Jump to content

Hi,

 

After seeing multiple times that APDSFS Shots get stopped by ERA modules, I'm not sure if I understood the way they work correctly? I thought those were mostly good against shaped charges?

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cpt_nosh said:

Hi,

 

After seeing multiple times that APDSFS Shots get stopped by ERA modules, I'm not sure if I understood the way they work correctly? I thought those were mostly good against shaped charges?

the early ERA (Kontakt 1) modules only where for HEAT rounds and added very little towards APDSFS round protection

when these early ERA modules where countered by tandem HEAT warheads Russia began to develope newer ERA (Kontakt 5) wich also gives an added protection against APDSFS and protects better against tandem warheads

 

though some of the APDSFS ingame DM53 and L27 maybe even M829A1(dont know on that one) where made with things like break of tips etc to negate ERA to an grat extent (not modeled ingame)

Edited by _Iluminas_
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, _Iluminas_ said:

ERA (Kontakt 5)...protects better against tandem warheads

No. K5 is not effective against tandem. Instead, 3rd generation ERA is effective against such threats. Examples of 3rd gen ERA are Relikt, Duplet, FY-IV.

 

29 minutes ago, _Iluminas_ said:

maybe even M829A1(dont know on that one) where made with things like break of tips etc to negate ERA to an grat extent (not modeled ingame)

No, that´s not the case. For the americans M829A3 was the first round able to confidently defeat 2nd gen ERA (Kontakt 5). M829A2 effectiveness is somewhat debatable. However these rounds together with DM53, L27 are also reliable defeated by 3rd gen ERA.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

No. K5 is not effective against tandem. Instead, 3rd generation ERA is effective against such threats. Examples of 3rd gen ERA are Relikt, Duplet, FY-IV.

 

No, that´s not the case. For the americans M829A3 was the first round able to confidently defeat 2nd gen ERA (Kontakt 5). M829A2 effectiveness is somewhat debatable. However these rounds together with DM53, L27 are also reliable defeated by 3rd gen ERA.

was 3rd gen ERA the double layer reactive one if yes then i know atleast for the DM53 that it can defeat it

 

Edited by _Iluminas_
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, _Iluminas_ said:

was 3rd gen ERA the double layer reactive one if yes then i know atleast for the DM53 that it can defeat it

 

 DM53 and 63 have the same penetration capabilities. The differences are "minor" and almost non important for ingame purposes.
 

WT Live // Images by Jackvony

 

And no, neither DM53 and 63 can defeat 3rd gen ERA. The latter was a direct response to these kind of rounds. In the specific case of Relikt, it defeats DM53/60, M829A2 and presumably L27 (i´m very much convinced that all these rounds, unlike M829A3, defeat 2nd gen ERA by the same mechanism) by using a new explosive element (2S23) with a higher sensitivity. Recently the German Parliament discussed the effectiveness of DM53/63 against Relikt. They concluded that DM53/63 even when fired from L55 guns can´t defeat soviet derived tanks modernized with Relikt, hence the need to adopt the newer DM73 APFSDS, which can only be fired from the improved L55A1 gun to be mounted on Leopard 2A7V.

" im Haushalt 2021 die Restentwicklung und Qualifikation der Munition 120mm KE2020Neo für den KPz Leo- pard 2 einzuplanen und unverzüglich einen Vertrag abzuschließen. Dem Verteidigungsausschluss ist bis spätes tens 31. M ärz 2021 über die Umsetzung zu berichten. Begründung:

 

1. Das in Nutzung befindliche System Panzerkanone L55 mit 120 mm in Verbindung mit der KE DM63 ist heute nicht mehr in der Lage, den modernisierten Teil der russischen KPz -Flotte (mehrere Tausend Fahrzeuge) in der Duellsituation erfolgreich zu bekämpfen.

