Why are Western tanks not equipped with explosive reactive armor on the front?

[F.T]

This is an effective way to improve MBT protection.

[Ssnake]

The Reactive part is important. It doesn't have to be Explosive. FEX, Leopard 2A5+ turret wedge armor is "reactive" in that it flexes and wobbles while an attacking projectile is passing through, exerting shear and bending stresses that distribute the projectile's energy over a larger area, thus reducing the maximum crater depth it could form during the plastic flow deformation phase.

 

So do other tanks, Merkava 3 and 4, Pizarro front, CV90/40-C, ...

[zerocrack01]

If i am not mistaken, Germany avoided ERA because of the hazardous nature. But the new Puma uses ERA blocks on the sides, otherwise it would not reach the weight/protection requirement goals.

Edited August 26, 2022 by zerocrack01

[F.T]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

The Reactive part is important. It doesn't have to be Explosive. FEX, Leopard 2A5+ turret wedge armor is "reactive" in that it flexes and wobbles while an attacking projectile is passing through, exerting shear and bending stresses that distribute the projectile's energy over a larger area, thus reducing the maximum crater depth it could form during the plastic flow deformation phase.

 

So do other tanks, Merkava 3 and 4, Pizarro front, CV90/40-C, ...

But explosive reactive armor can be used as an additional armor. It's cheaper, after all.

[F.T]

1 hour ago, zerocrack01 said:

If i am not mistaken, Germany avoided ERA because of the hazardous nature. But the new Puma uses ERA blocks on the sides, otherwise it would not reach the weight/protection requirement goals.

I had also heard about the dangers of explosive reactive armour.

[Captain_Colossus]

12 hours ago, F.T said:

This is an effective way to improve MBT protection.

 

to what extent? inserts in the armor sandwich of western tanks already behave like ERA- for example it is inferred from ceramic tile inserts observed under high speed x-ray tests will atomize in the path of incoming HEAT penetration in order to disrupt the flow of material- it's just that the "ERA" effect is inherent to the base armor rather than bolted on the outside. the compound armors in western tanks and their inherent designs already protect well enough to defeat threats better than their competitors in russia or china or iran which use applique armor more as a stopgap; if you look at those designs, the ERA exists as add on because the base armor is comparatively weak, it is a way to extend the life of vehicles on the cheap rather than design and produce new vehicles from scratch: tank production is not easy, which is why relatively few countries have the heavy industry to support it;

 

from the standpoint of add on ERA, you can see for yourself that coverage on tanks which have it can be rather haphazard- lacking uniform coverage on the front or the turret top or it would block essential components or components which cannot be easily removed like the coaxial machine gun port or the tank's sensors

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Captain_Colossus

[Ssnake]

I have nothing else to say. There is reactive armor, it just happens to come without the explosive part, which can be problematic for the reasons given in this thread already.

[F.T]

11 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

 

to what extent? inserts in the armor sandwich of western tanks already behave like ERA- for example it is inferred from ceramic tile inserts observed under high speed x-ray tests will atomize in the path of incoming HEAT penetration in order to disrupt the flow of material- it's just that the "ERA" effect is inherent to the base armor rather than bolted on the outside. the compound armors in western tanks and their inherent designs already protect well enough to defeat threats better than their competitors in russia or china or iran which use applique armor more as a stopgap; if you look at those designs, the ERA exists as add on because the base armor is comparatively weak, it is a way to extend the life of vehicles on the cheap rather than design and produce new vehicles from scratch: tank production is not easy, which is why relatively few countries have the heavy industry to support it;

 

from the standpoint of add on ERA, you can see for yourself that coverage on tanks which have it can be rather haphazard- lacking uniform coverage on the front or the turret top or it would block essential components or components which cannot be easily removed like the coaxial machine gun port or the tank's sensors

 

 

I'm not saying that explosive reactive armor has a technological advantage. I mean it can be used as additional armor. Even if the base armor is strong enough, you can still use explosive reactive armor for additional protection. As an example, the new generation T-14 is still equipped with explosive reactive armor.

