About ERA

[Chernaya Akula 0]

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

..................................

The Kontakt-5 EDZ is the explosive reactive armour (ERA) currently installed on Russian MBTs. It is often referred to as 2nd generation, heavy-duty, or integral ERA.

Where the conventional ERAs are only capable of defeating shaped-charge jets, Kontakt-5 can also defeat APFSDS rounds. Because of Kontakt-5, long-rod penetrators can lose over 30% of their penetration potential and the protected vehicle becomes immune to them.

This type of ERA can be easily recognized as it gives the vehicle outfitted with it a distinct 'clam-shell' appearance.

It is believed that while protected by Kontakt-5 ERA, Russian MBTs cannot be penetrated across the frontal arc by the M256 guns firing M829A1 APFSDS ammo.

In addition, thanks to their heavier (15 mm hard steel) front plate, the Kontakt-5 elements are harder to trigger by the precursor charges of tandem warheads, forcing the producers of tandem ATGMs to allocate more mass to precursor charge and, making an MBT more resistant to tandem HEAT warheads, as well.

It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection.

This armor package is developed by NII Stali (Research Institute of Steel), the leading Russian developer of applique protection packages; Russian Federation pat. No 2064154 from 27.05.92.

T-80BV with the 1st generation ERA.

------------------

[Chernaya Akula 0]

T-90 with Kontakt-5 ERA

T-80U with Kontakt-5 ERA

Closer view in the T-90 Turret with Kontakt-5 ERA

------------------

[digitalcenturion 20]

Hmmm that is interesting. What kind of rHae(did i get that right?) penetration values would you need to get trough it?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ Feb. 12 2002,08:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...<span id='postcolor'>

Hm, we'll see. But they're ugly inside.

[DodgeME 0]

Hmmmm as far as l have seen both T-80 and M1A1/2 tanks are very cool

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DodgeME @ Feb. 12 2002,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmmm as far as l have seen both T-80 and M1A1/2 tanks are very cool <span id='postcolor'>

They are, but abrams is nicer inside.

[Wobble 1]

Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...

thats funny, ya know the very first russian tanks and the legendary tracks on the T-34 were designed by walter christy.. an american..  

anywho anyone who claims that ANY MODERN tank is better than another is totally talking out of their ass.. all the important things that make or break these tanks is classified.. so nobody here knows which is actually better...  never mind the fact that the T80 and M1A1 are designed to fight totally different kinds of wars..

as for the ERA.. perhaps it will stop a sabot round.. but it will only do it once..   thats always been the major downside of it.. when its hit it explodes.. the next shot will hit the skin of the tank and penetrate...  and with todays fast firing super accurate tanks its pretty much just as easy to hit the target twice as it is once..

lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.

of course the T-80 IS NOT designed to fight this way.. its designed to fight in more gown up hilly areas with shorter view distances.. where it could fire its hopfully 1 shot 1 kill 125mm at ranges it can be effective at.. and in the sudden encounters that take place in such areas.. survicing the first shot can be a metter of winning and loseing because a 2nd shot usually wont occur.. because someone will be dead..

on a side note both the A1 and A2 can be fitted with ERA aswell.. actually anything can.. ERA is just (basically) explosive sandwiched between 2 armor plates.. you can pretty much stick it on anything..  but like I said.. it will only work for 1 shot.

also one very very important thing to remember:

if your side has air superiority.. a tank is the safest place to be.. if your side doesent have air superiority.. or it is contested.. being in a tanks is the LAST place you want to be. I doubt that ERA or anything else could stop a mach 2 6 foot missle... or a 500 pound LGB...

I remember seeing the footage from the M1A1 cameras... you would see the T-72... it would fire.. a few seconds later you would see its round hit the ground far short of you... you guess what happened next..