 

2. Die Entwicklung neuer 120 mm Munition (KE2020Neo) würde die Fähigkeitslücke zur VJTF 2027 deutlich reduzieren und die technologische Grundlage zur Schließung dieser Lücke darstellen.

 

3. Die aktuelle Kampfpanze rgeneration Leopard 2 nutzt derzeit eine KE -Munition mit einer Penetrator- Techno logie aus dem Jahr 1995. Moderne Reaktivpanzerungen (Explosive R eactive Armour; ERA) wie die 3. Gene ration ERA (Relikt), die bei russischen Kampfpanzern auch älterer Bauart nachgerüstet sind und werden (z.B. Verwendung in KPz T72B3, KPz T90M/MS), können mit der bestehenden KE -Munition nicht mehr erfolgreich bekämpft werden. Daher besteht eine akute Fähigkeitslücke der gesamten Leopard -Flotte in Deutschland und in der weltweiten 120 mm Nutzergemeinschaft inklusive aller NATO Partner.) "

Translated by Google:

 

"plan the remaining development and qualification of the 120mm KE2020Neo ammunition for the MBT Leo-pard 2 in the 2021 budget and conclude a contract immediately. The defense exclusion must be reported on implementation by March 31, 2021 at the latest.

 

1. The L55 tank cannon system with 120 mm in use in conjunction with the KE DM63 is no longer able to successfully fight the modernized part of the Russian MBT fleet (several thousand vehicles) in a duel situation.

 

2. The development of new 120 mm ammunition (KE2020Neo) would significantly reduce the capability gap to the VJTF 2027 and represent the technological basis for closing this gap.

 

3. The current Leopard 2 main battle tank generation currently uses KE ammunition with penetrator technology from 1995. Modern reactive armor (Explosive Reactive Armor; ERA) such as the 3rd generation ERA (Relikt), which is also retrofitted to Russian main battle tanks of older designs are and will be (e.g. used in MBT T72B3, MBT T90M / MS), can no longer be successfully fought with the existing KE ammunition. Therefore there is an acute capability gap of the entire Leopard fleet in Germany and in the global 120 mm user community including all NATO partners.) "

 

 

Source: https://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/233/1923326.pdf page 5

 

 

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
  • Thanks 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Double reactive" is a bit misleading. For example, Kontakt 5 features 2 reactives steel plates (aka "flyer plates") that are fired in opposite directions subjecting the incoming APFSDS to a sort of a "guillotine" action. 3rd gen ERA are not exactly "double reactive" but rather they action twice or feature 2 distinct defeat mechanisms (for example like FY-IV). In the specific case of Duplet it may be described as "double reactive" simpy because it consist of 2 Nozh modules piled on top of each other, still separated by a relatively thick steel plate. But Relikt is a smarter design that consumes much less volume.
Nonetheless, If we are to compare 2 primary sources, one government/military and the other coming from the manufacturer, the first one is more credible. In this case speciffically becuase the capability gap against Relikt is what justifies the funding for DM73. Furthermore, what understanding Rh might have had in 2013 on Relikt (T-90M didn´t even exist back then, Crimea hadn´t been annexed by Russia, and so on) certainly is not the same as the German military has in 2020. Coincidentally, the impression of the Germans that DM63 has a capability gap against Relikt is also shared by the manufacturer of ERA, who has stated that said armor is effective vs APFSDS capable of penetrating up to 800mm of steel. What we know about DM73 is that it will penetrate well over that figure.  

Z1C4SN2.png

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, _Iluminas_ said:

And then there is this:

Spoiler

i9sZq3I.png

The bdswr acquisition committee specifically requesting that KE2020 Neo timeline be accelerated because DM53/63 and even base standard KE2020 is ineffective against 3rd Gen ERA. What would be the point of the Russians putting out an ERA on the market that is already obsolete upon introduction?

Edited by AnimeThighs
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did I unleash here... anyways. My Question basically is, I shoot TURMS T-72 on era with premium CV90105TML Apdsfs. Shot diesappears in ERA not penetrating on multiple areas... should that be the case or not?

