Russian tank ERA/Modular reactive protection
Several types of ERAs have existed, since the Cold War, with its first use as the Blazer with the Israelis and 'till today with modern ERA like the Relikt, Monolith and ARAT.
And as such, today I will be covering only Soviet to Russian-era modules. However, ERA of other nations are also possibly being covered sooner or later - no promises nor spoilers!
Kontakt-1
Although unclear, we know some information about Kontakt-1's development cycle. It somewhat began in 1970, in Germany (which part we don't know), with a Norwegian Dr. Manfred Held, working with Rafael to create a reactive armour cell. The new cells were the first and famed Blazer ERA, used on Israeli Magach and Sho't Kal tanks. Seeing first combat in 1982, the USSR soon began to develop its own ERA in the same year. From the summer of 1982 to 1985 Kontakt-1 was developed and accepted for service.
First generation anti-CE ERA
Vulnerable to tandem charges
Case thickness: Around 5 mm?
Dimensions: 252 x 130 x 10 mm
Explosive: Two 4S20 explosives (Weight 260 grams, TNT equivalent 280 grams)
Weight: 5.7 kg per block, 1.2 tonnes for full package (T-72B?), average 1.5 tonnes package
Arrangement: 68 degrees arrangement per block on protected surface, with 4S20 elements being located 9 degrees from each other
RHAe: 400 - 500 mm CE, 200 - 250 mm against artillery shells
Degradation of 50 - 80% for HEAT projectiles (presumably early projectiles)
Standard of protection: Able to defeat single-charged older HEAT projectiles
Shelf life: 10 years
Application: Tanks - UFP, Turret, Sideskirts, IFVs, stationary emplacements
Kontakt-1's 4S20 explosive is actually one of the most insensitive explosives for ERA. The purpose of this was to prevent the ERA from detonating due to small arms fire, being doused in napalm, rough transport or more logistics-based concerns.
However, in tests using shaped charge warheads, namely the 3BK14M HEAT-FS and the 9M112M GLATGM, the tank; albeit protected, returned with several surprises with the Kontakt-1 package.
The tests showed: 9 - 31% of Kontakt-1 cells on the turret was completely neutralised. This was 16 - 71% for the UFP and 31 - 51% for the sides.
Sources: BTVT, Robb McLeod, Tankograd, NII Stali website on Kontakt-1, Russian Wikipedia, Nozh (Ukrainian Wikipedia)
Kontakt-5
First generation Kontakt-5
Second generation general use ERA
Vulnerable to tandem charges
Steel: 15 - 16 mm RHA
Dimensions: 252 x 130 x 10 mm
Explosive: One 4S22 explosive (Weight 280 grams, TNT equivalent 330 grams)
Weight: 5.7 kg per block, 3 tonnes for full package (T-72B Obr. 1989?)
Arrangement: 4S22 explosive sandwiched between 2 15 - 16 mm RHA tiles
RHAe: 250 mm KE, 600 (400 - 500 according to NII Stali) mm CE
Degradation of 20/25 - 38% for APFSDS projectiles
Degradation of 50 - 80% for HEAT projectiles
Standard of protection: Able to defeat up to M829A1
Shelf life: 10 years
Application: Tanks - UFP, Turret, Sideskirts
Later types of APFSDS projectiles have special tips (DM53, DM53A1, DM63, M829A2) to defeat ERA, especially the Kontakt-5 ERA. The issue was that the 4S22 could not detonate reliably on these kinds of penetrators, and such a threat would compromise the protection of many Russian tanks in the hull - and for M829A2, possibly the turret in certain areas, although the T-72B's farther sections were immune to this, considering it had 800 mm LOS according to this image:
...and even the T-72A turret possessed enough armour to sufficiently defend against M829A4, it being just 10 mm short of vertical penetration:
Second-generation Kontakt-5
Second-generation Kontakt-5 does not actually exist. The myth was spread mainly in forums where the T-72B3 Obr. 2016 was reported to have new ERA tiles on the sideskirts. There, the myth was born that the Kontakt-5's 4S22 explosive was replaced by a 4S23 explosive to "allow it to detonate more reliably on specially-tipped projectiles" (as mentioned above).
The sideskirts on the T-72B3 were actually Relikt plates. However, for added anti-cumulative protection, 4S24 cased in soft bags are also often seen stacked atop the Relikt plates.
Sources: Fofanov's Kontakt-5 article, NII Stali, Nozh (Ukrainian Wikipedia), Russian Wikipedia
Kaktus
Nearly no info. Made and mounted on the Object 640 only. Although it provides quite a lot of armour for the Object 640.
Object 640 turret armour rating, RHAe (Kaktus):
(x1.6) 666 - 724 mm KE
(x2.0) 796 - 854 mm CE
The true armour rating is likely less, considering the turret is not only angled but the armour rating is also much more than Relikt.
Sources: Fofanov's article on 640 armour
Malakhit
Apparently "mounted" on the T-14 Armata, this ERA was only applied to the Object 187. Information is unclear although we do know that it looks roughly similar to Monolith.