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...

thats funny, ya know the very first russian tanks and the legendary tracks on the T-34 were designed by walter christy.. an american..  

anywho anyone who claims that ANY MODERN tank is better than another is totally talking out of their ass.. all the important things that make or break these tanks is classified.. so nobody here knows which is actually better...  never mind the fact that the T80 and M1A1 are designed to fight totally different kinds of wars..

as for the ERA.. perhaps it will stop a sabot round.. but it will only do it once..   thats always been the major downside of it.. when its hit it explodes.. the next shot will hit the skin of the tank and penetrate...  and with todays fast firing super accurate tanks its pretty much just as easy to hit the target twice as it is once..

lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.

of course the T-80 IS NOT designed to fight this way.. its designed to fight in more gown up hilly areas with shorter view distances.. where it could fire its hopfully 1 shot 1 kill 125mm at ranges it can be effective at.. and in the sudden encounters that take place in such areas.. survicing the first shot can be a metter of winning and loseing because a 2nd shot usually wont occur.. because someone will be dead..

on a side note both the A1 and A2 can be fitted with ERA aswell.. actually anything can.. ERA is just (basically) explosive sandwiched between 2 armor plates.. you can pretty much stick it on anything..  but like I said.. it will only work for 1 shot.

also one very very important thing to remember:

if your side has air superiority.. a tank is the safest place to be..  if your side doesent have air superiority.. or it is contested.. being in a tanks is the LAST place you want to be.  I doubt that ERA or anything else could stop a mach 2 6 foot missle... or a 500 pound LGB...

I remember seeing the footage from the M1A1 cameras... you would see the T-72... it would fire.. a few seconds later you would see its round hit the ground far short of you... you guess what happened next..<span id='postcolor'>

The T-34 85 had russian made tracks, and it was a much superior tank.

The T-34 was legendary not because of its snazzy tracks (that were very wide :o massive innovation) but because it was fast, very reliable and suprisingly well armored against all nazi tanks of the time (until the tiger came out of course). The cannon was also pretty formidable. In fact, by the end of the war it had gone through so many upgrades it was fully capable of holding its own against most nazi super tanks (even the panther which was based on the T-34).None of these upgrades were designed by americans

[Wobble 1]

The T-34 85 had russian made tracks, and it was a much superior tank they were built by them but the design was by Walter Christy. thats why it was faster, I forget the exact design name but unlike the russian tanks each wheel of the T-34 could move up and down independantley.. unlike the german tanks which had wheels that were stationary.. only the front 2 and rear 2 could flex.... all tanks use this today but the T-34 was the first to implement it,  just before WW2 they russians bough almost all of christy's prototypes and had him come over and designed many of their earley war tanks.. in facy many of his innovations live on even in todays MBT's..  the US didnt like him or use his designes becase he was a real shithead to deal with.. but the ruskies seemd to like him.

by the end of the war it had gone through so many upgrades it was fully capable of holding its own against most nazi super tanks

by the end of the war the US had the M26 pershing which could also hold its own agains the "nazi super tanks"

T-34:

Engine:  V-2-34 V-12 diesel developing 500hp

Maximum road speed: 55 km/h

Armament: 85mm gun main gun

M-26:

Engine:         Ford GAF, V-8 gas, 500 hp

Speed:         33 mph (53km/h)

Armament:   90mm main gun

pretty equally matched... T-34 has a slight speed advantage and the M26 has a slight firepower advanatage.. both were awsome

they actually met eachother in Korea.. but thats a bad example because most of the Koren crews were not as well trained as they should have been.. and of course got their asses shot off.

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The T-34 85 had russian made tracks, and it was a much superior tank they were built by them but the design was by Walter Christy. thats why it was faster, I forget the exact design name but unlike the russian tanks each wheel of the T-34 could move up and down independantley.. unlike the german tanks which had wheels that were stationary.. only the front 2 and rear 2 could flex.... all tanks use this today but the T-34 was the first to implement it,  just before WW2 they russians bough almost all of christy's prototypes and had him come over and designed many of their earley war tanks.. in facy many of his innovations live on even in todays MBT's..  the US didnt like him or use his designes becase he was a real shithead to deal with.. but the ruskies seemd to like him.

by the end of the war it had gone through so many upgrades it was fully capable of holding its own against most nazi super tanks

by the end of the war the US had the M26 pershing which could also hold its own agains the "nazi super tanks"

T-34:

Engine:  V-2-34 V-12 diesel developing 500hp

Maximum road speed: 55 km/h

Armament: 85mm gun main gun

M-26:

Engine:         Ford GAF, V-8 gas, 500 hp

Speed:         33 mph (53km/h)