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

"Double reactive" is a bit misleading. For example, Kontakt 5 features 2 reactives steel plates (aka "flyer plates") that are fired in opposite directions subjecting the incoming APFSDS to a sort of a "guillotine" action.

 

This is partially incorrect .  First of all it needs to be established that not all Kontakt-5 configurations are the same ( i know you are aware of this so this precision concerns the rest of the readers ) . Indeed there are differences between Kontakt-5 configurations seen on T-72/T-90 family and those seen on T-80 family but furthermore and more importantly there are minor differences between the Kontakt-5 configurations mounted on the turret and those mounted on the hull as it can be seen here :

 

 

image010.gif image013.gif

 

 

                                 0VeSNyO.png turret-80ud.jpg kontakt-5+t-80.png

 

From what we can observe here we can deduce two things

 

1) For Kontakt -5 arrays mounted on the UFP for both T-72/T-90 and T-80 families there is clearly a single flyer plate followed by two 4S22 tiles angled from each other and then  main hull array . The so called ''guillotine'' action can still occur with a single flyer plate . Indeed the single flyer plate will move upwards and sidewards induced by the momentum given by the explosives and the natural angle given by the setup . By the time the penetrator tip initiates the explosion by penetrating the flyer plate and by the time that same tip reaches the main array  there is a delay , during this delay  the flyer plate will move laterally  and thus cut this part of the penetrator , hence the '' guillotine '' reference .

 

2)  For Kontakt-5 arrays mounted on the turret this is more debatable . Indeed schematics may leave to believe that there are two flyer plates but from both schematics and actual observation we can see that the frontal plate is much  thicker than the rear plate. On top of this there is very limited space for the rear plate to move backwards ( in contradiction to Relikt which employs two flyer plates ) as it will almost imediately be blocked by the top or bottom block depending your perspective . For these reasons the usefulness  of the rear plate as a ''flyer plate ''  is highly unlikely  !

 

Furthermore if the rear plate of Kontakt-5 block mounted on the turret was participating as a flyer plate then it would mean that Kontakt-5 mounted on the turret and Kontakt-5 mounted on the hull would work under two different principles namely two flyer plates and one flyer plate respectively . This is highly unlikely !

 

Most certainly than not Kontakt-5 works under the principle of a single flyer plate and this is further confirmed by Relikt shcematics :

 

 

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/kontakt5_files/image027.gif 15965161_1358776097514465_76508932957346

 

 

We can see two big differences between Relikt and Kontakt-5 :

 

1) On Relikt  mounted on the UFP  ( unlike Kontakt-5 )  there are clearly two flyer plates of the same thickness   with enough space for the rear flyer plate to participate in the action . 

 

2) On Relikt mounted on the turret ( unlike  Kontakt-5 )  the front and rear plate are of the same thickness and most importantly the setup makes sure that there is ample space for the rear plate to move backwards without being perturbed by the top or bottom block depending your perspective .

 

Now of cource there is also the difference in explosive tiles between Kontakt-5 ( 4S22 )  and Relikt ( 4S23 ) but the main advantage 4S23 brings over 4S22 is it's higher sensitivity to the reduced speed of NATO rounds such as M829A3  which was the wickness of 4S22 being not sensitive enough for those velocities .

 

So the conclusion is the following . Kontakt-5 works under the principle of a single flyer plate ( we can imagine this as a single guillotine )  wheres Relikt works under the principle of two flyer plates ( we can imagine this as a double guillotine ) .  Relikt can be viewed as two Kontak-5 blocks ( which explains the doubled efficiency )  but instead of putting them one on top of each other ( like other ERA designs ) Russian designers have decided to make the most out of the explosives in a much more space efficient design .

