Impenetrable Russian Tank Armour

  • 4 Respostas
  • 4858 Visualizações
*

dremanu

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1282
  • Recebeu: 1 vez(es)
  • +3/-0
Impenetrable Russian Tank Armour
« em: Janeiro 24, 2008, 09:20:34 pm »
Um artigo que saiu na revista "Jane's International Defence Review":

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

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, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles.

 The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
"Esta é a ditosa pátria minha amada."
 

*

Eurico Viegas

  • 176
  • +0/-0
Re: Impenetrable Russian Tank Armour
« Responder #1 em: Janeiro 28, 2008, 11:32:43 pm »
Citação de: "dremanu"
Um artigo que saiu na revista "Jane's International Defence Review":

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

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, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles.

 The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."



Caro dremanu, uma pergunta: onde foi buscar este artigo? É que noutro forum que frequento este artigo foi apontado como uma falsificação...
disce quasi semper victurus, vive quasi cras moriturus
 

*

papatango

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 5580
  • Recebeu: 9 vez(es)
  • +2/-0
    • http://www.areamilitar.net
(sem assunto)
« Responder #2 em: Janeiro 29, 2008, 11:37:39 pm »
Os projecteis de ogiva dupla podem ser eficientes para movimentos de guerrilha, mas a sua utilidade contra uma unidade blindada em andamento, não é nem de perto nem de longe de qualquer utilidade prática.

Sistemas de apontar a olho, como grande parte dos sistemas RPG têm uma percentagem de acerto absolutamente risivel.

Os sistemas com navegação por laser, têm agora os sistemas passivos de defesa que atacam a fonte do laser, antes de o mouro decidir se vai apertar o gatilho até ao fim.

Na verdade, nada consegue parar uma grande unidade blindada, como aliás se viu no Iraque. Continuam a ser os tanques a liderar os ataques e só tanques são vistos como ameaças efectivas contra o avanço de blindados pesados.

Se a invasão do Iraque tivesse sido feita no tempo do III Reich, não tinha havido insurgência iraquiana, porque os alemães tinham reunido cidades inteiras e morto a população se houvesse insurgência (como fazia o Saddam).

Logo, a ideia de que o Tanque pesado está ultrapassado, pode estar correcta para operações de manutenção de paz ou de policiamento, mas não para operações convencionais.

E lembro que desde a II guerra mundial que se diz que nunca mais haverá conflitos convencionais, mas o que vimos desde esse periodo no médio oriente, foram conflitos convencionais e batalhas de tanques.

Quem tem os melhores tanques, invariavelmente vence. Se consegue manter a vitória e ganhar a paz é outra coisa.
Mas para isso não servem tanques pesados.

Cumprimentos
 

*

dremanu

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1282
  • Recebeu: 1 vez(es)
  • +3/-0
Re: Impenetrable Russian Tank Armour
« Responder #3 em: Janeiro 30, 2008, 09:17:41 pm »
Citação de: "Eurico Viegas"
Citação de: "dremanu"
Um artigo que saiu na revista "Jane's International Defence Review":

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

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, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles.

 The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."


Caro dremanu, uma pergunta: onde foi buscar este artigo? É que noutro forum que frequento este artigo foi apontado como uma falsificação...


Este artigo veio do forum MilitaryPhotos, via um amigo que lá participa, e me o indicou por curiosidade. Este é o link do "thread" nesse forum: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... 544&page=5

Depois de ler a sua pergunta, fui ler o que lá escreveram, e o que é indicado no "thread" é que de facto o artigo é falso, mas aparentemente os testes mencionados no artigo aconteceram, e os resultados obtidos estão correctos. :conf:
« Última modificação: Janeiro 30, 2008, 09:57:28 pm por dremanu »
"Esta é a ditosa pátria minha amada."
 

*

papatango

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 5580
  • Recebeu: 9 vez(es)
  • +2/-0
    • http://www.areamilitar.net
(sem assunto)
« Responder #4 em: Janeiro 30, 2008, 09:52:52 pm »
Os testes realizados estão correctos. O que não é confirmado é a existência de uma blindagem reactiva cinco vezes mais eficiente.

Aliás, a existência da blindagem reactiva e a insistência russa na blindagem reactiva, é uma prova da debilidade da blindagem do conceito de tanques que ainda hoje utilizam.

Nos anos 80, com medo que os russos tivessem inventado uma blindagem capaz de resistir à munição de tipo flecha, chegou a ser considerada a construção de tanques com canhão de calibre superior a 120mm.

Em vez disso, temos a última versão do 120mm L/55 que equipa os tanques Leopard-2 A6, que avançou no sentido do aumento da velocidade aumentando assim o poder de penetração.
 

 

ENEMY WEAPON: Russian VA-111 Shkval

Iniciado por AzraaelQuadro Armadas/Sistemas de Armas

Respostas: 0
Visualizações: 2859
Última mensagem Abril 21, 2006, 12:42:31 pm
por Azraael