Armament:   90mm main gun

pretty equally matched... T-34 has a slight speed advantage and the M26 has a slight firepower advanatage.. both were awsome

they actually met eachother in Korea.. but thats a bad example because most of the Koren crews were not as well trained as they should have been.. and of course got their asses shot off.<span id='postcolor'>

damm, fine 1-0 to you

the t34 85 was the first tank that could really put up with them though, then there was the firefly which still had the crap features of the sherman but a much larger gun (only brits used it tho cos the americans were too arrogent to use a british modified tank, same with all the funnies that made our d-day invasions so much easier). By the end of the war the russian also had the IS2, which could devastate tigers and was generally a much better heavy tank, although it didn't see much action, and it was slow. then there was the ISU 152 animal killer, which was a really powerful tank howitzer type thing. all russian

[Corp.Pihla 0]

ERA is and old invention and allmost every modern tank has it.

[Wobble 1]

a much larger gun (only brits used it tho cos the americans were too arrogent to use a british modified tank

they didnt use it because the war ended before the spin up of production of that gun could be big enough to produce enough of them, it was a brand new gun and only about 1000 of them were made before the end of the war, by the time the gun could be produced in sufficent numbers the M26 was being produced and the americans started using that.

I think there were only 2 or 3 hundred shermans that actually saw combat with that gun.. i believe it was a 75MM, it was the same size shell as that of the sherman but had alot more powder and was much faster (and more powerful).. it was great but large scale production of it was pointless because it came out just before the M26 came out.. which was already better and on the verge of reaching mass production..

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a much larger gun (only brits used it tho cos the americans were too arrogent to use  a british modified tank

they didnt use it because the war ended before the spin up of production of that gun could be big enough to produce enough of them, it was a brand new gun and only about 1000 of them were made before the end of the war, by the time the gun could be produced in sufficent numbers the M26 was being produced and the americans started using that.

I think there were only 2 or 3 hundred shermans that actually saw combat with that gun.. i believe it was a 75MM, it was the same size shell as that of the sherman but had alot more powder and was much faster (and more powerful).. it was great but large scale production of it was pointless because it came out just before the M26 came out.. which was already better and on the verge of reaching mass production..<span id='postcolor'>

god damm you, i must admit i only really studied russian and german tanks so i don't really know about the allied tanks, except that the british tanks sucked and the sherman sucked, and the french tanks sucked

Still, i saw on history channel that the sherman firefly did give the allies a big advantage, and allowed the british to take on german tank regiments with less casualties, whereas the americans had a much harder time with it (they took ages to get off the beach due to heavy casualties or something). The funnies also gave the british and canadians a much easier time on the beaches

[Wobble 1]

they took ages to get off the beach due to heavy casualties or something

sand bars and low tide didnt help, thats for sure.. lots of shermans are still sitting on the bottom, that and the allied para drops that were supposed to knock out the big guns got scattered all to hell and back.. so the 88s were going bonkers on everyone... real shitstorm that was. though eventually the paras got back together and started really raising hell.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Well, the sherman tank was actually just infantry support... (more of a carrier, lol).

The trueth is, that statistically, German tanks on the west front would take out 4 allied (vs france, brittain and US). And on the East front (vs USSR), it would take out 5.

Much of it was because of better training/experience, but the tigers werent toys

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Not to mention that the americans fleed their tanks, because they catched fire that easily (or was that the birttish one.... damn now im confused!)

Oh btw. woble. Normally sight range in the desert isnt good. Due to refelctions, wind, sand etc. Its very difficult to see far, and your vision will be very fluttered.

[Wobble 1]

Not to mention that the americans fleed their tanks, because they catched fire that easily (or was that the birttish one

It was the sherman, because it used high octain gasoline.. so when hit it would burn quicker than a desal tank..

Oh btw. woble. Normally sight range in the desert isnt good. Due to refelctions, wind, sand etc. Its very difficult to see far, and your vision will be very fluttered

yea, but modern tank sights have filters and such that eliminate glare, and a nice white hot thermal would cut right through the dust.. most modern ones can bu used during the day just fine... not as high def as at night but good enough to see the silouett and get the range..

[Transfunsel 0]

what the heck are you talking about ?

[Sith 0]

Not something that belongs in the General forum...