 

 

There is one single instance of Kontakt-5 employing more than one flyer plate ( it also employs some sort of rubber  )  but this is only in the case of the Kontakt-5 placed on the top of the turret hence why i didn't mentioned it previously .

 

image026.gif

 

 

 

Edited by Raldi92
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cpt_nosh said:

What did I unleash here... anyways. My Question basically is, I shoot TURMS T-72 on era with premium CV90105TML Apdsfs. Shot diesappears in ERA not penetrating on multiple areas... should that be the case or not?

 

The Kontakt-1 ERA did not stop your APFSDS, the T-72A base armour did though. K-1 along with all 1st Generation ERA will only affect Chemical energy projectiles like HEAT or ATGMs. Neither the DM23 nor the M735 are able to go through T-72A's composite. The fact that you see ERA disappear on X-ray after a direct hit doesn't necessarily imply it's effectiveness towards your shell. Furthermore, to avoid confusion in the future, you just have to know that only 2nd Generation and above are able to affect Kinetic energy projectiles.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cryptocurrency said:

malachit era

 

6 minutes ago, SXTREME said:

That's 4th Generation ERA, IIRC there has been 0 statements commenting on it's effectiveness compared to previous Relikt.

There is no such thing as "malachit 4th gen ERA", its an internet fabrication.

 

4 hours ago, _Iluminas_ said:

my apologies

There is nothing to apologise for.

 

6 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

We can see two big differences between Relikt and Kontakt-5 :

 

1) On Relikt  mounted on the UFP  ( unlike Kontakt-5 )  there are clearly two flyer plates of the same thickness   with enough space for the rear flyer plate to participate in the action . 

 

2) On Relikt mounted on the turret ( unlike  Kontakt-5 )  the front and rear plate are of the same thickness and most importantly the setup makes sure that there is ample space for the rear plate to move backwards without being perturbed by the top or bottom block depending your perspective .

 

Now of cource there is also the difference in explosive tiles between Kontakt-5 ( 4S22 )  and Relikt ( 4S23 ) but the main advantage 4S23 brings over 4S22 is it's higher sensitivity to the reduced speed of NATO rounds such as M829A3  which was the wickness of 4S22 being not sensitive enough for those velocities .

 

  Relikt can be viewed as two Kontak-5 blocks ( which explains the doubled efficiency )  but instead of putting them one on top of each other ( like other ERA designs ) Russian designers have decided to make the most out of the explosives in a much more space efficient design .

 

 

There is one single instance of Kontakt-5 employing more than one flyer plate ( it also employs some sort of rubber  )  but this is only in the case of the Kontakt-5 placed on the top of the turret hence why i didn't mentioned it previously .

 

You are missing something about Relikt. The plate which flyes backwards crashes against a backplate which has another 2S23 layer in front. The impact of the backflying plate into that 2S23 makes it detonate, sending the plate fliying forwards. The time interval between the initial detonation (which sends the 2 plates flying in opposite directions) and the secondary (sending the back flying plate forwards) is what guarantees effectiveness vs tandem warheads and KE such as M829A3, which relies on making the ERA detonate prematurely. Now, even if M829A3 makes the "frontal" 2S23 layers detonate prematurely, it would still have to deal with the secondary 2S23 detonation afterwards, rendering the break away tip mechanic irrelevant. For projecitles that rely on a delayed/prevented detonation of ERA (M829A2, DM53, presumably L27 as well), the increased sensitivity of 2S23 would guarantee its proper work nonetheless. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

There is no such thing as "malachit 4th gen ERA", its an internet fabrication.

Hasn't that name been tossed at Object 187 and T-14?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

You are missing something about Relikt. The plate which flyes backwards crashes against a backplate which has another 2S23 layer in front. The impact of the backflying plate into that 2S23 makes it detonate, sending the plate fliying forwards.

 

Where are you getting this from ?  No Relikt schematic that i have been able to put my eyes on ( it's not like there are tons of them either )  shows such a concept .

