2016 to 2018,” Barbanov said

    There is a second contract for 70 ‘first series’ Armata vehicles (or roughly two battalions worth) with delivery expected ‘by the end of 2019.’

    There could be an up-gunned 152mm variant Armata main battle tank or there will be more types of ammunition for the 125mm gun.

    Source
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:00 am

    DU APFSDS are very hard very fast moving targets but in perspective they are very much like a nail.

    A solid blow from a hammer will drive a nail into all sorts of materials fairly easily... but anyone who has used a hammer knows if you dont knock it in straight and it starts to bend then even the hardest hammer blow will merely bend the nail and there will be little to no penetration of the material.

    Intercepting a HEAT charge in a missile or round is easy because such a target is soft and vulnerable.

    An APFSDS round does not need to be blown a dozen metres off course so that it will completely miss its target... just making it yaw 15-20 degrees and when it hits its target its own kinetic energy will shatter it into hundreds of little pieces each unable to penetrate tank level armour.

    Angled plate armour wont deflect an APFSDS round, but a yawed APFSDS round trying to penetrate a target sideways will always fail... think of a needle... point forward will penetrate skin easily... sideways it will not even with significant force applied.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    20.10.1999 T-80U and T-90 Protection Trials

    Post  Isos on Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:30 pm

    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

    Pictures on the link


    20.10.1999 T-80U and T-90 Protection Trials

    On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

    T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.

    One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

    The following weapons were used:
    •Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m) ◦RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
    ◦RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
    ◦RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)

    •ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m) ◦Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
    ◦Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
    ◦Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
    ◦Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)

    •APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)
    Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
    The trials yielded the following outcome:
    •ATGLs ◦T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
    No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
    ◦T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
    Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.

    •ATGMs ◦T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
    ◦T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
    No other ATGMs could penetrate.

    •APFSDS ◦T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
    Without ERA, one round penetrated.
    ◦T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

    The following pictures show the locations of impacts by ATGL RPG-29 (in red) and ATGM Kornet (in black) against ERA-equipped vehicles. Which of these hits penetrated was not disclosed.

    Shtora-1 Trials

    10 Kornet ATGMs with removed warheads were fired at a tank with a crew. 4 ATGMs hit the tank, the other 6 deviated to the left of the target in the middle of the flight.



    Conclusions (VF)
    •RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it. Considering sufficient proliferation of this weapon and the fact that this is still a fairly light infantry weapon, it is the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian MBTs, and is a very disturbing development.
    •Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.
    •Report of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS trials is confusing. Being laser-guided, ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely. It is possible, however unlikely, that it was caused by a sloppy work of removal the warhead which e.g. could cause a gyro cofusion.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:43 am

    Ancient news... Sorry.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Isos on Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:Ancient news... Sorry.

    I know, but it's a nice article for those who didn't see it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:28 pm