Predescessor to Relikt.
Relikt
Designed as a successor to Kontakt-5 in the late 1990s. It was confirmed that it existed in 1999 as it was showcased for export at IDEX-1999, held at Abu Dhabi in 1999. However, several mentions state that Relikt may have already existed by 1997.
Relikt was then officially put into service with the Russian Federation in 2006.
Second generation general use ERA
Vulnerable to tandem charges
Steel: 15 mm RHA
Dimensions: 250 x 125 x 10 mm
Explosive: One 4S23 explosive (Weight 260 grams, TNT equivalent 280 grams)
Weight: 5.7 kg per block, 2.4 tonnes for full package (300 kg lattice screens) for T-90MS
Arrangement:
RHAe: 500~ (800 according to NII Stali) mm KE, 1000+ mm CE
Degradation of up to 50% for APFSDS projectiles
Degradation of up to 90% for HEAT projectiles
Standard of protection: External evidence suggests heavy degradation of DM53, DM53A1, DM63 and up to M829A2-standard penetrators, however, according to NII Stali, the M829A3 can be heavily affected too
Shelf life: 10 years
Application: Tanks - UFP, Turret, Sideskirts
Relikt has a special ability to defeat tandem warheads. This ability is caused by a special design feature that includes two explosives and two plates that separate in opposite directions. This is shown below:
Relikt's first stage allows itself to detonate on the upper plate. It functions normally as Kontakt-5 (upper image), and this is where the first charge for any tandem-charge cumulative projectile is defeated.
After the first detonation, the projectile then continues to the lower plate of the ERA. The second charge would then proceed into the last 4S23 explosive with its protective tile, which would detonate and destroy/damage the projectile.
The effect is much more effective and efficient than Kontakt-5 and understandably - can at least double effective protection provided by the ERA.
This design quirk also meant that the lower plate needed space to eat through incoming projectiles, and as such, you can see clearly that Relikt takes up much more plate on an armour plate than previous generation ERA.
Sources: NII Stali website on Relikt, Nozh (Ukrainian Wikipedia)
Lattice screens/Slat armour
Mounted on T-72B3, T-90M, T-80BVM and T-14 Armata tanks, according to NII Stali, it was designed to reduce the penetrating ability of PG-9 and PG-7 shaped charges via disruption of the forming process, although previous tests had shown that shaped charges required several centimetres or even up to 1.3 metres of air for it to be nulified, although this depends on the shaped charge model.
The destruction ability against anti-tank grenades of the lattice screen does not exceed 60 - 70%.
Sources: NII Stali
And as such, today I will be covering only Soviet to Russian-era modules. However, ERA of other nations are also possibly being covered sooner or later - no promises nor spoilers!
Kontakt-1
Although unclear, we know some information about Kontakt-1's development cycle. It somewhat began in 1970, in Germany (which part we don't know), with a Norwegian Dr. Manfred Held, working with Rafael to create a reactive armour cell. The new cells were the first and famed Blazer ERA, used on Israeli Magach and Sho't Kal tanks. Seeing first combat in 1982, the USSR soon began to develop its own ERA in the same year. From the summer of 1982 to 1985 Kontakt-1 was developed and accepted for service.
First generation anti-CE ERA
Vulnerable to tandem charges
Case thickness: Around 5 mm?
Dimensions: 252 x 130 x 10 mm
Explosive: Two 4S20 explosives (Weight 260 grams, TNT equivalent 280 grams)
Weight: 5.7 kg per block, 1.2 tonnes for full package (T-72B?), average 1.5 tonnes package
Arrangement: 68 degrees arrangement per block on protected surface, with 4S20 elements being located 9 degrees from each other
RHAe: 400 - 500 mm CE, 200 - 250 mm against artillery shells
Degradation of 50 - 80% for HEAT projectiles (presumably early projectiles)
Standard of protection: Able to defeat single-charged older HEAT projectiles
Shelf life: 10 years
Application: Tanks - UFP, Turret, Sideskirts, IFVs, stationary emplacements
Kontakt-1's 4S20 explosive is actually one of the most insensitive explosives for ERA. The purpose of this was to prevent the ERA from detonating due to small arms fire, being doused in napalm, rough transport or more logistics-based concerns.
However, in tests using shaped charge warheads, namely the 3BK14M HEAT-FS and the 9M112M GLATGM, the tank; albeit protected, returned with several surprises with the Kontakt-1 package.
The tests showed: 9 - 31% of Kontakt-1 cells on the turret was completely neutralised. This was 16 - 71% for the UFP and 31 - 51% for the sides.
Sources: BTVT, Robb McLeod, Tankograd, NII Stali website on Kontakt-1, Russian Wikipedia, Nozh (Ukrainian Wikipedia)
Kontakt-5
First generation Kontakt-5
Second generation general use ERA
Vulnerable to tandem charges
Steel: 15 - 16 mm RHA
Dimensions: 252 x 130 x 10 mm
Explosive: One 4S22 explosive (Weight 280 grams, TNT equivalent 330 grams)
Weight: 5.7 kg per block, 3 tonnes for full package (T-72B Obr. 1989?)