 

Screenshot_2020-12-13_133405.png

 

From what it can be seen there is nothing between the rear flyer plate and the main hull array .

 

10 hours ago, WulfPack said:

Hasn't that name been tossed at Object 187 and T-14?

 

It has , even from reputable reporting sources in the military industry  , so there must be some foundation behind the name .

 

https://euro-sd.com/2019/05/articles/13297/active-and-reactive-vehicle-protection-systems/attachment/russias-armata-t-14-mbt-is-equipped-with-malachit-explosive/

 

Spoiler

 

 

I recall stumbling  over some recent news on said 4th gen ERA ( being called Malachit or whatever ) and it went towards the direction of it being a combination of next gen NERA/NxRA and ERA , using new mixtures of ceramics and steels but i forgot what the source was so i will post it here if i manage to find it .

 

 

Edited by Raldi92
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, WulfPack said:

Hasn't that name been tossed at Object 187 and T-14?

 

6 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

It has , even from reputable reporting sources in the military industry  , so there must be some foundation behind the name .

 

https://euro-sd.com/2019/05/articles/13297/active-and-reactive-vehicle-protection-systems/attachment/russias-armata-t-14-mbt-is-equipped-with-malachit-explosive/

 

I recall stumbling  over some recent news on said 4th gen ERA ( being called Malachit or whatever ) and it went towards the direction of it being a combination of next gen NERA/NxRA and ERA , using new mixtures of ceramics and steels but i forgot what the source was so i will post it here if i manage to find it .


Again, "Malachit" is an internet thing/misinformation campaing, quite effective. T-14 doesn´t even have EXPLOSIVE reactive armor. Instead, its "ERA looking" modules in the front and sides (the first modules, the ones which cover the crew from the side) are either NxRA or SLERA (i´m more inclined for the later). Even back in 2011, when announcing Relikt, Nii Stali´s President explained that they called the new ERA as a relic because in the eyes of the engineers using explosives was something from the past and they were moving towards "energetic materials", more efficient and safer than explosives (source: https://topasianews.com/news/russia-to-unveil-new-explosive-reactive-armour/). This is also supported by another Nii Stali publication from 2010/9 http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/06/russian-nxra-for-lavs.html?m=1.

Last year Nii Stali, when listing the devices and inventions of their own featured in T-14, finally unveiled the name of the new NxRA/SLERA: Monolit. Scroll down to page 5 of the following PDF.

90th anniversary of GABTU-7.pdf

I think that the name "Monolit" was chosen because NxRA/SLERA can withstand multiple hits, unlike ERA. 

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Again, "Malachit" is an internet thing/misinformation campaing, quite effective. T-14 doesn´t even have EXPLOSIVE reactive armor. Instead, its "ERA looking" modules in the front and sides (the first modules, the ones which cover the crew from the side) are either NxRA or SLERA (i´m more inclined for the later). Even back in 2011, when announcing Relikt, Nii Stali´s President explained that they called the new ERA as a relic because in the eyes of the engineers using explosives was something from the past and they were moving towards "energetic materials", more efficient and safer than explosives (source: https://topasianews.com/news/russia-to-unveil-new-explosive-reactive-armour/). This is also supported by another Nii Stali publication from 2010/9 http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/06/russian-nxra-for-lavs.html?m=1.

Last year Nii Stali, when listing the devices and inventions of their own featured in T-14, finally unveiled the name of the new NxRA/SLERA: Monolit. Scroll down to page 5 of the following PDF.

90th anniversary of GABTU-7.pdf

I think that the name "Monolit" was chosen because NxRA/SLERA can withstand multiple hits, unlike ERA. 

