|
|
Reactive Armor
#-244044 - 10/31/02 03:14 PM
|
|
|
I have heard that reactive armor can make a tank or other vehicle virtually impenitrable by most weapon systems that exist today. How exacly does it work?
Post Extras:
|
Rzrseg
|
|
Head Zoo Keeper
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/20/03
|
|
Posts: 8834
|
|
Loc: Houston, Texas
|
|
|
In reply to:
I have heard that reactive armor can make a tank or other vehicle virtually impenitrable by most weapon systems that exist today. How exacly does it work?
That statement was true maybe 20 years ago...now all you have to do is put a pointy end on the incoming missle and the reactive armor is useless.
Reactive armor is nothing more than eplosives strapped onto the outside of the tank. When an armor piercing shell hits the reactive armor, it thinks it's hit the tank armor and explodes. The reactive armor also explodes and this explosion causes the armor piercing explosion (which is a tight, directed explosion) to be dispersed enough that it won't penetrate the armor. However, stick a probe on the tip of the incoming missle (like the Tow 2A ) and the reactive armor exlodes too early leaving the missle explosion to rip into the tank. Or, you can hit it with an APFSDS-T round from another tank and it will die just as well. The sabot will not care about the reactive armor at all.
Volunteer
Community
Manager
"Really? Show me."
Post Extras:
|
|
antapex
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 08/08/03
|
|
Posts: 96
|
|
Loc: Czech Republic
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: Rzrseg]
#-243717 - 11/01/02 04:47 AM
|
|
|
Hi Rzrseg!
There are new generations of reactive armour. Nowadays modern tanks have sensors inside which are monitoring incoming missile. It distinguishes if it is AP, APFSDS, HEAT, etc. If you stick a probe on the tip of the incoming missile it will not help you.
Look at any modern Russian or Ukrainian tank...
It surely cannot make a tank or other vehicle impenitrable but it helps a bit. Edited by antapex on 11/01/02 04:51 AM.
Post Extras:
|
|
Rzrseg
|
|
Head Zoo Keeper
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/20/03
|
|
Posts: 8834
|
|
Loc: Houston, Texas
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: antapex]
#-243650 - 11/01/02 07:54 AM
|
|
|
In reply to:
Hi Rzrseg!There are new generations of reactive armour. Nowadays modern tanks have sensors inside which are monitoring incoming missile. It distinguishes if it is AP, APFSDS, HEAT, etc. If you stick a probe on the tip of the incoming missile it will not help you. Look at any modern Russian or Ukrainian tank...It surely cannot make a tank or other vehicle impenitrable but it helps a bit. Edited by antapex on 11/01/02 04:51 AM.
Hmm, I'll have to look into this. I still don't see how it's going to help against an APFSDS round though. HEAT or AP I can see...but a big 'ol chunk of metal?
Volunteer
Community
Manager
"Really? Show me."
Post Extras:
|
|
MJWalser
|
|
I may or may not be wearing pants at this moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/28/03
|
|
Posts: 216
|
|
Loc: Washington, DC
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: Rzrseg]
#-243575 - 11/01/02 09:45 AM
|
|
|
It won't help vs. an APFSDS round.
What Antapex wasn't entirely clear about is that the sensor suite does not actually "monitor incoming missiles", but rather measures the impact force of rounds already striking the tank. It will only help against HEAT rounds with stand-off probes. The sensors can detect if a given round is impacting with a stand-off probe or not, and can then delay the reactive detonation by a millisecond or two if necessary, allowing the reaction to disrupt the HEAT effect regardless of the stand-off probe. An APFSDS round will still zip on through, reaction explosion or not.
-Mike
"I have not failed 10,000 times. I have successfully found 10,000 ways that do not work." -Thomas Edison (paraphrased)
Post Extras:
|
|
antapex
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 08/08/03
|
|
Posts: 96
|
|
Loc: Czech Republic
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: MJWalser]
#-241832 - 11/04/02 08:00 AM
|
|
|
Hello!
I've got a great respect to your and Rzrseg knowledge. I really doubt now if my previous post was right.
So you both can judge if this is only my fantasy or reality  . In my point of view there are two ways how to reduce effectiveness of APFSDS:
1) enlarge armour - not very practical
2) make projectile's angle of impact disadvantageous - I believe that this is possible. Reactive armour is able to impair an angle of impact. If the tank has a good ballistic shape and reactive armour it will help the tank vs. an APFSDS round. The tank will still be hit but maybe not penetrated through and through. The crew may survive (though surely wounded) and the tank may be (or not ) mobile to leave the battlefield.
In reply to:
What Antapex wasn't entirely clear about is that the sensor suite does not actually "monitor incoming missiles", but rather measures the impact force of rounds already striking the tank.
