Can someone explain why the ARAT 2 era is 30mm thick but only provides 5mm of protection against kinetic rounds?
Does the 30mm thick tile only act as 5mm of equivalent resistance? What would the tile have to be made from to be so minimal? It says effective thickness at that angle is 35mm in the photo. What does this mean?
I’d assume a solid 30mm thick tile would be equivalent to AT LEAST 30mm of resistance against kinetic energy. 30mm of friction and resistance stacked in front a propelled object should add more than 5mm correct? . I’m just asking the question. Don’t stone me.
1 Like
Well the arat 2 out layer of era appears to be some sort of ceramic material which would be much less effective at stopping kinetic rounds than rolled homogenous armor.
1 Like
Ceramic and explosives. No steel to stop a kinetic round. Though I agree it could be a little higher, 30mm wouldn’t be a huge buff.
1 Like
In principle, this defense system would be more designed to stop ATGMs in tandem rather than against APDS-FS, since it has that curved ERA to stop the first charge of the tandem and then the square ERA inside for the second charge, which the Contact 5 and Relikt do not have.
In the same vein - ARAT is also designed to be more safe for crews nearby and has a more constrained explosion (as one would expect from a Western vehicle). Heavy ERA such as Relict are very heavy, have very thick plates, and have a lot of explosive.
Yes, well, but it is also that they are designed for different situations. Those of the abrams are designed for ATGMs in tandem, being an urban combat kit, that is why the first ERA plate was for little, because its mission is to stop the first charge of the tandem.On the other hand, the Kontakt 5 and Relict are created to give them extra armor against APDS-FS, since without them the hull armor of Soviet tanks would not be resistant enough to fight against modern tanks.
I bet a russian missile in game will still go right through it.
1 Like
ARAT is actually described to work in the same way as heavy ERA (2 flyer plates being sent in opposite directions from an explosive in the middle of them) as per the manufacturer:
Spoiler
and keep in mind, the US had access to K5 before they even developed M19 ARAT.
The fact its safer for personel nearby is likely more due to the fact that NATO has been pushing hard with development of insensitive explosive and propellants, along with isolation of ERA module detonation. Most modern NATO ERA’s are rated to take 25mm or 30mm AP and APFSDS rounds without detonating, and only blow up 1 module at a time.
Spoiler
I think this is more a case of people underestimating western ERA because its not as popular a subject as Russian ERA is.
4 Likes
That’s how in general ERA works. The flyer plates collide with the jet of the shaped charge, causing high loss of penetration. Against APFSDS this works worse as you need much thicker armor plates as the rod is much more rigid. The Russian heavy ERA just works because it uses larger and thicker flyer plates, they also need to have this high mounting angle in order to be effective as well. This is also why I think the side heavy ERA is overperforming when shot at flat angles, they really shouldn’t protect much more than the thickness of the plates themselves but I digress…
ARAT provides some protection against low caliber rounds, maybe not enough, but it’s there. It’s just not expected to perform similar to the heavy ERA of the Russians, especially when I think the side ERA is overperforming on those as I mentioned.
Well, according to Soviet tests, Israel’s ERA Blazer was capable of stopping between 400 and 410mm of penetration at 0º from HEAT projectiles. Something completely reasonable since in the Yom Kippur War, Israeli tanks had many casualties because of the 9K11 ATGMs. , which curiously have a penetration of 400mm at 0º.
Blazer ERA is from the early 1980’s, M19 ARAT is from 2006. Theres 20+ years of technological advancements between the 2, but they’re borderline identical in WT.
but muh advanced russian kontakt!!!
2 Likes
What is the link to that website that you got that first image from? I want to see if I can enough info on US armor and ERA to make a bug report that they can’t ignore. I’m collecting images websites and anything else that is non-classified to make a very long and in depth report.
2 Likes
replies are being deleted more and more, no freedom of speech i guess, stating some obvious facts isn’t allowed anymore.
1 Like
I’m only referring to the KE protection equaling the thickness- at least
To add to what Danial Shared.
https://www.ebad.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LF-2-released-5-12-20.pdf
https://www.ebad.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LF-2XA-released-7-6-20.pdf
From export-controlled stuff that I can’t share anywhere. The plates on the M32 ARAT-II tiles are steel. The plates aren’t thick enough to be considered heavy ERA though. Possibly closer to a medium ERA, but it’s hard to say for sure. For example, with heavy ERA, Kontakt-5, the heavy steel flyer plate is 15-16mm thick. With Relikt, the 2 flyer plates are also 15-16mm thick. From pictures available in different books and online, it can be seen that the flyer plates on the M32 tiles are slightly thinner than the explosive layer. Looking at the EBAD pamphlets for the explosives, their thickest version has a nominal thickness of 8.5mm. This means the M32 flyer plates could be 5-6mm thick at best. However, the Army could be using a thicker version of the explosive in the tiles, which would increase the flyer plate thickness to 7-8mm.
The reason I’d consider it a medium ERA is because with most light ERA the integrated flyer plates around the explosives, are only about 1.5-2.5mm thick.
Other things that could be considered are how the downward-facing compound angle causing curvature of the M32 tile would positively affect the performance of the upward-facing ERA elements in the M19 tiles or the NERA elements in the sides of the turret. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to find any information regarding that.
4 Likes