 

Yes i am aware of this document , that was a very good finding . Now that being said i wouldn't draw definitive conclusions on whether T-14 has ERA or not for two reasons :

 

- First reason is by translating this document we get the following advancements for the T-14 :

 

    a) New ultra-high-strength steel 44C-SV-sh .

    b) New dynamic protection complex "Monolith" based on energy materials .  ( this can easely refer to either ERA or SLERA )

    c) Electromagnetic protection system(EMS) .

    d) A set of tools for reducing visibility .

    e) Composite armor panels for additional protection based on ceramics . ( this can easely refer to NxRA )

    f) Aramid-based anti-shatter screens .

 

- Second reason is this statement made in 2016 coming from a source in JSC Tractor Plant  https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russian-made_main_battle_tank_t-14_armata_protected_with_new_generation_of_era_armor_tass_10402161.html :

 

Quote

"The high protective characteristics of the new armor aren't provided by the simple increase of explosive mass in its containers"

 

Depending on interpretation of this quote ,  the increased protective characteristics  have been achieved by either increasing explosive mass but also other characteristics or by maintaining explosive mass but increasing other caracteristics . Eithere way this is confirmation that this new design employs a significant ammount of explosives which rules out NxRA .

 

Quote

He pointed out, that the detonation of an ERA container wouldn't damage the electronics and other equipment installed under armor.

 

Here again it is prety clear that there are explosives involved . This quote goes indeed more in the lines of  SLERA   but then again i've never heard of instances of electronics underneath the main hull array being damaged by the explosion on traditional ERA so i don't see an issue that could had been resolved by employing self limiting explosive reactive armor .  Also in relation to the fist quote knowing that the explosive level could be as high as on Relikt for example if not higher , this would rule out SLERA . Point being i wouldn't rule out ERA so quickly , not with so little information being available .

 

 

The encouraging part is that T-14 has officialy entered the serial delivery phase and has received the greenlight for export , so chances are sooner than later we will surely have more ample marketing material in regards to its armor etc .

 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/12/2020 at 14:02, Raldi92 said:

This is a good opportunity to touch a point that i wanted to address: how english speaking media can screw up when quoting from russian.

 

Firstly, if my source and yours were to be contradicting each other (which i´ll demonstrate they actually don´t), we should take mine as the most trustworthy as it is a primary source, backed up by another primary one and both using very explicit and specific statements on the direction taken by Nii Stali´s developments since more than a decade ago. Army Recognition is by definition a secondary source, quoting another secondary sorce, TASS, and the statements quoted are rather ambigous in comparison. And in adtion, miss translated.  

 

This is the original TASS article translated into english: https://tass.com/russia/801081. The important quote you take from AR is the following

 

"... "The high protective characteristics of the new armor aren't provided by the simple increase of explosive mass in its containers"..."

 

Which might be interpreted in a very ambigous way. Firstly, that the armor has explosives and second that an increase of the amount doesn´t explain the increase in the armor efficiency. 

 

And here is the original statement as translated into english by TASS:

 

"The improvement of the new armour characteristics is achieved not by an additional explosive, which may destroy the tank systems if ammunition explodes on the armour. With the new armour, the reactive armour unit’s explosion will not be critical"

The first conclusion is that the armor in question doesn´t have additional explosives. This is further supported by explaining the disadvantages of using explosives as part of armor arrays. However the formulation of the sentence is rather mechanical which justifies the rephrasing on part of AR, however in doing so it also lost its meaning. However up to this point these sources appear to identify T-14 external front armor as ERA just like previous Nii Stali´s inventions. However that is also a mistake. The TASS article also cites:

" This is state-of-the-art active armour that surpasses characteristics of the Kontakt-5 and Relikt explosive reactive armour "