[Gibsonm]

I suspect the secondary effects of ERA on surrounding friendly Infantry, etc. (albeit perhaps unlikely) maybe a consideration.

 

I’m not suggesting that countries who field ERA are less caring about the secondary effects on dismounts and others.

 

Like it or not, Legal Officers now get a vote too and ERA, APS and other systems may well need to pass this sort of review prior to being fielded as the “norm” (albeit items like the TUSK / ARAT for M1 or the ERA kit for Bradley shows it can be fielded for specific mission sets).

 

If the non explosive, reactive armour options achieve the same outcome, then, I don’t think you’ll find ERA fitted as a default (assuming the budget can be found to retrofit the various vehicle fleets).

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, F.T said:

I'm not saying that explosive reactive armor has a technological advantage. I mean it can be used as additional armor. Even if the base armor is strong enough, you can still use explosive reactive armor for additional protection.

Are you even reading my replies?

The add-on armor of the Leopard 2A5+ turret is an example of a reactive armor, so are the turrets of the Merkava 3 and 4. The Pizarro has reactive armor tiles as well. It's just that they don't need explosive filling to get the job done, so why bother with the weight, consumables, and associated risk of flying debris? It sounds as if you're suggesting to put ERA on top of NERA elements. Armor isn't free. It has mass. Tanks like Leopard 2A5+, Merkava are operating at the upper practical weight limit already. Adding more armor, whatever type, is not an option. You can only replace the current add-on elements with new elements of same or less mass with equal or better protection, or design a completely new tank concept from ground up (which is happening).

[F.T]

15 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Are you even reading my replies?

The add-on armor of the Leopard 2A5+ turret is an example of a reactive armor, so are the turrets of the Merkava 3 and 4. The Pizarro has reactive armor tiles as well. It's just that they don't need explosive filling to get the job done, so why bother with the weight, consumables, and associated risk of flying debris? It sounds as if you're suggesting to put ERA on top of NERA elements. Armor isn't free. It has mass. Tanks like Leopard 2A5+, Merkava are operating at the upper practical weight limit already. Adding more armor, whatever type, is not an option. You can only replace the current add-on elements with new elements of same or less mass with equal or better protection, or design a completely new tank concept from ground up (which is happening).

Not long ago, I thought that tanks like Leopard 2 could continue to bear the weight of additional armor (e.g. ERA). For a long time, I thought Leopard 2 only had base armor, and I didn't see wedge armor as an additional armor for Leopard 2. Now it turns out I was wrong. The disposable and exposed explosive reactive armor makes it easier to understand it as an add-on.

 

[Los]

Plus the reactive explosives armor is easier to steel, and replace with foam inserts....it's a good revenue source for Russian tankers and maintenance personnel...😏

Edited September 4, 2022 by Los

[mpow66m]

Would it be fair to say that the Western main battle tanks have far more armor  on them then say that T72,T90 T series tanks  in general do to their heavier weight which correlates to more armor and they don't really need ERA?

[Ssnake]

For the nth time, western tanks have reactive armor on them, just not the explosive kind.

Armor strength alone is however not the sole determinant of battlefield survivability. It should also surprise nobody that the latest generation of anti-tank missiles will defeat the passive armor protection of pretty much any tank, at least up to the point of a mission kill. It may not always be a guaranteed kill, but the general overmatch of attacking missiles can hardly be disputed.

 

Battlefield survivability is the outcome of numerous factors, among them

- crew situational awareness

- superiority in duel situation

- signature management to reduce detection

- softkill defensive mechanisms, to avoid getting hit in the first place

- hardkill active defense systems to intercept attacking projectiles (can't replace what's next, though:)

- passive armor arrays with multi-hit resistance

- post-penetration damage reduction (spall liners, non-flammable materials, ...)

 

Whether or not a certain armor array is sufficient to protect the crew depends, obviously, on the attacking projectile. What's good enough for one type of missile may be insufficient against another. Armor protection, even if nominally sufficient, is never absolute. If you play Steel Beasts long and often enough you will experience that; just as you will experience the shift of balance by changing the ammunition loadout of a party, or the introduction of active protection systems.

 

Finally, the strategic, operational, and tactical disposition of forces will have a major influence on combat results. Yes, you can nerd out about armor and ammunition values, and yes, obviously we'd want these values to be correct (to the extent that these factors are knowable, and there is a degree of uncertainty at play). You should however not take this specific detail as a substitute for the bigger picture.

[mpow66m]

OK what I was saying is being that Western that Western tanks are so much heavier than the the T series tanks is it due to more armor

[Grenny]

7 hours ago, mpow66m said:

OK what I was saying is being that Western that Western tanks are so much heavier than the the T series tanks is it due to more armor

Well, kind of.

Western tanks also usually have 4-men crew + more consideration for ergonomics. The volume that needs protection is much bigger in wester MBT

So ye, they have more armour, but that does not necessarily mean that this armour is also thicker...

[Ssnake]

Yes, "more armor" does not necessarily mean "better armor". It also depends on the size of the "protected volume". Increasing the internal volume (crew space, equipment) leads to bigger surfaces that need to be covered with protective plate, and bigger surfaces increase weight. Increase weight requires a stronger suspension and bigger engine which in turn require a bigger transmission to handle the load, all of which increase the weight.

This is why Soviet tank designers attempted to reduce the internal volume very aggressively, by adopting an autoloader and even restricting the size of crews to the shortest 5% of eligible recruits, rather than excluding the tallest 5% (it's still possible to squeeze in, mind you, just not as comfortable (relatively speaking) as if you were just 1.65m rather than 1.95).

Arguably they went a step too far by not separating ammunition and crew. In all fairness however, experience in Ukraine suggests that the crew casualties of Russian tankers aren't as high as one might imagine. Still, the carousel loader must objectively be considered a design flaw. That it hasn't been addressed over the last 50 years is simply inexcusable.

[zerocrack01]

Smoke launchers and a good a reverse speed are unspoken heroes. Western tanks usually have good reverse speed. Eastern not really.

Edited September 5, 2022 by zerocrack01

[Gibsonm]

9 hours ago, zerocrack01 said:

Smoke launchers and a good a reverse speed are unspoken heroes. Western tanks usually have good reverse speed. Eastern not really.

 

Yes because both issues are not key design considerations, or that in the case of multi barrelled smoke grenade discahargers, their employment is/was different when the vehicle was designed (offensive not defensive).

[mpow66m]

14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Yes, "more armor" does not necessarily mean "better armor". It also depends on the size of the "protected volume". Increasing the internal volume (crew space, equipment) leads to bigger surfaces that need to be covered with protective plate, and bigger surfaces increase weight. Increase weight requires a stronger suspension and bigger engine which in turn require a bigger transmission to handle the load, all of which increase the weight.

This is why Soviet tank designers attempted to reduce the internal volume very aggressively, by adopting an autoloader and even restricting the size of crews to the shortest 5% of eligible recruits, rather than excluding the tallest 5% (it's still possible to squeeze in, mind you, just not as comfortable (relatively speaking) as if you were just 1.65m rather than 1.95).

Arguably they went a step too far by not separating ammunition and crew. In all fairness however, experience in Ukraine suggests that the crew casualties of Russian tankers aren't as high as one might imagine. Still, the carousel loader must objectively be considered a design flaw. That it hasn't been addressed over the last 50 years is simply inexcusable.

The T72b3 still usrs carousel?

[Ssnake]

Yes. Get hit in the wrong spot, and it's still the same old fireworks.

[mpow66m]

Ahh I thought they rectified that,they must hv in the T14?

[Ssnake]

Yes, the T-14 is a radical departure from old designs. However, not available in numbers, and even if it were the question remains how well the minimal protection of the main armament would actually perform in combat. There's a lot of rather exposed external sensors, too.