Sublime Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I havent used shtora in combat yet. can anyone tell me firstly if theure effective against javs at all? second do shtoras make m1 fire more inaccurate? make your T90 spot it faster? would you guys pick shtora or era if given the choice? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 If the round is midair at the time, nothing in CM:BS is going to make it less accurate If its Relikt ERA, I'd go with ERA. K-5... ehhh... not sure. Its an interesting conundrum though! In Steel Beasts, the T-90S has Shtora. But this has an odd side-effect if you lase the tank: It wont be able to see you while you already have a pretty good firing solution calculated! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) It has about a 10% (probably lower) chance to work on US weapons systems in game, the Javelin and TOW-2. It has a slightly better chance to work against low technology Ukrop systems. It doesn't really do much all in all. Comes as standard fit on T-90A, though why you would pick that over T-90MS is beyond me. Edited June 11, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 hmm. well i mean the LWR auto slew to target and pop smoke must be some wat useful? its saved abrams from me at least. how can you tell what ERA tanks have in game? look on wikipedia? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) how can you tell what ERA tanks have in game? Ukrainian tanks have: Kontakt-1 (T-64BV)- first generation USSR ERA. Useless against tandem ammunition (though in the game a bug, when K-1 defeated Metis-M is present), useless against kinetic ammunition. Maximum effectiveness when hit under sharp angles up to 40 deg. If hitting is near 80-90 deg or in the edge can will not initiate. Nozh (BM Bulat) - Ukrainian development of 2000-2002 year. Unlike Soviet and Russian ERA plaine-type systems, which have big dependence of anngle of hitting, this ERA consists of several C-form shaped charges, packed in container. When ammunition hit container charges initiates consecutively and "cutting" (Nozh-> eng.Knife) plasma stream or rod. "Nozh" almost not depends from hitting angle, but has some reducing of effectiveness in edge zones. Duplet (BM Oplot) - newest development, which allow completely defend tank against heavy tandem warheads and firmly defend against EFP and KE ammunition of 1990-2005 years of development. Russia: Kontakt-5 (T-72B3, T-90A) - improved version of Kontakt-1, but still use plain design. Increased protection, reduced dependence from angle of hitting. Protection against KE also appeared, but reportedly its will not initiate with western APFSDS, designed after 2000th. Placement of this ERA blocks on glacis and turret of these tanks is very poor - about 40-50 % of front projection have zones, which don't covered by ERA blocks. Relict (T-90AM). Initially developed as light ERA for light armor vehicles. Front Relict blocks can protect tank from tandem ammunition and soviet APFSDS shells. Side ERA blocks reportedly can protect only from new RPG-7 tandem ammunition, but vulnerable to tandem ATGM. Also can't protect against EFP. On this graphic you can see protection level for all ERA types. It was made by Ukrainain ERA designer "Microtec company" for advertising purposes. Given for Soviet/Russian ammunition of the end of 90th. Reportedly Duplet was shelled in UAE from Leclerc gun with OFL120F1 and this APFSDS was defeated completely - even no armor slack. Also in other country it was shelled by Kornet-E and show 90 % reducing of penetration. Edited June 12, 2015 by Haiduk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 hmm. well i mean the LWR auto slew to target and pop smoke must be some wat useful? its saved abrams from me at least. how can you tell what ERA tanks have in game? look on wikipedia? Most of the gear is in the manual matey. Then it is just a case of looking it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Haiduk, If I'm correctly interpreting the histogram, it appears to be showing that "Duplet" and "Nozh" have considerable capability vs top attack munitions, while every other ERA type causes no degradation at all. The term "upper semi sphere" is self-evidently the same as "upper hemisphere" and must refer to the region above the tank. Would be interested in your thoughts on this. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Yes, "Microtec" designers claim protection against EFP ammunition (not only upper semi sphere). This explained by different design of ERA blocks. As I seen plain-parallel type of ERA (Kontakt and Relict family) initiates when hitting ammunition create enough stream of container fragments. "Canon ball" make too weak stream to initiate it, but do enough influence to initiate C-form charges in "Microtec" devices. Look at presentation 3D-graphic, which allow to understand principles of "Microtec" ERA work 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Thanks for the video, note how the APS is represented in the 3d model, I hope CMBS Oplot model with APS will receive something like that in order to visualize the APS as it should be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Haiduk, Simply tremendous video! Wish it were in English, but even so, that was essentially a graduate course in modern ERA and add-on armor kits. Best of all, the mystery of the strange cylinders coming out of AFVs has now been solved. I practically went nuts trying to figure out what those were on the Anders. I wish they'd gotten into countering top attack weapons, but what works vs horizontal threats would presumably work vs single and tandem shaped charge warheads coming from above. I noticed no EFP threat situation was depicted, which could be an issue vs SFW such as Russia's Granit (single EFP) or threats akin to TOW 2B and TOW 2B AERO, both of which rely on dual EFP warheads. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 http://microtek.kiev.ua/images/zaslon1.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Haiduk, Please remind me of the EFP defeat aspects of the vid. What I remember regarding hard kill tank defense were mostly single and tandem shaped charge warheads, delivered via RPG, RR or ATGM, with a brief piece showing defeat of long rod KE penetrators. akd, That would ruin Javelin's day. Thanks for the most interesting pic! Have to say I'm enormously impressed by what Microtek has come up with. Maybe the US should buy some of its lovely toys and put them on our own toys. If we buy from Ukraine's armament consortium, we get some great defensive weaponry and help Ukraine build up its own defense industry organically, rather than sending money and hope it does something useful. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Impressed? LOL. I find such APS concept rather bad, seriously bad. First, it explodes right next to the vehicle. Practically, on the vehicle itself. No room for latency errors (explosion isn't directed at the incoming projectile, so a miss is a miss). Not to mention how violent such interceptions would be. Second, placement & coverage is very problematic. On top position it has to be higher than all the mounted equipment, or it'll interfere. On the sides, munition "explosion radius" should REALLY not exceed the distance between two munitions, or their "explosion planes" should not cross nearby munitions at all, or one munition will damage the other one. Not to mention that "explosion radius" might shift due to movement. And for top attacks, if explosion radius is actually that small, there'd be a hole in the coverage above the upper front hull (and symmetrically on the rear). So, very questionable concept. Czechs did better IMO: Edited June 13, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Please remind me of the EFP defeat aspects of the vid. No separate EFP modelling, but on 2:37 (Nozh) and 4:38 (Duplet) you can see text in Russian - "Reducing of AP capability of guided AT-missiles and EFP-type ammunitions". I think, principle the same - formed EFP "drop" is dispersing by initiated "knives". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) It is evident that the ukrainian video shows a "concept" not an actual system. Therefore just take it for what it is, no reason to jump onto conclusions based on a 3d rendered video... The CZ video shows an experimental variant. You simply can't compare the two videos, tell one is better than the other or whatever, we are sure of one thing: both of them are not a series-production system mounted on a large number of vehicles. Edited June 13, 2015 by Kieme(ITA) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Kieme(ITA) It is evident that the ukrainian video shows a "concept" not an actual system. No, APS "Zaslon" and its light variants for light armor exists in real, but in present time don't purchase by state. These systems are very expensive and we have many other critical needs. Most of our tanks in this war were destroyed during heavy artillery and MLRS fire on stationery positions or lost on mines and field charges. Also enemy uses mostly old soviet AT weapon - PG-7VL, PG-9, AT-4C against which mostly successfully work even old "Kontakt-1" ERA. Poland exhibited big Interest to Microtec APS systems, so I think you rather will see these APSs on Polish armor than on Ukrainian. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Impressed? LOL. I find such APS concept rather bad, seriously bad. First, it explodes right next to the vehicle. Practically, on the vehicle itself. No room for latency errors (explosion isn't directed at the incoming projectile, so a miss is a miss). Not to mention how violent such interceptions would be. Second, placement & coverage is very problematic. On top position it has to be higher than all the mounted equipment, or it'll interfere. On the sides, munition "explosion radius" should REALLY not exceed the distance between two munitions, or their "explosion planes" should not cross nearby munitions at all, or one munition will damage the other one. Not to mention that "explosion radius" might shift due to movement. And for top attacks, if explosion radius is actually that small, there'd be a hole in the coverage above the upper front hull (and symmetrically on the rear). I'd have a difficult time imagining worse really Jeez! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Kieme(ITA) No, APS "Zaslon" and its light variants for light armor exists in real, but in present time don't purchase by state. These systems are very expensive and we have many other critical needs. Most of our tanks in this war were destroyed during heavy artillery and MLRS fire on stationery positions or lost on mines and field charges. Also enemy uses mostly old soviet AT weapon - PG-7VL, PG-9, AT-4C against which mostly successfully work even old "Kontakt-1" ERA. Poland exhibited big Interest to Microtec APS systems, so I think you rather will see these APSs on Polish armor than on Ukrainian. I belive you, but on these matters I am with those who consider only a large field application as a "real" thing. When I'll see such a system on the body of a T-84 or T-64, and in an operational state (i.e. on a muddy field) I'll consider it real, for now I can't give much credit, especially to a 3d render video, it's interesting, there's an idea, but I can't see it being real. Edited June 14, 2015 by Kieme(ITA) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Kieme(ITA) Look at this link - there many photos of light version of Zaslon APS - Zaslon-L for light armor. I guess its were demonstrated for Polish MoD representatives in 2013: http://bm-oplot.livejournal.com/8189.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bydax Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Kontakt-5 (T-72B3, T-90A) Placement of this ERA blocks on glacis and turret of these tanks is very poor - about 40-50 % of front projection have zones, which don't covered by ERA blocks. Same for T-64BM: Relict (T-90AM). Initially developed as light ERA for light armor vehicles. You probably mean 4S24 "Kaktus". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Bydax I think no. Otavaga 2004 is a great resource, but since war began they are completely biased. Their "experts" wrote, that one initiated "Nozh" ERA block is initiating other and this caused to destroying not only enemy shell, but the tank itself. They posted photos of completely destroyed Bulats w/o ERA blocks as "proof", but in real all this tanks were destroyed after howitzers/MLRS indirect fire. I can mistake, but no one Bulat will not lost after AT ammunition hit in frontal projection. Several pictures of weak zones: Bulat/ Leo T-72B3 T-90AM / BM Oplot Edited June 14, 2015 by Haiduk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bydax Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Bydax I think no. Otavaga 2004 is a great resource, but since war began they are completely biased. militarysta - Pole. And ERA placement on this photos don't change because they posted on "wrong" forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) And ERA placement on this photos don't change because they posted on "wrong" forum. I said about "holes" only in front projection as you can see on pictures. Unlike T-72B3 BM Bulat has two ERA blocks close aside a gun. Zone in lower part of turret is vulnerable in most of tanks. About this uncovered placements on turret side 1. T-64B1M (T-64 upgrade for Congo, now in "Azov" regiment survived after AT-4C hit. Two "Nozh" blocks initiated, no penetration) 2. BM Bulat (fought near Lohvynove with three T-72 mod. 1989, catch T-HEAT from front direction in side ERA block. Residual penetration, two ERA blocks initiated, light damages) So I think this unfilled with ERA HE sections don't play significant role - ammunition anyway with big probability cause initiating of nearby HE or even two adjacent ERA blocks). I can ask Tarasenko about this %) Edited June 14, 2015 by Haiduk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Zaslon is not some video pipe dream only. It is an operational system in service now with the Royal Thai Army (RTA) on its T-84 OPLOT-M force. Thailand's 49 OPLOT-M, bought at a sweetheart deal price from Ukraine, with first delivery taking place of 5 in February 2014. RTA's new tanks are also fitted with Nozh-2. I don't know much about Duplet, but the RTA tanks don't have it fitted. Whether the next word is "yet" or no I can't say. Post has some great interior shots of the OPLOT-M. http://rentaka.weebly.com/blog/interior-of-t-84-oplot-mbt-of-the-royal-thai-army BTR-70DI http://netlibrary.net/kiosk/Article.aspx?Title=BTR-70 BTR-70DI - With Euro II 276 hp diesel engine from IVECO. Can be optionally fitted with modular turrets "Ingul" or "Bug" or with the "Zaslon" active protection system. Are armed with the same arnament, but have 30mm AGS and 2 AT rockets added.[1] Armour, Journal of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps Association NSW, Inc., February 2015, p. 8 directly lists the Anders as having Zaslon. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 That article say there's an APS in place, but of all pictures of Thay T-84 I have not spotted an APS system on the tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.