Jump to content

T-90 Turret Roof and Hull Deck Armor Thickness


Recommended Posts

Vanir Ausf B,

 

How's this grab you? Taken from here. aw_mm's #11, dated 8/26/14. I have never seen the like of the kind of detail. During the Cold War, analysts got all excited because the someone managed to image the underside of a T-72 turret, for some reason upside down at the tank plant, allowing determination of the cavity size for special armor in the turret front. This makes that look like a nonevent by comparison.

 

 

"ERA is highly efficient per thickness - afaik it is the most space efficient armor. The reactive elements in the Soviet Kontakt-1 ERA consisted of a 7 mm thick layer of explosive sandwiched between two 2 mm thick steel plates (so the total thickness is 11 mm) which can reduce the penetration of a missile warhead by 400 mm. The optimal protection is achieved when the ERA is sloped, but at the roof this is not necessary, because pretty much all top-attack weapons strike from an angle (except artillery bomblets).

The only thing I was able to find about the actual Soviet/Russian ERA used on their MBTs is this picture from a Russian news website/blog:
2012_09_14_32_5_1.jpg

It shows trials done during the development of the enhanced roof protection in 1983. The (1) marks the 50 mm thick anti-radiation layer installed inside the tank. (2) shows the 40 mm thick roof armor made of medium hardness steel. (3) is a 2 mm thick steel layer for holding all stuff together. (4) is a 80 mm thick polyurethane layer and (6) marks a 10 mm thick armor plate of high hardness steel under which a Kontakt-1 reactive element is located.

So the whole array would be: 50 mm anti-radiation liner - 40 mm thick roof armor - 80 mm polyurethane - 2 mm steel - 7 mm explosive - 2 mm steel - 10 mm high hardness steel or 191 mm of armor of which 90 mm are part of the turret roof and 101 mm applique armor.
According to said blog (if Chrome translated everything correctly) the armor was tested against an artillery bomblet with a penetration of 200 mm (dent in the armor marked with (8) ) and was able to resist it. 
Such a bomblet strikes perpendicular at the armor, against a missile like Javelin which will strike at an angle a protection of 400 to 500 mm could be expected in my opinion. Still this wouldn't be enough to deal with the Javelin missile, but then again it is a prototype armor from 1983. I'd expect at least the T-90 (1992) or T-90A (2005) to have upgraded roof armor."

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

it says that the EFP on the TOW-2B should penetrate at most 100-120mm and that the first generation ERA from 1983 did protect against a 200mm penetration bomblet. SO you can only imagine what the latest ERA on the T-90 can protect against.

 

T-90 should still unzip like most tanks.  500 MM RHA is pretty ambitious for roof armor.  Also TOW-2B is a tandem warhead system.  ERA isn't going to do as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

antaress73,

 

Javelin has a tandem charge specifically designed to defeat ERA. I can't really directly speak (used to work at Hughes Missile Systems Group, which made the TOW) to TOW 2B Aero effectiveness (no Aero was in existence then) vs the aforementioned roof armor with ERA, but this Army TOW overview would appear to indicate TOW 2B Aero (dual charge EFP) not only can do that--"defeats all current and projected armor systems," but, by unspecified means, also defeats APS.  For sure, it completely defeats the vanilla tank's roof armor. Call the vid strong motivation for those in Russia working to keep their tanks alive in battle vs ATGMs.

 

http://www.military.com/video/guided-missiles/antitank-missiles/tow-missile-destroys-t-72-tank/1689627847001/

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-90 should still unzip like most tanks.  500 MM RHA is pretty ambitious for roof armor.  Also TOW-2B is a tandem warhead system.  ERA isn't going to do as much.

 

We looked into this and it seems the two charges in TOW-2B are intentionally aimed with an offset to increase probability of a hit, rather than to aimed at the same point to achieve a tandem ERA defeat effect.  Whether ERA would be even effective against this EFP warhead is a bit of an open question (currently it is effective in game).

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ERA does not add much protection by itself, it decreases the penetrative power of the weapon and thus acts as a multiplier. Thus if you have a thick armor array to back the ERA up you get a significant protection increase (making it very efficient).

I am not sure about K1, but K5 roof tiles did offer protection against EFPs.

Panzer, on the Tow video the explosion begins before the hit, you could send that from frame by frame analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, John. That helps.

