The Armored Vehicle Thread

ERA slabs are hefty pieces of armor plating in their own right and the second charge still has to get through that if the first one didn't and the air gap and the native armor to the tank itself.

It's also not 450mm per charge either, I know that.

Yeah if you wanna try and use missiles and HEAT against it that's what you gotta do.

Obviously what you want to do is start hitting it with kinetic penetrators but between the ERA and Arena trying to kill a T-90 with missiles or rockets is going to be a pretty big pain in the ass.

Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 4th 2018 at 11:15:44 AM

Uhh...not really. The metal on an ERA section is typically not that thick. They're not armored sections, their protective qualities typically depend on the brisance of the explosive used. The actual material thickness is usually only a couple cm at best, and it's just structural.

An "air gap" does not reduce the damaging qualities of an incoming attack at all. Russian ERA is usually mounted directly against the plate anyways. Again, with a tandem warhead the full force is delivered directly to the native armor. That's 800mm of penetration for Javelin, and 900mm for TOW. Only the glacis is thick enough on a T-90 to have any hope of defeating that, the rear and sides only have around 300-500mm thickness.

The numbers you were quoting were against single HEAT, tandem HEAT charges have a completely different mechanism and would need to be intercepted by APS as reactive armor is not effective against them.

And again, I'll point out that Arena's interception rate is far from perfect, and like Trophy (or any APS really) it can be overwhelmed by multiple threats.

You sound like you're pulling your info direct from Russian press releases. I'd really encourage you to do some research on this stuff.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 4th 2018 at 8:31:21 AM

I don't go give them any of my traffic. Memes on the Russian internet aren't even funny anyway.

Also I would personally count having to coordinate a bunch of dudes with RPGs to all work together to overwhelm and destroy just one vehicle counts as a pain in the ass.

Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 4th 2018 at 11:38:12 AM

There is some armor value in the ERA bricks but it isn't very thick. They aren't approaching inches thickness in terms of plate thickness. You might get a half inch counting every piece of metal front to back. If it was as thick as common armor plate it would start making the system prohibitively heavy. As it is the complete kit plus mountings, there are some on brackets with gaps behind them, plus the total number of bricks is what adds the weight.

If the typical fanatical insurgents can figure out how to coordinate fire between two people firing at the same tank it isn't that hard. That is how Israeli tanks with ERA had ERA defeated by sinch charge HEAT warheads. It could be worse it could be like with the Chechens who were actually composed of insurgents trained by actual military personnel targeting known weak points.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Aug 4th 2018 at 10:54:41 AM

Well, anti-armor weapons like Javelin are usually travel in groups. There's either a weapons platoon, which will operate 10-15 weapons systems, or a weapons squad attached to regular infantry which will operate 2-3 systems. Nobody hunts tanks alone.

That's also assuming that the APS isn't already busy with inbound weapons from another source, like long-range missiles, missiles or rockets fired by aircraft, and things like that. Don't forget the tanks either, because anti-armor almost always works in conjunction with friendly armor.

All of that also assumes the APS is working perfectly, and there's a distinct possibility it won't be. It also assumes a 100% interception rate, and given the serious issues Arena has had in the past that doesn't seem likely either.

It's a non-neglible amount. The bricks are more than just little plates designed to slap a projectile away.

Between the actual composition, the force they're pushed with they provide a significant amount of protection that even a tandem shell will still have to push through.

A tandem setup minimizes their effects certainly but they don't eliminate them.

And if we're adding in all these combined arms variables then nobody is gonna be beating up on some poor lone T-90 either

Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 4th 2018 at 11:53:12 AM

The steel in an ERA brick is not armor. Like I said, the protective qualities come from the explosive used. It doesn’t add any meaningful amount of thickness to the native armor of the tank, and even if it did it would have to be adding quite a lot if it wanted to defeat modern tandem charges.

A tandem charge doesn’t “push through”. The first charge detonates the ERA, and the second charge delivers damage directly to the armor. It’s designed specifically for use against ERA and defeats ERA setups easily, regardless of design.

