The multilevel tank protection

[Baron Harkonnen]

The multilevel tank protection
The Ukrainian approach

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/6242/014kw0.jpg
T-80UD turret with module armour and "Kontakt-5" ERA cutsection.

Complete article in russian with additional illustrations
http://btvt.narod.ru/1/bronja_ukraini/bronja_ukraini.htm

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4551/06ux9.jpg

The APFSDS of Soviet and Western models defeated by the Noz ERA.

[saigonsmuggler]

Baron, can you specify which Western APFSDS were used in the tests?

[Baron Harkonnen]

Baron, can you specify which Western APFSDS were used in the tests?

A <b>modern</b> APFSDS.

[Sand Man]

A modern APFSDS.

Fixed.....

[saigonsmuggler]

A <b>modern</b> APFSDS.
thats not saying much.. ;)

[Baron Harkonnen]

It is not important that much, modern western apfsds have generaly same capabilities (+-15-20%).

[MZKT]

Is Nozh better then Relikt? How many tanks (T-84??) with it are in service

[Baron Harkonnen]

Is Nozh better then Relikt? How many tanks (T-84??) with it are in service

It is equiped not only to T-84, but to any tank, like T-64BM Bulat (modernizad T-64).

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4036/t64u5hu1.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t64u5hu1.jpg)

[TR1]

It is equiped not only to T-84, but to any tank, like T-64BM Bulat (modernizad T-64).

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4036/t64u5hu1.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t64u5hu1.jpg)

do you know how many T-64 type tanks were modernized Baron?
and what of the status of the T-80 in URkanina service, in terms of numbers?
i see to remember that T-72 was being phased out.

[ckabusk]

This things will be useless, why?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a5_1174660649&p=1

[saigonsmuggler]

It is not important that much, modern western apfsds have generaly same capabilities (+-15-20%).
there should be a big difference between M829A3 and the rest as the 829A3 was specifically designed to deal with heavy ERA such as K-5 and NERA (the slicing effect).

Where do they get these "modern" Western APFSDS's to test? ;)

[MZKT]

It is equiped not only to T-84, but to any tank, like T-64BM Bulat (modernizad T-64).

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4036/t64u5hu1.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t64u5hu1.jpg)

But Bulat's ERA-modules look like K-5, not the slim Nozh-modules. If Nozh can be applied to all vehicles why Ukrainians don't put the same modules on bulats.

[Baron Harkonnen]

Bulat's ERA-modules have Nozh-elements.

[MZKT]

Aha but then: why the difference in configuration? Why the thin modules on T-84 and wide on bulat? Why no standardization?

Oh and btw another question: The combinated commanders sight/AAMG-mount of T-64B and T-80UD seems to be a Kharkiv development and wasn't present on other soviet tanks, but it appeared on russian T-90 again. Is it importet from ukraine or just the same design produced in Russia.

[Baron Harkonnen]

Aha but then: why the difference in configuration? Why the thin modules on T-84 and wide on bulat? Why no standardization?.

It is evident.
The T-64B is much less basicly armour protected, it has additional passive armour alongside with "NOZ".
2-nd - the T-64B has round-shape cast turret, so the armour modules for welded turret of T-84 and 64 can not be same.
The modules of hull are standardized.


Oh and btw another question: The combinated commanders sight/AAMG-mount of T-64B and T-80UD seems to be a Kharkiv development and wasn't present on other soviet tanks

You mean remoute controled AAMG ? - it was on T-64 and all other Soviet (Kharkiv/Ukraine designed) tanks like T-80 UD.
T-80U had no such thing (


but it appeared on russian T-90 again. Is it importet from ukraine or just the same design produced in Russia.

Russians designed a new own one for T-90.

[Baron Harkonnen]

History of Soviet combined armor development -
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4836/0021q.jpg

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/armor.htm

[Mastermind]

ERA is very effective and Trophy is still being combat tested. Both systems being defeated by the British double warhead AT rounds.

But, highly unlikely 3rd world guerrillas will get many of these sophisticated tank killers.

The reign of the AK-47 and the RPG is rapidly coming to an end. The IED is another matter.

[Baron Harkonnen]

ERA is very effective and Trophy is still being combat tested. Both systems being defeated by the British double warhead AT rounds.
.

What round? The modern ERA works against double warhead AT rounds called tandem rounds.

[Mastermind]

What round? The modern ERA works against double warhead AT rounds called tandem rounds.
I'm just saying the ancient race is on and has been on. Any armor will eventually be found-out and defeated

And then, after the tandems, what "ups the ante?" Tripples? Quadruples?

The race is always going to swing from armor to anti-armor and back.

[Hazard1024]

The race is one thing, mythic "british double warhead"(sound like a name for beer) is another.

[ViceStan]

I'm just saying the ancient race is on and has been on. Any armor will eventually be found-out and defeated

And then, after the tandems, what "ups the ante?" Tripples? Quadruples?

The race is always going to swing from armor to anti-armor and back.

Decoy rounds, already designed in Russia. The trophy, iron fist and Arena can all be saturated by multiple warheads, not to mention snipers targeting the radar/counter measure pods.

[widow41]

Decoy rounds, already designed in Russia. The trophy, iron fist and Arena can all be saturated by multiple warheads, not to mention snipers targeting the radar/counter measure pods.

Yeah right... (In case you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic.) The decoys are not realistic, snipers are not so magical and saturation will defeat any tank regardless of armour and active defences.

Thanks Baron Harkonnen for some great information at the btvt.narod.ru webpage.

I would just point out that your avatar image depicts Feyd-Rautha not the last Baron Harkonnen, Vladimir. While Feyd may have outlived Vladimir it was only by hours and he was never confirmed as the new Baron. Just a minor point ;-)

[Holycrusader]

Yeah right... (In case you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic.) The decoys are not realistic, snipers are not so magical and saturation will defeat any tank regardless of armour and active defences.

Thanks Baron Harkonnen for some great information at the btvt.narod.ru webpage.

I would just point out that your avatar image depicts Feyd-Rautha not the last Baron Harkonnen, Vladimir. While Feyd may have outlived Vladimir it was only by hours and he was never confirmed as the new Baron. Just a minor point ;-)

On what basis you think that decoys are not realistic?

[Baron Harkonnen]

Yeah right... (In case you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic.) The decoys are not realistic, snipers are not so magical and saturation will defeat any tank regardless of armour and active defences.

Thanks Baron Harkonnen for some great information at the btvt.narod.ru webpage.

I would just point out that your avatar image depicts Feyd-Rautha not the last Baron Harkonnen, Vladimir. While Feyd may have outlived Vladimir it was only by hours and he was never confirmed as the new Baron. Just a minor point ;-)

Yes, I know about Dune charecters :-)

As for the "decoy" round ( http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/2225.html ) there is no reasons to doubt about this as it was tested against APS.

[Holycrusader]

Yes, I know about Dune charecters :-)

As for the "decoy" round ( http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/2225.html ) there is no reasons to doubt about this as it was tested against APS.

Do you know how RPG-30 works?
I mean can decoy influence shooters aim? You shoot two rockets on the same time or what?

[Baron Harkonnen]

Do you know how RPG-30 works?
I mean can decoy influence shooters aim? You shoot two rockets on the same time or what?

The rounds are fired sequentualy automaticaly after the given delay 0,2...0,3 seconds, the life test shown high reliability of system and high probobility of hiting tank with active protection.

[ViceStan]

Yeah right... (In case you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic.) The decoys are not realistic, snipers are not so magical and saturation will defeat any tank regardless of armour and active defences.

Thanks Baron Harkonnen for some great information at the btvt.narod.ru webpage.

I would just point out that your avatar image depicts Feyd-Rautha not the last Baron Harkonnen, Vladimir. While Feyd may have outlived Vladimir it was only by hours and he was never confirmed as the new Baron. Just a minor point ;-)

How are decoys not realistic, there is already a working model produced.

[Mastermind]

Regardless of the strategy of AT, the fact is, the ERA and Trophy systems are increasing the levels of sophistication of weapons that must be used to defeat armor. This has dramatic influence on the "insurgent" or "Rag-Tag" type of foes armor is currently expected to engage. Just like the Stingers of the old Afghan/Russia, we can see such levels of sophistication are not impossible for these types of resistors to attain. But, the fact remains, such levels of technology are not actually sustainable in the long term if the High Tech conventional organizations really determine to saturate the battle area with their sustainable high tech systems. The problem is, such system are practically nullified by a small number of successful attacks by the less sophisticated foe.

Think of the example of WWII when the German submarine was defeated by Sonar, Radar, and well trained and organized surface forces. Highly expensive submersibles were soon being lost on par with their prey one-on-one. This led to Donits removing his subs from the battle...essentially conceding defeat.

We could also note the American and British near defeat of their sustained bombing offensive of early 1943 and 44 when German Anti A/C fire became so successful as to threaten the allied bombers with effective annihilation. The German fighter threat was resistible...and eventually was defeated. But the lower tech AA fire, even toward the end of the war, remained a growing threat. Even though it was taking more than 8 thousand AA shells to being down one bomber, the increasing cost comparison was becoming so important Spaatz, Doolittle and Arnold were really starting to get worried. Harris remained, on the surface, unimpressed...but his superiors were getting concerned for the political consequences of such high losses.

So, in the case of these very high tech armor defense systems, we may need to wait and see just how effective they are in strategic terms. I have to think they will, initially at least, be very effective. But, only if they are used in large numbers. Conventional forces simply can not be confined to their ultra high tech mobile forts, They will be forced to engage in the open eventually. The systme I am waiting for is the mobile infantry umbrella that can remove or drastically reduce the threat of aerial bombs, artillery and mortar fire from infantry in the open as well as fire from opposing tanks and shoulder fired At and AP systems.

Then, when those systems are common, I think we will be seeing a revolution in warfare. Lets face it, if a tank mounted system can engage an incoming AT round, there is simply no reason such systems can not be up-scaled to cover entire battlefields.

[widow41]

As for the "decoy" round ( http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/2225.html ) there is no reasons to doubt about this as it was tested against APS.

There are two significant problems with the decoy.

The first is its ability to actually fool a hard kill (HK) APS sensor system. Such a sensor will precisely track the incoming projectile(s) with either radar (Block 1 Trophy) or both radar and infra red search and track (Block 2 Trophy, Iron Fist, Quick Kill). Even if the decoy can precisely match the radar and IR signatures (which includes launch signature) and ballistic path of a threat weapon (which includes its rate of deceleration through air resistance) the fire control system will also detect the following warhead and identify the close vectors of two warheads (one being a decoy) as to be a ‘double shot’ decoy/warhead system (not to mention the launch signature which is a clear give away). So either by a range of sensor images or intelligence supported logic it can identify the decoy.

The second problem is that the HK APS has the capacity to intercept both the decoy and the warhead. Systems like Trophy, Iron Fist, Quick Kill are designed to intercept multiple incoming projectiles with very short separations between them. Now there are some angles and ranges where a twin Trophy launcher equipped tank will not be able to conduct such near simultaneous interception (because both launchers will not be able to bear or reload in time for second engagement) but these are very close range, flank shots only.

Its one thing to defeat an area kill APS like ARENA and an entirely other thing to defeat a HK APS.

[dracon49]

As far as i know Iron Fist and Trophy can deal with multiple attacks and also they can classify if its a threat or not(decoy)and it will only intercept it if its a real threat.

[Gus]

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4036/t64u5hu1.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t64u5hu1.jpg)
Sand-blast the place back to it's original cold-rolled steel finish and I can imagine rows of T-34s lined up on that same floor seventy years ago. They just don't build factories like that anymore (except maybe in Russia).