Moving to O/T

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">T-34:

Engine:  V-2-34 V-12 diesel developing 500hp

Maximum road speed: 55 km/h

Armament: 85mm gun main gun

M-26:

Engine:         Ford GAF, V-8 gas, 500 hp

Speed:         33 mph (53km/h)

Armament:   90mm main gun

pretty equally matched... T-34 has a slight speed advantage and the M26 has a slight firepower advanatage.. both were awsome

they actually met eachother in Korea.. but thats a bad example because most of the Koren crews were not as well trained as they should have been.. and of course got their asses shot off.<span id='postcolor'>

The M26 wasn't a tank; it was a tank destroyer. It's armour was good against smallarms, but nothing else. If it went head to head with T34s without support from real tanks, I'm not surprised it didn't last long.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 11 2002,20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a much larger gun (only brits used it tho cos the americans were too arrogent to use  a british modified tank

they didnt use it because the war ended before the spin up of production of that gun could be big enough to produce enough of them, it was a brand new gun and only about 1000 of them were made before the end of the war, by the time the gun could be produced in sufficent numbers the M26 was being produced and the americans started using that.

I think there were only 2 or 3 hundred shermans that actually saw combat with that gun.. i believe it was a 75MM, it was the same size shell as that of the sherman but had alot more powder and was much faster (and more powerful).. it was great but large scale production of it was pointless because it came out just before the M26 came out.. which was already better and on the verge of reaching mass production..<span id='postcolor'>

The gun was the 17 Pounder, it used a 76mm round. One in four of tanks in a troop were equipped with it.

Aside from that, My dad rated the Valentine over the Sherman. He was really pissed off that he had to hand over his Valentine to the Commies, and got a sherman to replace it.

The problem was, there were too few British tanks able to be produced, and while some were better than the Sherman, they weren't so significantly better that Britain would tell the US where to put the Shermans.

It wasn't until the Comet in 1945 thata tank appeared which would warrant the abandonment of such a plentiful weapon.

[Panzer Jaeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.<span id='postcolor'>

Common terrain?!

I can remember two major battles in desert:

North Africa WW II, and Desert Storm.

There have been many tank battles through out history, but few have taken place in desert. Most of these battles have been fought in towns, villages or in forrests. In most cases in Europe, WW I and WW II.

Oh, BTW. Sabot is lighter than HEAT... Aerodynamics has very little effect at these speeds (~1600 m/s = 5760 km/h). Do you think F/A 18 would glide? It needs thurst to stay in air... Once the engines are shutdown, down we go!! Like a rock...

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Panzer Jaeger @ Feb. 11 2002,22:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.<span id='postcolor'>

Common terrain?!

I can remember two major battles in desert:

North Africa WW II, and Desert Storm.

There have been many tank battles through out history, but few have taken place in desert. Most of these battles have been fought in towns, villages or in forrests. In most cases in Europe, WW I and WW II.

Oh, BTW. Sabot is lighter than HEAT... Aerodynamics has very little effect at these speeds (~1600 m/s = 5760 km/h). Do you think F/A 18 would glide? It needs thurst to stay in air... Once the engines are shutdown, down we go!! Like a rock... <span id='postcolor'>

Any explosive action round, either HEAT or HESH can be fired out of a relatively low-velocity weapon, because the round uses explosive to do the damage. that's why most (Javelin breaks the rule) portable AT weapons use those warheads.

Use a high enough velocity though, and you can punch through armour with custard. but considerably less energy is needed if you use something like tungsten carbide or depleted uranium.

Having said that, a low-velocity weapon is easily capable of sending an explosive-action round just as far as a High-velocity weapon, and retaining lethality at the end of travel better, but it would be slower, and modern armour ERA or Chobham would stand a far higher chance of stopping it.

What would happen in an M1A2 vs. T90 fight? Despite what every body may like to think, it hasn't happened yet, so it's impossible to say. In an A10 vs T90 fight, ANY kind of ERA would just make the firework display prettier.

[Panzer Jaeger 0]

HEAT fires a cone of metal to armour at speed of less than 6000 m/s. This causes tremendous surface pressure to armour thus causing penetration. This speed is controlled by angles on tip of HEAT round.

The speed of penetrationhole caused by copper cone is approx. 2500-3000 m/s depending on shape tip.

HEAT acts same way when you pour hot water to cold water.