If we’re betting on one Javelin team vs. one T-90 my money is on the Javelin team, sadly. That’s a tough matchup for tanks, anti-armor infantry is dangerous.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 4th 2018 at 9:04:07 AM

I gotta say T-90 unless the environment really favors the Javelin team.

Arena will catch the missile and tell the crew where it came from. And then they'll toss up smoke the Javelin can't lock on through and so on.

If our AT guys can't scramble away and go hide fast enough they're in trouble.

Then again, any AT team worth it's salt wouldn't dare try attacking a tank without an escape route already planned out.

Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 4th 2018 at 12:12:37 PM

Whether Arena catches missiles is a tossup. And even if it does, only 4 missiles can be intercepted from each section of the 270 degree arc it protects. It also can’t stop top attack, don’t forget that.

Frankly, I’d put my money on a Javelin team over just about any tank, so don’t take that as a dig at the T-90.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 4th 2018 at 9:14:51 AM

True.

Wonder how well Shtora could spoof a Javelin now that I think on it.

The armor plate on ERA is pretty thin and actually yes they do work in part by batting away the missile. They push the missile and its warhead back creating a rapidly increasing gap hopefully at a bad angle but that is almost entirely dependant on strike angle. Tandem heads are not bothered that badly by said gap. They have a much higher tolerance for standoff detonations than a single stage warhead we are talking around a foot of gap type of tolerance in heavy ATGM's. It is partly why those Russian made ATGM's forced the Israeli's to adopt Trophy in the first place.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Aug 4th 2018 at 11:16:55 AM

Shtora doesn’t work on Javelins. It only disrupts SACLOS and SALH missiles.

Nah the big angry eyes work as IR dazzlers if they're lookin at you. It's how they spoof TOWs despite them not being beam riding.

The little computer in the launcher sees a million dots instead of the one on the tail of the missle and starts panicking and sends the missile careening into the dirt after feeding it bad directions.

Just wonder what that'd do to the Javelin's lock on is all.

Again, not a whole lot. The dazzlers are designed to disrupt missiles that require command unit guidance, which the Javelin doesn’t.

I honestly don’t know if they’d be able to trick a competent TOW operator either. Shtora was designed for older European-style ATG Ms, under the assumption they’d have to fight European NATO units during WW3.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 4th 2018 at 9:38:19 AM

The TOW missile targeting computer, at least on the older units, looks for the indicators on the back of the missile. They have something like three different indicators now to make it harder to dazzle them. Not impossible but harder. From what little has been seen the effect is most prominent when the missile is closest to the tank and looking at the dazzlers and harder to tell the indicators apart from the dazzlers. The US Military has a new targeting unit and computer kit so I am not sure if it does anything different but they upgraded the CLU and other equipment for the targeting of the TOW.

Javelin uses a surprisingly sophisticated thermal targeting unit. It has a cooled thermal imager and capability to operate at Sundown and Sunrise with a view that works better to differentiate thermal difference during those time periods. It can feed info on target shape, direction, and velocity and remember it just before it fires. The missile then finds that again and matches it to the target as it flies. You could possibly foil it with a dense IR Opaque smoke screen.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Aug 4th 2018 at 11:45:48 AM

There's not much a TOW operator can do if the targeting computer in the launcher thinks the missile is somewhere it isn't.

Maybe he could jiggle it or something but that's about it.

Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 4th 2018 at 12:50:43 PM

Yeah if the missile is dazzled it is dazzled and there is really not much you can do about it at that point. The problem with the dazzlers is they have to be turned on and the crew alert and paying attention to the possible threats for it to work.

Don’t knock the jiggle. Syrian TOW operators have gotten through Shtora and disco ball systems that way.

That’s almost entirely dependent on the skill (and luck) of the operator though.