[Moledet]

Decoy rounds, already designed in Russia. The trophy, iron fist and Arena can all be saturated by multiple warheads, not to mention snipers targeting the radar/counter measure pods.
I'd like to meet the sniper that has the balls to shoot at a tank. The Palestinians sometimes do that, needless to say it ends with a 0.5cal and possibly a tank round fired back.

Anyway, it isn't very easy to actually hit a tank. If I could tell you some of the statistics of the second Lebanon war you'd understand. There are extremely simple counter measures that deal with the way of doing warfare and will easily defeat AT weapons of the type used in that war.

[Mastermind]

I have to somewhat agree with the comment from Moledet. Tanks are rather difficult to hit under combat conditions with unguided weapons. Even at point blank range (less than 100 meters) in VN we would take approximately five rounds per hit...and in some cases, much more misses than that...and hits were extremely inaccurate...hitting less vulnerable spots than vulnerable. In fact, of the seven vehicle in our platoon, we never lost a vehicle to RPG attack, though this is what caused about half of our battle field deaths. A hit on the hull hardly ever even caused an injury...RPG to the steel shielding (above the aluminum hull), seemed to always result in a death or two and pretty terrible maiming. Most armored fighting vehicles would just keep right on fighting even after multiple hits. I watched one incident during an ambush where an M-48 was hit eleven times with RPG B-40 and still kept firing...although it had been immobilized, it had not been so disabled the crew could not keep fighting the vehicle. When my tour of duty was over, my M-113 had taken three hits by RPG and one 76mm RR...and none of them disabled the vehicle, though some caused minor casualties and 1 serious injury but no deaths. Land mines, however, were entirely different...three hits, two of which just disabled the vehicle for about three hours (breaking the track and destroying some road wheels, puncturing the hull, but no serious injuries (usually broken teeth, ear drums, bruising and small cuts). But, the last one (about 50 lbs estimated AT mine) destroyed the vehicle killing two of the crew and two others (amazingly) only slightly injured...but very well shaken up (dazed but after a day able to return to duty).

[Moledet]

I don't know where you fought or what were the strategies but the way the IDF fights makes it very hard for AT crews to hit tanks even with Kornets. I am certain this information is shared with the US armored corps and thus they've also updated their doctrine since 2006 to include the many lessons the IDF learned on new guided AT weapons.
Let's say it this way, as much as it is hard for a gunner in a tank to hit a target it is a lot harder for the AT missile operator to put the tank on target, not to mention he must stay on target to hit, the controls are very complicated, sensitive and not intuitive, he needs to look both at the screen and the tank position, and beside that the tank has counter measures.
The result of missing is devastating when it comes to modern tanks since they have combined arms capabilities. It can easily mean the exposer of the precise position of an entire AT crew to all units operating in the area.

EDITED:
I now realized you fought in Vietnam, sorry. Things have changed a lot, hell they changed between 2006 and 2009 in all aspects doctrine, technology and training.

[Mastermind]

I am mainly commenting on the differences between doctrine, training and real battle effectiveness. I am strongly agreeing with your comment that tanks are very hard to hit in actual battle (under most circumstances). I must say, I have witnessed some extraordinarily lucky hits from very long ranges. But, for practical purposes, under realistic battle conditions, you are spot on!

and, I must add; true, things have changed hugely since my war. I reflected some time ago (with a bit of personal chagrin) that today we are as distant from my war as my war was then from WWI...Makes me feel exceptionally old! ;-(

[Timmy!]

I'd like to meet the sniper that has the balls to shoot at a tank. The Palestinians sometimes do that, needless to say it ends with a 0.5cal and possibly a tank round fired back.

http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w2/tanki_17.jpg

http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w2/tanki_20.jpg

Photos from 1 assault of Groznyj, on which one can see optics destroyed by small arms fire