 

Vanir Ausf B,

 

How's this grab you? Taken from here. aw_mm's #11, dated 8/26/14. I have never seen the like of the kind of detail. During the Cold War, analysts got all excited because the someone managed to image the underside of a T-72 turret, for some reason upside down at the tank plant, allowing determination of the cavity size for special armor in the turret front. This makes that look like a nonevent by comparison.

 

 

"ERA is highly efficient per thickness - afaik it is the most space efficient armor. The reactive elements in the Soviet Kontakt-1 ERA consisted of a 7 mm thick layer of explosive sandwiched between two 2 mm thick steel plates (so the total thickness is 11 mm) which can reduce the penetration of a missile warhead by 400 mm. The optimal protection is achieved when the ERA is sloped, but at the roof this is not necessary, because pretty much all top-attack weapons strike from an angle (except artillery bomblets).

The only thing I was able to find about the actual Soviet/Russian ERA used on their MBTs is this picture from a Russian news website/blog:
2012_09_14_32_5_1.jpg

It shows trials done during the development of the enhanced roof protection in 1983. The (1) marks the 50 mm thick anti-radiation layer installed inside the tank. (2) shows the 40 mm thick roof armor made of medium hardness steel. (3) is a 2 mm thick steel layer for holding all stuff together. (4) is a 80 mm thick polyurethane layer and (6) marks a 10 mm thick armor plate of high hardness steel under which a Kontakt-1 reactive element is located.

So the whole array would be: 50 mm anti-radiation liner - 40 mm thick roof armor - 80 mm polyurethane - 2 mm steel - 7 mm explosive - 2 mm steel - 10 mm high hardness steel or 191 mm of armor of which 90 mm are part of the turret roof and 101 mm applique armor.
According to said blog (if Chrome translated everything correctly) the armor was tested against an artillery bomblet with a penetration of 200 mm (dent in the armor marked with (8) ) and was able to resist it. 
Such a bomblet strikes perpendicular at the armor, against a missile like Javelin which will strike at an angle a protection of 400 to 500 mm could be expected in my opinion. Still this wouldn't be enough to deal with the Javelin missile, but then again it is a prototype armor from 1983. I'd expect at least the T-90 (1992) or T-90A (2005) to have upgraded roof armor."

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ERA does not add much protection by itself, it decreases the penetrative power of the weapon and thus acts as a multiplier. Thus if you have a thick armor array to back the ERA up you get a significant protection increase (making it very efficient).

I am not sure about K1, but K5 roof tiles did offer protection against EFPs.

Panzer, on the Tow video the explosion begins before the hit, you could send that from frame by frame analysis.

 

Those are all good points. It is also important to remember that the Russians claim to have built an Active Defense System (Arena-E) that intercepts top attack misses like Javelin and TOW-2B. It remains to be seen how effective such system would bee; but Russians certainly seem to be well aware of a threat posed to their armor by top-attack ATGMS...

Edited by DreDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Panzer, on the Tow video the explosion begins before the hit, you could send that from frame by frame analysis.

 

I'm going to pull Occam out and stick with it's more likely the principles of the tank's destruction are not understood especially well by casual observers than someone went through all the effort of faking a catastrophic explosion on a tank well known for catastrophically exploding using a missile that stands an excellent chance of causing a catastrophic explosion, in a test in which merely "tank destroyed" was an acceptable outcome vs tank annihilated, but then after all that effort did such a poor job at syncing missile and explosion to the point where nerds on the internet could stare at the video long enough to totally throw the veil of lies off of TOW missile testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are all good points. It is also important to remember that the Russians claim to have built an Active Defense System (Arena-E) that intercepts top attack misses like Javelin and TOW-2B. It remains to be seen how effective such system would bee; but Russians certainly seem to be well aware of a threat posed to their armor by top-attack ATGMS...

 

The intercept envelope claimed by manufacturer for latest Arena is +20° at 50m.  Javelin dives at 45°.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intercept envelope claimed by manufacturer for latest Arena is +20° at 50m.  Javelin dives at 45°.

 

Are you sure about that? Regular arena is said to cover 20-40 degree vertical arch around the turret. From what I understand - Arena-E is fired at a straight vertical angle (i.e. 90 degrees) so in theory it should be able to engage anything flying above the turret...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...