Russias current generation of reactive armour stops a sabot round. Allso if the muzzle launched ATGM's carry a tandem charge it is an effective counter against enemy reavtive armour.

Highly doubtfull. Reactive armor is not supposed to have any 'effect' at all on a DU SABOT. Reactive only works against HEAT and AT missiles well. It is an anti-blast blast material. A SABOT is aerodynamic and a blast goes towards the path of least resistance, which is not towards the incoming aerodynamic SABOT.

-S

Yup, that was my impression. It disrupts shaped charges only.

Double ditto. I don't keep up on current systems these days but I remember when the whole reactive armour thing came out many years ago now that it was designed to defeat atgm's which are heat rounds (shaped charge wareheads). As such reactive armour is of no or little benefit against sabot rounds. Am I right or wrong? :-?

The effects of Explosive Reactive Armour against kinetic weapons (APFSDS) is problematic at best.

From Wikipedia

"To be effective against kinetic energy projectiles, ERA must use much thicker and heavier plates and a correspondingly thicker explosive layer. Such "heavy ERA," such as the Soviet-developed Kontakt-5, can break apart a penetrating rod that is longer than the ERA is deep, again significantly reducing penetration capability."

In the weapon tests I supported, I would say that ERA would reduce the armour penetrating effects of a kinetic but not enough to have any practical effect. We were testing ERA quiet extensively in the 80's and while it was good against Monroe Effect weapons, we did not see any practical value against kinetic weapons. Any anti-kinetic protection would, in my opinion, be more a factor of the angle of the ERA structure than the explosive blast.

Why don't more tanks have a cage around them?
I would imagine that a cage to prematurely detonate SC munitions would be very effective.

You mean like spaced armour?

There are 3 reasons this armor is no longer common on MBT's;

1) Chobbam armour is very effective against shaped-charge munitions.

2) The general principle of tank design since WW2 has been to make the tank as low and compact as possible, reducing target silohuette.

3) Countries that do not practise the above principles are either a) Poor, or B) Not modern nations.

In lighter vehicles, like the Striker IFV or the MTVR (MAS-armor variant) spaced armor remains prevalent since these vehicles cannot support the weight of ferrous ceramic-composite armour.


Your suggestion is wise, and has been done before, and forgotten, and re-discovered, and forgotten again, and re-learned once more. It's a shame you're not a procurement officer for the DoD.

Bar armour is effective against Shaped Charges as long as the spacing of the bars is appropriate for the munition hitting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_armor

Yep - hence the sloping angled armor on an M1A2.

Good summary man! :up:

-S

That's why NATO's jaw dropped a little when Russia managed to make the ERA defend against both. The ERA has a front and the back plate, and basically the front and the back end are designed so when the SABOT explodes the ERA, the front and back move different and break the tip off the penetrator, making it much less efficient.

For more details:
http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/EQP/era.html

We shall see. Less effective being the key word.

I'd like to see something actually break a Depleted Uranium rd. That might be a neat trick. Maybe normal Russian SABOT's are effected, but I doubt a DU rd is.

-S

That would be like wearing personal armour that reduces the effects of a .44 Mag slug down to only the level of a .38.

Sure it makes the .44 less effective, but is it practically less effective? You can die just as fast from a .38 than from a .44

I wager it is the same with APFSDS rounds

ERA may reduce the effects of a APFSDS from being its normal ability to blow tanks in to itty bitty pieces to a reduced effect of blowing a tank into not so itty bitty pieces.

A reduction in effect, but no practical difference in the result. Blowed apart tank.

It is just a matter of applying forces on something that is already taking great stress.

As for less effective, even against HEAT, the word is less effective. You always need a armor at the end to stop the diffused blow.

By the way, Platapus, APFSDS do not actually blow things up. An old AP round has a dinge or explosive, but APFSDS is a metal rod. At most it is pyrophoric. Any explosion is a secondary round.

Have you seen what a APFSDS round does to a tank? :up:

It is all about the transfer of energy. :yep:

Also Du rounds "shead" Du particals as they head down range, so you have the joy of your own infantry being exposed to DU particals as well as contaminating the surrounding area.

The Auatralian Government banned the use of DU rounds and armor with DU as a element of it's makeup.