Arrangement: 4S22 explosive sandwiched between 2 15 - 16 mm RHA tiles
RHAe: 250 mm KE, 600 (400 - 500 according to NII Stali) mm CE
Degradation of 20/25 - 38% for APFSDS projectiles
Degradation of 50 - 80% for HEAT projectiles
Standard of protection: Able to defeat up to M829A1
Shelf life: 10 years
Application: Tanks - UFP, Turret, Sideskirts
Later types of APFSDS projectiles have special tips (DM53, DM53A1, DM63, M829A2) to defeat ERA, especially the Kontakt-5 ERA. The issue was that the 4S22 could not detonate reliably on these kinds of penetrators, and such a threat would compromise the protection of many Russian tanks in the hull - and for M829A2, possibly the turret in certain areas, although the T-72B's farther sections were immune to this, considering it had 800 mm LOS according to this image:
...and even the T-72A turret possessed enough armour to sufficiently defend against M829A4, it being just 10 mm short of vertical penetration:
Second-generation Kontakt-5
Second-generation Kontakt-5 does not actually exist. The myth was spread mainly in forums where the T-72B3 Obr. 2016 was reported to have new ERA tiles on the sideskirts. There, the myth was born that the Kontakt-5's 4S22 explosive was replaced by a 4S23 explosive to "allow it to detonate more reliably on specially-tipped projectiles" (as mentioned above).
The sideskirts on the T-72B3 were actually Relikt plates. However, for added anti-cumulative protection, 4S24 cased in soft bags are also often seen stacked atop the Relikt plates.
Sources: Fofanov's Kontakt-5 article, NII Stali, Nozh (Ukrainian Wikipedia), Russian Wikipedia
Kaktus
Nearly no info. Made and mounted on the Object 640 only. Although it provides quite a lot of armour for the Object 640.
Object 640 turret armour rating, RHAe (Kaktus):
(x1.6) 666 - 724 mm KE
(x2.0) 796 - 854 mm CE
The true armour rating is likely less, considering the turret is not only angled but the armour rating is also much more than Relikt.
Sources: Fofanov's article on 640 armour
Malakhit
Apparently "mounted" on the T-14 Armata, this ERA was only applied to the Object 187. Information is unclear although we do know that it looks roughly similar to Monolith.
Predescessor to Relikt.
Relikt
Designed as a successor to Kontakt-5 in the late 1990s. It was confirmed that it existed in 1999 as it was showcased for export at IDEX-1999, held at Abu Dhabi in 1999. However, several mentions state that Relikt may have already existed by 1997.
Relikt was then officially put into service with the Russian Federation in 2006.
Second generation general use ERA
Vulnerable to tandem charges
Steel: 15 mm RHA
Dimensions: 250 x 125 x 10 mm
Explosive: One 4S23 explosive (Weight 260 grams, TNT equivalent 280 grams)
Weight: 5.7 kg per block, 2.4 tonnes for full package (300 kg lattice screens) for T-90MS
Arrangement:
RHAe: 500~ (800 according to NII Stali) mm KE, 1000+ mm CE
Degradation of up to 50% for APFSDS projectiles
Degradation of up to 90% for HEAT projectiles
Standard of protection: External evidence suggests heavy degradation of DM53, DM53A1, DM63 and up to M829A2-standard penetrators, however, according to NII Stali, the M829A3 can be heavily affected too
Shelf life: 10 years
Application: Tanks - UFP, Turret, Sideskirts
Relikt has a special ability to defeat tandem warheads. This ability is caused by a special design feature that includes two explosives and two plates that separate in opposite directions. This is shown below:
Relikt's first stage allows itself to detonate on the upper plate. It functions normally as Kontakt-5 (upper image), and this is where the first charge for any tandem-charge cumulative projectile is defeated.
After the first detonation, the projectile then continues to the lower plate of the ERA. The second charge would then proceed into the last 4S23 explosive with its protective tile, which would detonate and destroy/damage the projectile.
The effect is much more effective and efficient than Kontakt-5 and understandably - can at least double effective protection provided by the ERA.
This design quirk also meant that the lower plate needed space to eat through incoming projectiles, and as such, you can see clearly that Relikt takes up much more plate on an armour plate than previous generation ERA.
 |
| Relikt's placement needs. |
 |
| UFP size comparison between a T-90M Obr. 2017 and a T-90A. |
Lattice screens/Slat armour
Mounted on T-72B3, T-90M, T-80BVM and T-14 Armata tanks, according to NII Stali, it was designed to reduce the penetrating ability of PG-9 and PG-7 shaped charges via disruption of the forming process, although previous tests had shown that shaped charges required several centimetres or even up to 1.3 metres of air for it to be nulified, although this depends on the shaped charge model.
The destruction ability against anti-tank grenades of the lattice screen does not exceed 60 - 70%.
Sources: NII Stali
Comments
Post a Comment