Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 663
    Points : 701
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon May 21, 2018 11:37 pm

    Time for me to ask about tank armor.... on the internet.

    Oh well

    The turret armor on the T-90A does not seem to be any less thick than on say the leopard 2a4 or the abrams exept right next to the mantlet where there is only around 400-450mm of RHA.

    Anyway I don't see how the T-90As frontal turret offers only 550mm of RHAE if the abrams offers 800.

    I know Russian armor penetration and likely prtection measurment standars are higher than eaverone eleses but to such a degree would be just rediculous.

    Also look at this image for the T-90As turret to offer only a pathetic 550mm of RHAE the composite armor would have to be less effective than seel.

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Z

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2888
    Points : 2888
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Hole on Tue May 22, 2018 10:35 am

    You don´t get the two different concepts. The west scaps on new armor directly to the turret. Russia adds ERA. The result is the same.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 663
    Points : 701
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue May 22, 2018 1:36 pm

    No I get that Uralvagonzavod is too lazy to make armor and likes to pretend that bolting on NII stali products counts as armor and no as an additional layer of defence. And that the west is too stupid to understand the benefit countermeasures.

    What I am saying is that the estimates for the T-90As turret are total bullshit.

    The only section of the turret front that would offer around 550-600mm of RHAE would be the part right next to the mantlet albeit there is a small 425mm thick RHA section.

    Anyway the turret armor would be more like 600-750 on the flat part in the middle and 850-900mm on the sloped side parts that don't protect anything when facing head on. (That is assuming Russian composite armor is better than RHA.)

    Anyway great work Ural put all of your armor where it is least needed. <(I know it is to alow for a wider arc of protection but most enemies will shoot at you from the font so making that a weakpoint is rather silly)

    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 894
    Points : 1003
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Active Protection System - Can a APS intercept a volley of RPGs and ATGMs ?

    Post  jhelb on Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:45 pm

    Can a modern day APS mounted on a Tank, IFV intercept a volley of RPGs and ATGMs fired towards the Tank ?

    In case a tank is surrounded from all sides and a number of RPGs, especially rocket propelled grenade weapons like RPG and ATGMs like Kornet-M, Javelin are fired towards it,  will the Tank's APS be able to intercept all the incoming rockets and missiles ?

    Some APS like the Israeli Trench Coat consists of a 360-degree radar that detects all threats and launches 17 projectiles, of which one should strike the incoming missile/rocket.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24878
    Points : 25422
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:37 am

    The purpose of an APS system is to protect a tank from an attack... it is not intended to make the tank invincible to all missiles and allow it to drive on its own into enemy territory and just shoot everything up with impunity.

    You could probably organise a few groups of people with RPGs to fire together... it would be rather tricky to organise so they all fire at once and they wont be standing side by side they will likely be at different ranges and from different angles other wise the same APS munition that shoots down one incoming threat could shoot down them all because they will all come in together.

    Old APS systems could only handle one threat at a time and then reset, but with a modern digital system with MMW radar sensors and optical sensors around the tank it would not be that far fetched for newer APS systems to intercept multiple threats in real time.

    The situation you are suggesting is most likely to occur in an ambush and it really all depends on the planning for that ambush and the quality of the RPGs and ATGMs being used... I mean if they include land mines to prevent the vehicle from going off road to escape and they have enough rockets and the people using them don't lose their bottle and run away then I would say many tanks would be vulnerable... having said that... a T-14 with ERA and APS and any other defensive systems including audio systems that are detecting nearby enemies and UAVs looking for enemy troops... even if it is totally immobilised could start calling in artillery fire and use its machine guns to keep fighting from inside its armoured capsule till assistance arrives... but odds are it would not have been operating alone anyway.

    With a panoramic view plus UAV support showing a god view of the ground around them launching an ambush could become rather tricky... I would suspect the use of rather large IEDs would be the preferred method because when planning an ambush you really wont have a clue as to what vehicles you will catch.

    Needless to say the APS is supposed to stop the first few attacks... remember on something like a T-14 it could probably ignore many attacks from the front just assuming the armour and ERA will stop it anyway... the vehicle commander should have realised it was an ambush and taken some action to get out of there... while firing on anything that pops its head up.

    It takes real balls to stand up in front of a tank to fire a missile... even more so in this day and age when all round thermal camera coverage means you probably will be spotted... the commanders cuppola on the T-14 has a machine gun attached to help deal with that sort of problem... and having a tethered UAV able to fly 50-100m above the tank giving it an unprecedented view of the terrain around the tank an ambush will be harder and harder to achieve.