Javelin has been tested against a wide variety of dazzlers and disruptors, like Tuefel said the only thing that really stops it is very thick IR smoke.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 4th 2018 at 10:00:04 AM

RE: Long Rod Penetrators.

My understanding is they were developed (originally to solve the problems of old APDS) mainly because of new armor developments and the fact tank armor (whether RHA or otherwise) was getting so thick even HEAT rounds were becoming impractically heavy using 2nd generation HEAT (M72 LAW, RPG-7, early TOW, AT-3 Sagger, etc.) technologies.

The T-64's laminate armor, first generation Chobham and more made it pretty clear that either HEAT rounds would need be the size of battleship guns to get through or we needed really high velocity kinetic penetrators. Enter the APFSDS.

(Incidentally, improvements to HEAT including tandem-warheads gave additional options to use rather than rely solely on one source of AT weaponry.)

Brazilian grant of M41C tanks to Uruguay advances

A small gif of the new Russian BTR replacement double tapping a range target with the upgraded Kornet-M missiles, fired while moving.

The Kornet-M is a big upgrade over the old ones and can supposedly be ripple fired and has an autonomous seeker, turning it into a fire and forget weapon. They also claim a 10km range.

I'm iffy on the advertised range but if the other things hold true that's still a pretty scary device they'll have made, especially since existing platforms and vehicles can be upgraded with the new launchers.

Scary stuff. Is the "double tap" meant to be an anti-ERA measure?

The vehicle-mounted launchers can fire and direct two missiles per launcher unit which is salvo, not ripple fire. Each unit consists of the missile launcher and an E/O system attached to a CLU. Some of the systems have an automated target tracking function once a target has been designated and is guided to the target by laser, the missiles are reportedly beam riders, which means the beam is harder to disrupt intentionally but still prone environmental interruption like any laser-based system.

Kornet already has a tandem warhead for ERA. It'd be more useful against APS.

The original Kornet is beam riding but the upgraded one is fully fire and forget supposedly.

The pair can even track two different targets according to claims.

Garcon: All the Kornet missiles are beam riders even the M/EM ^note EM is the export model of the M. The missile came out in 6 years ago. version and are not fire and forget missiles by any measure. The only difference is as I noted is the use of the automated tracking system on some of the vehicle-based launchers which changes it from a SALCOS system to an ALCOS system. The infantry variants of the upgraded missiles are still very much full-on SALCOS systems. Kornet D is the system fitted to a Lightly Armored 4 Wheel Vehicle sort of like a lighter smaller JLVT. That one has the ALCOS system firing the Kornet M/EM. This is also true for the Kornet T which is the system fitted to the BMP-3. I would be amazed to find the Bumerang did not have ALCOS system as well. Kornet E is the export model of the generic infantry variant. Everyone keeps trying to call the ALCOS system fire and forget but that is simply not accurate. All that is the Kornet M/EM fired out of a launcher with ALCOS capable targeting and tracking system. The missile is still actively guided all the way to the target by the launch system.

Fire and forget systems do not need any further guidance from the launch system once they are fired. You can count on your hands the number of true fire and forget ATGM systems built and in service and are surface to surface systems. Nearly all of them are Western European, US, Allies of the US and West, or on neutral to good terms with the US. China is the only one who has their own FAF ATGM. This trend is changing fairly steadily so that likely won't be the case in the not so distant future.

The two missile volley serves multiple purposes. It ensures the defeat of ERA covered targets even with the Tandem Warhead. If one doesn't do the job two quite likely will given they will have spaced strike points which improves the odds of getting effective behind armor hits. It reduces the chance of a miss for any number of reasons especially since the shots are spaced out a little bit. Finally, it attempts to improve the chances of defeating some APS systems. Any system capable of tracking and targeting and firing on more than one target at once will be notably a lot harder to overcome by that method. The Kornet D system though is two launchers so an APS with greater capability can possibly be overwhelmed by basically massed guided missile fire from two launchers on one vehicle.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Aug 22nd 2018 at 7:44:49 AM