Here TASS used an uncommon term, "ACTIVE ARMOR", followed by (the very western) "EXPLOSIVE REACTIVE ARMOR". So the article is comunicating that "Active armor" is not the same as "ERA". That also escaped the people writing for Army Recognition.
It just so happens that the russians don´t usually refer to ERA as such, but use a broader term: "DYNAMIC ARMOR"  (ДИНАМИЧЕСКОГО ЗАЩИТА), often abbreviated as DZ. That is why you can find plenty of russian sources and people talking about "T-14´s DZ" and mistranslated into English as "ERA" when the tem in itself doesn´t refer specifically to traditional explosives. SLERA/NxRA Are also referred to as DZ, even in Nii Stali´s publications. The line that divides SLERA from NxRA in the West is not very clear. According to Rafael, the differences lies in that while both utilize "energetic materials" instead of traditional explosives, the ones used on SLERA could be categorized as explosives under the laws and regulations of different countries and organizations. In russian, both types of armor are not clearly distinguished, being refered as DZ "utilizing/based on energetic materials".

Now we come back to Nii Stali unveiling the official designation of T-14 armor as "Monolit", DZ based on energetic material. The external plate has visible structural weakpoints that make it look very much like ERA and points that those modules clearly have a very violent, explosive reaction when hit with ammo. For me, that points to Monolit specifically being a SLERA type array. About the "base armor" on the hull front, its anybody´s guess. Perhaps its NxRA, capable of sustaining more hits than SLERA, or perhaps its based on non-reactive ceramic based arrays. But considering some digging i´m making on the protective screens for Kurganets, which is also listed as having Nii Stali´s "ceramic screens", i´m more convinced that the ceramic screens are actually the 4 side modules in between a single Monolit block (which also acts as a fender) and 5 2S24 light ERA blocks.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

This is a good opportunity to touch a point that i wanted to address: how english speaking media can screw up when quoting from russian.

 

And here is the original statement as translated into english by TASS:

 

"The improvement of the new armour characteristics is achieved not by an additional explosive, which may destroy the tank systems if ammunition explodes on the armour. With the new armour, the reactive armour unit’s explosion will not be critical"

The first conclusion is that the armor in question doesn´t have additional explosives. This is further supported by explaining the disadvantages of using explosives as part of armor arrays. However the formulation of the sentence is rather mechanical which justifies the rephrasing on part of AR, however in doing so it also lost its meaning. However up to this point these sources appear to identify T-14 external front armor as ERA just like previous Nii Stali´s inventions. However that is also a mistake. The TASS article also cites:

" This is state-of-the-art active armour that surpasses characteristics of the Kontakt-5 and Relikt explosive reactive armour "

 

You make a very good point here , if  i had to choose i would certainly go with TASS translation aswell .

 

3 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

For me, that points to Monolit specifically being a SLERA type array. About the "base armor" on the hull front, its anybody´s guess. Perhaps its NxRA, capable of sustaining more hits than SLERA, or perhaps its based on non-reactive ceramic based arrays. But considering some digging i´m making on the protective screens for Kurganets, which is also listed as having Nii Stali´s "ceramic screens", i´m more convinced that the ceramic screens are actually the 4 side modules in between a single Monolit block (which also acts as a fender) and 5 2S24 light ERA blocks.

 

Given this new information i would go aswell with something along those lines . SLERA for Monolith ( for it to be revolutionary over Relikt etc it has to be able to withstand at least 2 consecutive hits on the zone  , perhaps a layer of NxRA beneath and for the main array certainly multiple layers of the new 44C-SV-sh combined with ceramics  .  As i mentioned previously chances are we will know better rather sooner than later .

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

SLERA for Monolith ( for it to be revolutionary over Relikt etc it has to be able to withstand at least 2 consecutive hits on the zone

Thats my guess as well. If it worked only for a single hit, then they would have just used traditional explosives (at most at a reduced explosive mass rate as in 2S24 based ERA´s).

 

23 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

perhaps a layer of NxRA beneath and for the main array certainly multiple layers of the new 44C-SV-sh combined with ceramics 

Or perhaps 44C steel and ceramics are part of an NxRA array acting as the base front hull armor. There is no way to know right now to be honest. But it wouldn´t surprise me at all if the combined efectiveness of Monolit+base armor ends up well over 1000mm KE.

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...