    We also know they have operational vehicles that can set off IEDS using microwaves... it is only a matter of time before that is developed into a much smaller device that every tank carries...
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 894
    Points : 1003
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  jhelb on Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:09 am

    GarryB wrote: You could probably organise a few groups of people with RPGs to fire together... it would be rather tricky to organise so they all fire at once and they wont be standing side by side they will likely be at different ranges and from different angles other wise the same APS munition that shoots down one incoming threat could shoot down them all because they will all come in together.

    But during the Israel- Egypt war, Iran-Iraq war and the Chechen war that's exactly what was done. A number of individuals armed with ATGMs, RPGs firing simultaneously at the tank and in the process destroying/ incapacitating it.

    GarryB wrote: a T-14 with ERA and APS and any other defensive systems including audio systems that are detecting nearby enemies and UAVs looking for enemy troops... even if it is totally immobilised could start calling in artillery fire and use its machine guns to keep fighting from inside its armoured capsule till assistance arrives... but odds are it would not have been operating alone anyway.

    With a panoramic view plus UAV support showing a god view of the ground around them launching an ambush could become rather tricky... I would suspect the use of rather large IEDs would be the preferred method because when planning an ambush you really wont have a clue as to what vehicles you will catch.

    But lack of endurance is a major factor for these small UAVs, isn't it ? So they won't be able to loiter for a long period of time.

    Even a 360-degree augmented situational awareness systems (links below) might not help the tank to survive, because the externally mounted cameras ( that project the 360-degree view of an MBT’s surroundings onto the helmet-mounted displays (HMD) of its crew members ) might be hit by RPG and ATGMs

    https://www.hensoldt.net/fileadmin/HENSOLDT_2019/Products/Optronics/SETAS_Datasheet_v6_HENSOLDT.pdf

    https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/pdfs/produktpdfs/elektrooptischekomponenten/D100e0212_SAS.pdf
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5452
    Points : 5444
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Isos on Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:13 am

    jhelb wrote:Can a modern day APS mounted on a Tank, IFV intercept a volley of RPGs and ATGMs fired towards the Tank ?

    In case a tank is surrounded from all sides and a number of RPGs, especially rocket propelled grenade weapons like RPG and ATGMs like Kornet-M, Javelin are fired towards it,  will the Tank's APS be able to intercept all the incoming rockets and missiles ?

    Some APS like the Israeli Trench Coat consists of a 360-degree radar that detects all threats and launches 17 projectiles, of which one should strike the incoming missile/rocket.

    Very unlikely. The APS needs to fire at the good time to intercept the incoming threat.

    No volley will come at the same time so the aps will intercept the first one but the rest will go through. Reaction time of APS is not 0.

    Russian Kornet EM has the ability to fire two kornet at the same target with the second one being fired few milli seconds after the first so that it arrive wheb the APS is dealing with the first round.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24878
    Points : 25422
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:56 pm

    But during the Israel- Egypt war, Iran-Iraq war and the Chechen war that's exactly what was done. A number of individuals armed with ATGMs, RPGs firing simultaneously at the tank and in the process destroying/ incapacitating it.

    Even without an APS system the Russian tanks in the second Chechen conflict survived those attacks... being hit multiple times... it was in the first chechen conflict when they were driven down streets that were barricaded and set up with RPGs on the roofs of buildings and in basements where the tank main armament couldn't angle to reach... take out the soft skinned vehicles like BMPs first and then you are left with tanks armed at best with roof mounted 12.7mm machine guns... hit the vehicles at the front and the rear and just continue to engage the rest until the crew panic and try to bolt or you get a penetration...

    The solution is not APS or SHTORA... it is not drive in to built up areas like that with soft vehicles whose guns cannot elevate to hit people on upper floors or depress to hit people in basement positions... and certainly don't do it against an enemy that had conscription where they were taught to use all the same weapons you are using and know their weaknesses and using weapons vastly more powerful than those supplied to third world proxy forces...


    But lack of endurance is a major factor for these small UAVs, isn't it ? So they won't be able to loiter for a long period of time.

    The UAV to be used by T-14s is tethered... it is connected to the tank by a fine cable that will likely include a power cable and fibreoptic cable so that anything the UAV detects is delivered directly to that vehicle and that vehicle can continue to power that UAV all day... it can also command and communicate with teh UAV at enormous data rates without a digital data link that could be intercepted or jammed... though it probably will have a datalink if the tether is severed... but that datalink should also work with other UAVs in the area flying much higher. It should also be able to use ground based unmanned armoured vehicles that could set up a perimeter to help protect the tank... imagine a BMD sized vehicle with a 23mm 6 barrel gatling sitting in an overwatch position to hose down any area within 3km of the vehicle with 200 23mm cannon shells per second...

    Even is fixed positions they could set up metal plates like targets on a firing range and if an incoming missile is detected they could be raised up to stop direct fire weapons... which means 90% of the current threats to a tank in service today.


    Even a 360-degree augmented situational awareness systems (links below) might not help the tank to survive, because the externally mounted cameras ( that project the 360-degree view of an MBT’s surroundings onto the helmet-mounted displays (HMD) of its crew members ) might be hit by RPG and ATGMs

    The glass blocks for tank periscopes often have replacements that can be replaced in the field... I would suggest that cameras on a vehicle will have backups that will work till they withdraw to a safe place for repair... but even if they don't... the other vehicles with that vehicle can provide additional cover and firepower to deal with the problem.

    And of course the Russians are actually working on another solution... the BMPT... which is a vehicle with tank level armour intended to be used against infantry... including ATGM teams and snipers and MGs... firing weapons at a Russian tank in the near future is going to be a very dangerous occupation.

    Of course having said that, nothing on the battlefield is totally safe... vehicles will be destroyed, and Russian soldiers will die... but a lot of rag heads are going to die first...

    No volley will come at the same time so the aps will intercept the first one but the rest will go through. Reaction time of APS is not 0.

    Well... you can't really say that... the new ARENA has lots of radar panels that might act independently... if there are three rockets coming in at the same time from each side and perhaps the rear... the most vulnerable and most likely directions of attack for RPGs... who is to say it can't use four radar arrays to scan 360 degrees and track three targets with three different radar arrays and launch three munitions to intercept the incoming threat... the interception is not rocket science... the munitions are launched at a fixed angle to a fixed height and spread fragments over a fairly wide arc down and outwards to intercept incoming threats... it is not like they are launching individual rifle calibre bullets to actually hit the incoming threat... it is more like they are setting off claymore mines to stop an infantry attack... they have a dozen claymore mines all set up to face different directions so an attack from three directions at once is not actually a big deal... and there is no reason why two rockets coming from the same direction half a second apart couldn't be intercepted by two munitions fired in the same direction half a second apart too...

    It is not like the Israeli system where a turret needs to be pointed at the incoming threat... and electronics and radar technology has moved on in the 30 years since ARENA was developed.

    RPG-31 also uses two rockets in a close volley to defeat Israeli APS systems... would they develop systems that can be defeated by their own weapons?

    Chechnia showed they need to be able to fight their own weapons and tactics as well as American and western.
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 894
    Points : 1003
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  jhelb on Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:42 am

    GarryB wrote:
    And of course the Russians are actually working on another solution... the BMPT... which is a vehicle with tank level armour intended to be used against infantry... including ATGM teams and snipers and MGs... firing weapons at a Russian tank in the near future is going to be a very dangerous occupation.

    During the Battle of Grozny (1994–95), it was evident that infantry fighting vehicles, like the BMP-2 (pictured), did not have sufficient protection for urban combat. Consequently, it took a severe beating.

    http://btvt.narod.ru/3/bmpt.htm
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24878
    Points : 25422
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:09 am

    Indeed, the BMP-2s were engaged first because their 30mm cannon could elevate and hit AT teams on roofs firing down on the vehicles, and their lighter armour meant they were often taken out rather quickly in an urban setting... also blocking the streets to make escape for surviving vehicles difficult or impossible... and they just picked them off one by one with RPG from above and SVD and PKM armed teams who shot anyone trying to escape their vehicles...

    Result is the Armata vehicle family... not just a tank but also IFVs and APCs etc etc etc.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5452
    Points : 5444
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Isos on Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:19 am

    No matter what vehicle it is, urban warfare won't be good for it.

    A guy with an rpg can pop up and fire at the vehicle in 3 seconds leaving no time to the crew to react even if they see him. And rpg will go through from the top or rear imobilizing the vehicle. Even a PKM will make terrible damages on the roof of many vehicles.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 663
    Points : 701
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:16 am

    Isos wrote:And rpg will go through from the top or rear imobilizing the vehicle.

    I believe that one of the requirements for the armata was that the roof of the crew capsule would have to be protected with composite armour that could withstand a PG7 warhead, in addition the both the frontal hull and turret rooves have ERA.

    In chechnya the tanks were not properly supported and could easily be ambushed, in the near future Russia will have numerous teletanks like the Uran-9 to deal with troublesome neigbourhoods.
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 269
    Points : 248
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  RTN on Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:46 am

    GarryB wrote:Result is the Armata vehicle family... not just a tank but also IFVs and APCs etc etc etc.

    But Russia had heavy vehicle family during the war in Chechnya as well. T-90, BMP-3, BTR 90. What's the difference now ?
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 663
    Points : 701
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:27 am

    they BMP-3 and BTR-90 are not heavily armored by any stretch of the imagination and Russia did relatively well in the second chechen war due mainly to a few alterations to thier tactics.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24878
    Points : 25422
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:27 pm

    No matter what vehicle it is, urban warfare won't be good for it.

    Urban warfare is the the most difficult because enemy forces can be in the building next to you and you may not realise. Also the elevation provided by buildings and structures means instead of attacking your frontal armour or even side and rear armour, they can engage your top armour... which is almost always rather weaker than from any other angle except underneath...

    A guy with an rpg can pop up and fire at the vehicle in 3 seconds leaving no time to the crew to react even if they see him.

    Quite true but APS systems turned on should protect the vehicle even from attacks from above... simply because new ATGMs include top attack options because the top of vehicles is a weak point in terms of armour thickness.

    First gen Soviet and Russian APS systems were not ideal for top attack weapons, but I would suggest modern systems will defeat top attack munitions too.

    Even a PKM will make terrible damages on the roof of many vehicles.

    Many light vehicles have tops as thin as 20mm so yes, even a PKM at short range with armour piercing rounds can be effective... and even against the heaviest vehicles it can damage equipment and optics and aerials.

    With new vehicle families many of the lighter vehicles like APCs with remote weapon stations the ability to fire back is actually pretty good and if you break cover and fire a PKM at a column of armour in a street even leaning back in behind the sand bags might not save you if they have audio sensors that detected where your shots came from... after firing your burst at the tanks you might find a nearby T-15 detected your burst and returns fire with a burst of 3-4 57mm high velocity cannon shells... perhaps APHE rounds that penetrate in to your sandbags and blow the room you fired from to bits...

    It is very dangerous for armour, but it can become rather dangerous for enemy forces too.

    I believe that one of the requirements for the armata was that the roof of the crew capsule would have to be protected with composite armour that could withstand a PG7 warhead, in addition the both the frontal hull and turret rooves have ERA.

    The heaviest armour is the frontal hull armour which makes up the crew capsule... all the heaviest armour is covering the crew from all angles. The weapons... including remote weapon stations are not as well armoured but are able to elevate to return fire even in built up areas...

    In chechnya the tanks were not properly supported and could easily be ambushed, in the near future Russia will have numerous teletanks like the Uran-9 to deal with troublesome neigbourhoods.

    In the second conflict in Chechnia they were less gungho... less willing to barge in to urban areas... They will have robot vehicles and UAVs but they will also likely use more fire power and also more precise weapons and equipment to ensure they kill more of the rebels rather than let them escape to fight another day.

    But Russia had heavy vehicle family during the war in Chechnya as well. T-90, BMP-3, BTR 90. What's the difference now ?

    AFAIK they have not had the BTR-90 in operational service, the BTR-80 vehicles and BMP-1.-2, and -3 vehicles don't have especially strong upper armour... in fact they could probably be penetrated with 14.5mm HMG fire from above... like most western IFV and APC equivalents.

    In combat the IFV and APCs were taken out first because their main guns could elevate and fire back at the enemy teams in the buildings... once they had been dealt with they blocked the exit for the tanks whose main guns elevate to less than 30 degrees, so they could take their time to destroy those.

    A new Armata unit however means all the vehicles have MBT level armour protection so they will be much harder nuts to crack... and all will have APS systems and other equipment to make them more difficult to deal with. They will also have a range of high elevation weapons to return fire with, which makes the job of the ambusher much more dangerous... they could even use onboard lasers to mark the buildings around them and call in an artillery strike...

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24878
    Points : 25422
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:31 pm

    [qutoe]they BMP-3 and BTR-90 are not heavily armored by any stretch of the imagination and Russia did relatively well in the second chechen war due mainly to a few alterations to thier tactics.[/quote]

    BTR-90s are unlikely to ever enter Russian service, while the BTR-82s are possibly armoured to stop 14.5mm HMG from the front and possibly 12.7mm from the sides and rear, while BMP-3 will probably stop 30mm cannon from the front from 500m range or more and probably 14.5mm from the sides and rear outside of 500m too, but from above they are vulnerable like pretty much all APCs and IFVs.

    In urban fighting it is the infantry that does the work and armour provides mobile fire power... direct fire artillery.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5452
    Points : 5444
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Isos on Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:38 am

    Not russian but ukrainian APS probably based on sobiet works. Nice video of Zaslon aps intercepting rickets and even apfsds at then end. I doubted an aps could do that but I tryst russian when they say afghanit intercepted apfsds in tests.


    Sponsored content

    Russian Tanks ERA and APS - Page 8 Empty Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:15 pm