Reactive armour can successfully defend the tank against incoming missile because armour reacts before the missile hits the tank. To be able to do that the tank must know where the missile is, so the tank is monitoring incoming missile.
Or Am I just kidding?
If you find a big grammar blunder in this post, please correct me (I appreciate it) or forgive me
Post Extras:
|
|
dabac
|
|
contrary consumer
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 08/04/03
|
|
Posts: 1748
|
|
Loc: Stockholm, Sweden, Northern Europe
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: Rzrseg]
#-241815 - 11/04/02 09:00 AM
|
|
|
If sticking explosive panels on the outside of a tank was all there was to it, then your description would be accurate. But nowadays we know more.
One basic trick is to sandwich the explosive between layers of steel. As the explosive is set off it will propel this steel sheet towards the jet of the shaped charge. Assuming this is a hit on either the front glacis or the turret the plate will intersect the jet at an angle.This angle, along with the mismatch between of the jet propagation angle and the plate propagation angle will force the jet to chew its way through much more material before it can reach the actual vehicle. If a KE-penetrator is encountered a similar scenario is acted out, but with the added benefit of the possibility of breaking the the penetrator. In reply to:
The sabot will not care about the reactive armor at all.
You're right about that The sabot will in all probability never reach the target, and even if it did would not pose as a threat to an armored vehicle.
"Anarchism and Communism are both based on the idea of human conformity, and are mostly acclaimed by people who like to emphasize their individuality."
Post Extras:
|
|
dabac
|
|
contrary consumer
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 08/04/03
|
|
Posts: 1748
|
|
Loc: Stockholm, Sweden, Northern Europe
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: antapex]
#-241811 - 11/04/02 09:09 AM
|
|
|
In reply to:
To be able to do that the tank must know where the missile is, so the tank is monitoring incoming missile.
There are various degrees of complexity to these systems, either you can stick a mm-wave radar on top of the tank and use it to fire charges similar to claymore mines at an incoming missile. The aim then is to destroy the missile inflight, before it has the ability to fire its warhead. Then there is the possibility to set up some sort of sensor on each armor panel (or cluster of panels). These systems are usually called active armor though.
OR you can use a reactive armor that is actuated by impact as earlier discussed.
"Anarchism and Communism are both based on the idea of human conformity, and are mostly acclaimed by people who like to emphasize their individuality."
Post Extras:
|
|
MJWalser
|
|
I may or may not be wearing pants at this moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/28/03
|
|
Posts: 216
|
|
Loc: Washington, DC
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: dabac]
#-241782 - 11/04/02 09:52 AM
|
|
|
And considering the cost involved, it is far cheaper and more practical to use reactive systems rather than active systems... at least for now.
-Mike
"I have not failed 10,000 times. I have successfully found 10,000 ways that do not work." -Thomas Edison (paraphrased)
Post Extras:
|
|
MJWalser
|
|
I may or may not be wearing pants at this moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/28/03
|
|
Posts: 216
|
|
Loc: Washington, DC
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: dabac]
#-241781 - 11/04/02 09:53 AM
|
|
|
In reply to:
The sabot will in all probability never reach the target, and even if it did would not pose as a threat to an armored vehicle.
Heh. Good catch.
-Mike
"I have not failed 10,000 times. I have successfully found 10,000 ways that do not work." -Thomas Edison (paraphrased)
Post Extras:
|
|
antapex
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 08/08/03
|
|
Posts: 96
|
|
Loc: Czech Republic
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: dabac]
#-240361 - 11/06/02 06:45 AM
|
|
|
In reply to:
There are various degrees of complexity to these systems, either you can stick a mm-wave radar on top of the tank and use it to fire charges similar to claymore mines at an incoming missile. The aim then is to destroy the missile inflight, before it has the ability to fire its warhead.
Yep, I saw slow motion picture showing that. It was quite impressive I saw that on oboron-export.ru - I don't know why but this page does not "work" now.
If you find a big grammar blunder in this post, please correct me (I appreciate it) or forgive me
Post Extras:
|
|
MJWalser
|
|
I may or may not be wearing pants at this moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/28/03
|
|
Posts: 216
|
|
Loc: Washington, DC
|
|
Re: Reactive Armor [Re: MJWalser]
#-240262 - 11/06/02 09:21 AM
|
|
|
...Although I do envision a day when tanks and armored vehicles will have miniature laser CIWS mounts for point-defense.
-Mike
"I have not failed 10,000 times. I have successfully found 10,000 ways that do not work." -Thomas Edison (paraphrased)
Post Extras:
|
Hot topics
Dynamic
Flat
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote