I wonder how the guy who came up with this managed to convince others it was a good idea. "Hey, what if we covered the tank in high explosives so that it doesn't get blown up!"
He visited the battlefields of the 1967 arab israeli war and fired at thank with heat shells. He found that when he hit ammo and it detonated, the shell would penetrate less.
He chose to talk to other people with intelligence and understanding of physics. He also said, if a tank gets hit with a HEAT, the guys inside are dead and your multi million tank destroyed. Now, I know this sounds weird at first, but it will keep those boys alive after a direct hit. Are you interested in keeping them alive? No? Well, thats ok, I can easily find people who are interested, for example that guy who has cut eyeholes in his upside down edition of last months Pravda.
+TaintedMojo then again a rocket exploading in the same place w/o reactive armor still is going to cause problems for any friendly infantry nearby, caught up in the explosion and/or now they are missing a tank and tank crew.
+sithalo ...They now build a long stick with several warheads, the first detonate the reactive armor while the next penetrate. That's why nobody bother with reactive armor...OBSOLETE!
hotspur666 i didnt mean sources as in what fires the weapon i meant it as in website/s that talk about all countries not using Reactive Armor anymore. although only the "Infantry?" part of your comment actually made any sense
Its standard for military stuff. Because most people will never see any serious danger in their lives all they can do is speculate, and speculation is infinite.
If you dont like "bullshit" then dont watch National Geographic... For example they babling here that metal was superheated and that it was molten. Superheated is term for liquids not for metals and copper in jet of shaped charge is heated to something like 600 °C so its far from copper melting temperature(1085 °C)...
Agent Smidt Lol, I've been cornered by a few before while traveling in Ithaca, New York. Not that I mind, I'm more than happy to oblige in conversation when I'm out. A pleasant exchange of cultures is never a bad thing in my book.
A bit late, but as galaxiesaver said, the round would probably pierce the armour. What are the chances of hitting the same spot twice? Very slim, but Tandem HEAT rounds were created to defeat ERA. It consists of a 2-stage HEAT projectile. The first charge detonates the ERA. The second charge penetrates the armour.
The flyer plate has practically no effect on the jet, which has all gone through the hole it made in the plate and is on the other side before the plate has moved an inch. Put simply, what happens is the explosive sends a shock wave through the jet, causing it to spread out and hit the armor over a much larger area. The flyer plate, (the thick kind in this video, as early ERA had 5mm thick ones) is meant to mangle the front of long rod penetrators.
This tech isn't the only form of "reactive armour". At Fort Halford in Kent they have "Electromagnetic Reactive Armour". If you're into your military tech (and live in Britain) you should go there for work experience! The latter is not AT ALL directed at you guys :P
for those wondering the difference between low explosives and high explosives is generally the reaction required to detonate them, low explosives can actually be more dangerous as their detonation can be caused by impact or combustion. whereas high explosives are actually more stable and less likely to be detonated by accident.
Not sure video is exactly correct. Papers I have read say that: 1) The 'jet' is not actually molten copper - it is plastically-deformed copper, and consequently 2) the 'jet' penetrates the armor purely by kinetic energy, not by melting the armor. It is just a copper fist punching through.
I doubt militants have access to modern RPGs. They were invented in like 2003-2006, and the militants are using old surplus stockpile crap from the cold war. I bet the Syrian army has these, though. You never know when the Israelis may come knocking on your door, and from what I understand the RPGs were specifically designed to take out Israeli tanks.
justtelling 1- i'm not russian 2 - i indirectly pointed out the fact that this video is bullshit because it presents reactive armor as a new tech, which it's absolutely not 3 - don't invert roles. US always like to pretend it's first, the best...
+EmmethPearce KV-2 could'nt pierce a tank. Its granade has really slow velocity and is made to destroy bunkers,fortifications and buildings, not tanks.
Reactive armour is only effective against heat, hesh or similar he munitions. Against a sabot kenetic penetrator or similar AP shells it is less effective. Not to mention ERA is only effective against one hit. A second round hitting the same space will defeat the unprotected armour underneath.
Some forms of ERA, Relikt and Kontakt5 can heavily reduce the power of APFSDS, so much so, that the composite armor underneath could stop the remaining power of the round. Speaking of composite armor which is found on all modern MBTs. Even if you lose your ERA, HEAT and other chemical warheads are still really ineffective against it depending on power of course. The Abrams', T-90, and Leopard 2s all have really strong turrets and front plates where most chemical and even some kinetic projectiles are just useless.
reactive armor is meant to reduce the power of incoming explosive projectiles that PIERCES through armor not meant for HE-rounds in other words it is an anti-piercing armor
HE : just standard explosive, like a stick of dynamite. HEAT: a shaped charge which causes a shaped explosion. The explosion does not pierce the armor. APEX, armor piercing explosive would not be affected by reactive armor, but would likely be deflected by tank armor. Its just a canister with a bomb inside. What HEAT does, is shape the explosion itself to be a directed jet towards the armor, using a metal rod which melts and is projected forwards. So what HEAT is, is a super fast stream of extremely hot liquid metal that cuts through the armor. As such, a counter explosive can defeat it, as its basically just liquid, same as if someone sprays you with a hose, you can use another hose to deflect the force of the incoming water. You will still get wet, but you can avoid most of the water pressure.
@@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681 That is not true, modern Russian ERA can reduce the penetrative power of APFSDS by up to 20%. It would also react regardless because the penetrator would create sparks as it went through the metal.
@@hedgehog3180 Not necessarily. ERA is designed not to ignite on just anything. Specifically the explosives are designed to explode on being hit by that superheated jet but remain inert even when the neighbouring block of ERA explodes. Only the most modern kind of Russian ERA can reduce APFSDS effectiveness, not the ERA 1 kind that is most commonly used. Though ur absolutely right that there exists ERA that can reduce APFSDS effectiveness. Though it probably doesnt work exactly as shown right here.
We dont have that kind of technology in the Philippines but our army survived an RPG attack by covering the APC by woods! There's a UA-cam video about it.
@martydrooo Merk is slow, S Korean tank is about 2x the cost and unreliable, Leopard is a cheap alternative but not very survivable if penetrated, also has less upgrade potential. Only the Merkava is close to the M1's survivability. Tanks are typically useless in urban combat. The Abrams is an exception to that; the TUSK II Abrams has done surprisingly well in urban combat. This is why it's going to be in service even though the US was about to get rid of it.
+Xsidon I guess you'd need a lot of (spaced or not) armor to stop the liquid copper jet - and as mentioned in the video at the end it would weigh (and probably also cost) much much more.
but spaced armor is designed to detonate the warhead and by the time the molten copper jet reaches the 2nd layer of armor it cools down in betwen them to a point where it is not capable of penetrating it
I believe I can explain why... It's because the solid (I'll get back to this later) copper jet is traveling so fast (Sometimes upwards of 2-3 miles/second, if it were to continue it's acceleration it would reach light speed in 1.5 seconds) that, due to the principle of "Hyper velocity" it acts like a liquid, and everything it hits starts to act like a liquid as well. At this high of a speed the armor physics start to break down... the jet of copper literally punches through steel like wet tissue paper.
+Xsidon because spaced armor only dissipates the steam somewhat because of the further distance it has to travel to hit the armor. The armor underneath still has to be somewhat thick to absorb the hit unless it's like an ancient weak RPG-7 PG-7V rocket . While ERA essentially prevents any armor from being hit and can stop the heavy punch of the powerful HEAT warheads from modern tanks and what not
+Xsidon Also the copper is not actually molten, it just acts like molten copper in a liquid manner because it is going so fast that the metal atoms can't hold themselves together like a solid anymore
Ok Lets try putting it up against the newly made and improved German Leopard 2A7 MBT. Give U.S.(my country) a run for there money. ;) (American-German descent)me but cant complain. this would be a Great and interesting show.
andrew decker Several factors, they didn't have this kind of anti tank weapons, their technology wasn't as advanced as ours now and their armor was very different from armor on modern tanks, even for modern standards the M1 abrams uses quite special armor "depleted uranium armor" but that's as far as my knowledge goes...
+eddy Masson No, it was when smoothbores are into introduced. That's why the T-62A exist and the normal T-62 doesn't. T-62 has a 115mm smoothbore gun. Also, WoT has tanks pre-war, WWII, and post-war tanks so this technology doesn't exist.
Although I question the rather naive model used in this test (with a heavy vertical flyer plate in a static test), the result is certainly impressive. What irritates me is that, when I was a kid in the 80s, there was an awareness of ERA but never any really good explanations of why it worked. I suppose we were considered simple retards back then. Anyhow, it's good to see armour technology keeping pace with projectiles when some voices have been suggesting for years that the race was lost and that tanks were history.
There is an asymmetry of cost and rate of design refresh that favors the antitank weapon. The tank is a million dollar vehicle that needs to stay in use for thirty years. It represents a "fixed target" and a comparatively cheap antitank rocket can always be engineered to penetrate it. It is cheaper and faster to design and build a new RPG than a new tank.
bcaulf I agree with your cost/benefit analysis re: ATGWs, which are heavier and more complex than RPGs, but still lightweight and inexpensive compared to MBTs. However, the experience of Challenger 2's armour package in Iraq vs RPGs would seem to confirm the effectiveness of contemporary first-line armour. Actually, as a humourous aside, your comment reminded me of the words of Sir John Fox Burgoyne in 1860; "'I have no great confidence in iron-plated vessels. I think that improvements in artillery will go faster than improvements in fortifying the sides of ships." How prophetic his words were proved: one hundred years later, armoured fighting machines were phased out of the British RN.
the first explosive was stuck to the piece of armor the second explosive was kinda 20cm away from the plate and a lot of the energy from the copper jet was dissipated and sprayed on the plate... "SEE IT WORKS ! ! !" What a shame!. An RPG explodes on impact not 1 meter away from the target. Or maybe they were doing it for the MONEY! ???
The Singapore 🇸🇬 Military SAF and Mindef Must see this Actual Real video about Reactive Armour that Can protect Main Battle Tanks such as Leopard MBT M2A4 from Enemy Tank Rounds and certain Anti Tank Missiles seen on the Ongoing War between Russia 🇷🇺 against Ukraine 🇺🇦.
This explanation is bull st#t. I'm sure but this is not plausible. The description of a molten piece copper penetrating modern armour, which has to be, at most 129mm thick, hardened & modern, hits on the 10" slant. 10", that's close of solid, hardened . 10", that's close (250mm panzer 5 type steel).? That is 2" under a Foot thick. Perhaps I've got things wrong??, I do not want to miss lead.. Neither do I wish to see misdirection of others, get your ruler out & so your own calculations
I would like to help with designs... Take that design and place it into a smaller scale. So you can coat the whole take with the peice's. Also maybe a new texture to our tanks and other armored ground vehicles. Similar to the structural designs used on these new Ford, Nissan, Toyota, etc. It's an X-in a Box sort of....and would all for placement of concentrated Extinguishing Elements as well.
+Katch Dance Some do, if they're good enough. The Soviets developed their own type of ERA called Kontakt 5 which was capable of defeating the American M829A1 APFSDS-T round. Kontakt 5 quickly lost relevance however, the M829A1 was quickly replaced with the M829A2 which was capable of defeating it. These rounds and armor were used a while ago though, today the Americans are using the super powerful M829E4 round and the Russians aren't really even bothering with ERA anymore.
Toma Chinelada Right, Relikt. Forgot about that. The M829E4 was introduced about a month or two after the Armata which uses Relikt, if I'm not mistaken.
Lol, not exactly a fair test, in the first instance, the shaped charge is right up against the 'armour' whereas in the test with the ERA, is is a couple of inches away. The shaped charge will have an optimal stand off distance (which is why rpgs have hollow noses). Moving the charge a few inches away will reduce the effect of the charge anyway. ERA is much more effective with two plates at an angle anyway, like on the front/turret.
You aren't really even debating with me. You're just insulting me and posting a bunch of non sequiturs. You didn't even respond to what I said, that tandem rockets don't work against nonexplosive reactive armor. Also, destroying a tank is a LOT more difficult than shooting a guy. Tanks have escorts, boots on the ground, drones in the sky, helicopters scouting the area, all before they are even deployed. Not to mention even holding an RPG is a good way to get yourself shot.
the HMMWV is faster and still more maneuverable... the bushmaster weighs more, it is much taller making it easier to spot and a much easier target... a bushmaster was designed to take up to 9 men and all of there equipment, fuel, supplies for 3 days and take them right into the action... The HMMWV was designed primarily for personnel and light cargo transport behind front lines, not as a front line fighting vehicle, so I do not know why you are comparing the two...
Don`t tell bullshit! Good IED can destroy everything: any military vehicle, any tank.About 20 kg (44 pounds) of TNT is for any tank and then the details of the tank fly at 1 mile away. Noone created unconquerable tank yet. You should know for example, in the city a tank is easy target and it`s easy to destroy by everything. In real battlefield when enemies have modern weapons, the life of a tank is about 15 minutes.
@GAYAN89 well, in general, if you're not someone's enemy, and you can pay, you can buy their guns. Israel isn't backed by the US over the arabs because we like them, they're backed because they buy our guns and they have good credit! While I can't blame the Russians for selling guns, selling them to people who would inevitably turn on Russia is just silly. But we had to learn that one ourselves in the 80s.
@redreaper2020 Muslims don`t drink alcohol. Allah forbids,,,This is dirty policy, USA has sold arms to Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan when Russia has waged war with them. Russian has sold arms when States has waged war in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. But as I know USSR has sold arms to Iraq till 1980 when Iraqi-Iranian War has been begun. Iran has bought some military vehicles and anti aircraft systems till 2010
@quickzilver333 what? It adds protection. That's all it has to do. You can add spaced armor over some newer forms of ERA, but even with tandem charges, that charge will hit something. Besides which, many weapons are still single-charge, and it does have an effect against HEAT shells and even some longrod shots. In the simplest words, "can't hurt". Just get out of here, I can already see the shitstorm in the comments you've left.
@quickzilver333 no i no im a tank mechanic, they just started puting v3 upgrades on the tanks now, the a3 is not even production, the a3 is going to be a huge overhaul and the army cant afford it right now so they are settling for a few upgrades here and then rather then spend billions on a total redesign
because hummers are useally used for scout and recon and need to be fast and manuverable as much... they do have armor on them but just because of the tires and engine you cannot have to much weight... they have much better vehicles for what you are talking about...
They'll need to add reactive armor plates behind the turret... watch?v=fGd1Zjtvr8Y They actually start adding reactive armor behind the turret? Add 2-4 guys with AK-74s with armor piercing rounds and then shoot the RPG with armor piercing incendiary.
@redreaper2020 Yes...It`s RPG-29 "Vampire and RPG-32 "Hashim''. RPG-29 were sold to Palestina. They`ve destroied many Merkava tanks. Some of that came to Iraq where insurgents were destroying some Abrams tanks. There are some videos of that in internet
the ERA has to be a low explosive. High explosive detonates, sending shockwaves throughout its surrounding medium. Low explosive deflagerates, similar to gunpowder, pushing the plate out. THought i'd leave taht little tidbit there...
yea a IED does not have the piercing force that the warheads in this video have... IED are mainly used for say hummers and infantry... I have seen some videos tho from IED explosions so big that it could toss a tank
Send these tanks in Afghanistan! The graveyard of might so called rage and rouge dictatorial powers. Send the tanks, we have our tech to test on your tanks!
@quickzilver333 of course composite will offer better protection. But not having a precursor round hitting at the same point as your main round is certainly not a bad thing. Duh.
gotta love this propaganda not like the tanks gonna get fucked over if a t90 gets to it you people need new tanks like come on its still using its first production hull thats insanely weak and the t64 upwards to the t90 can penetrate both turret cheeks and the lower hull
when the wind is slow, and the fires hot, the vulture waits to see what rots, oh how pretty, all the scenery, this is nature's sacrifice! when the air blows through, with a brisk attack, the reptile tail ripped from its back, when the sun sets, we will not forget the red sun over paradise
I call that, argument by adjective. Instead of actually refuting anything I say, you just dismiss it. Really juvenile actually, hardly dignifies a response. You bore me.
"fast and manuverable"... you will not get that from heavy armored vehicles that is why they used the hummer -_-; ... the hummer will protect them from bullets just fine...
This is where you lack of reading comprehension comes in. This video is about reactive armor. That's what we're debating. Next time, read the video title maybe?
a lot of people are saying how this is useless against tungsten dart rounds and tandem warheads and though that is true, I'd rather have reactive armour than no reactive armour
Anti tank missile = $100,000. Tank = $10,000,000, minimum. The missile will destroy the tank more times than not. The missile can be fired from pretty much any platform. Boat, airplane, helicopter, hand held devices, light vehicles, heavy vehicles. Destroying a tank on a modern battle field is trivial against any modern military force. Meaning USA, Russia, China, Isreal, Germany, England, France, et cetera. The tank is being phased out as we speak.
Well, this type of armor is defeating a complicated mechanism using a very simple, half assed mechanism. It only makes sense that this armor would be bested by an equally simple, equally half assed mechanism. It took the Russians like 1-2 years to invent these superior RPGs, and now the entire world uses them. They best essentially every type of reactive and active armor types. The age of the tank is basically over.
Uh, no. Few things wrong with that idea. 1) Tanks are rarely deployed in areas where there are known RPG threats. They make pretty damn sure the area is clear of those kind of threats before moving in a very valuable piece of equipment. 2) On the off chance the tank does take a hit, I'm guessing they'd get it the hell out of there before risking any more hits. 3) The RPG shooter would have to land a shot into the exact same 1x1 ft. area, which would be almost impossible.
@quickzilver333 Also the Abrams has been penetrated by enemy combatants. Again another fail on your parts. If you would simply utilize the internet to do some reading you can go ahead and figure that out yourself. I'll give you a clue since you might not be able to piece that last sentence together, google History of M1 Abrams, enjoy reading, if you can read that is. You might need someone to read it for you LOL!
@quickzilver333 I'm asking you to back up your point, cite your points. The Russians entered the first chechen war with only 230 tanks, and the chechens at the time had 50. The Chechens used Guerilla warfare, similar to what the Taliban are using against the USA in Afghanistan, if you know anything of warfare you will know that guerilla tactics are very effective. I've said it from the beginning, the Russians were barely ready, they didnt even have their ERA filled. You fail.
@acidburn134 LOL! You are asking me for a data and you write commenst on you tube. It's just shows how much effort you put in looking for information. The Chechen hunter killer team are ambushing the T-80s/T-72s in a narrow roads and streets. Therefore they were able to affectively attack the same spot with multiple RPGs. This is the same tactics that the Iraqi inssurgents use against the Abrams. The Abrams did well protecting it's crew. While the Russians are nice and crispy inside T-80s/T-72s!
@quickzilver333 They were unprepared, it doesn't matter how many tanks you have, if they are ill equipped there is going to be issues. You see they used ERA in the second war that's why you still haven't found me that data have you? Also they would have to hit the exact same spot multiple times for ERA to be ineffective. So again find me a document that states how many tanks Russians lost. I don't really think you can lol, there goes your whole fail argument.
@quickzilver333 If you had listened you would have known that most of the those reactive armor plates had no explosive charges in them, so learn about reactive armor and them main component in needs to be effect. Even an Abrams would go down in this situation. Where is that tank loss report? You still haven't found one. You are arguing yourself in a circle and your facts are incorrect, you can google it, I know you won't you don't seem that intelligent.
@quickzilver333 Of course the T-80s and T-72s are inferior to Abrams, the Abrams is better in just about every way because most Abrams are pretty up to date. The Abrams has reactive armor that works, the Russians didn't have that when they went in to Chechnya. Also where is the stats for tank losses can you find me those? Or are you just going to keep arguing in a circle, bring some real facts to the table. Again, learn about the wars in Chechnya, you seem clueless about them.
@acidburn134 It's simple Russian T-80s and T-72s are inferior. You were saying that if it was the Abrams during the Chechen war it would have the same result. "WRONG" The Abrams has taken multiple hits by RPGs, ATGMs and Shot at by Iraqi tanks. The Abrams were dissabled but "NO PENETRATION ALL THE WAY INSIDE THE CREW". The Abrams crew survived while the Russians in there mighty T-80s and T-72s are nice and crispy...LOL!
@acidburn134 The T-90 is not even battle tested. It's another claim from the Russians that they are superior just like what they said about the NON-EXPORT T-72s and T-80s. The Abrams is not the best tank in the world but it is battle tested and so far NO CREW WAS EVER LOST DUE TO ENEMY ATTACK WITH RPGs and ATGMS. The M1A3ABRAMS is coming out soon and far superior than any Russian tanks.
@acidburn134 LOL! The T72s and T80s with K3/K5ERA were also getting sliced open by Chechen Rebels. They would attack the ERA with multiple RPGs until the section is expose. ERA is obsolete a one hit wonder. The Chechen didn't have alot of tanks and the ones they have were Soviet made not Russian. The Chechen tank hunter killer team equiped with RPGs and anti-tank missiles are slicing open the might T-80s and T72s...LOL! Do your research again!...LOL!
@quickzilver333 The Gulf war was barely over a month long and it wasn't a type of conflict where the USA had to invade someone's homeland and held territory there. They did that in the Iraq war and that's the reason they lost tanks. You can do the research yourself on the Chechen war because it seems you are a bit misinformed. During the first war a lot of T72 had empty bricks which means their armor was pretty much ineffective.
@acidburn134 LOL! did you even bother to research of how much casualities has been inflicted by the Chechen rebels against the mighty Russian made T-72 and T-80?The M1A1 Abrams Armor during the 1st Gulfwar has never been penetrated by RPGs and ATGMs all the way through the crew compartment until now. IEDs and Snipers doesn't count.The Rusian T-80s and T-72s during the Chechen war in 96 is an upgraded version better armor better systems. Yet they were all slice like butter by the Chechen rebels.
@SilentEagles The T90MS is one of the most armored tanks in the world, maybe you should do a little research and see what they did with the T90MS, they imported electronical systems from other countries but pretty much everything else is their design. If you think I'm lieing you can contact a man by the name of Viktor Ivanovich Murakhovsky. Also the Russians and the Chinese both have 5th gen jets.
@acidburn134 HA! T-90 tank best in the world? What a Joke! Nice tried fool the best tank in the world is the German Leopard 2A7. T-90MS in nothing new is just copying US/NATO tank back square turret. T-90MS is just garbage. T-90MS is using French Thermal Sight and Israeli Environmental control system. The M1A2 SEP TUSK can take out T-90MS. The Abrams tank go news weapons like XM1111 Mid Range Munition to defeat Active protection system like ARENA.
@Talshet K5ERA is worthless as a matter of fact ERA is worthless. It is a one hit wonder. Look at what happend to the Russian Tanks equipped with the K5ERA in Georgia vs Russian conflict. A bunch of them got destroyed during the initial phase of the conflict. These are NON- Export model Russian tanks also which they claim to have better armor than export models. T-90 is not even mass produce the main Russian Armor is T-72 and T-80. NATO has better defensive system for any hard or soft kill.
@thiagolck Kontakt-5 is obsolete now. Unsuprisingly, as it's 80's tech, and in fact M829A2 was developed to defeat it. To counter it Russians developed Kaktus and Relikt ERA, but never installed them on production grade vehicles, probably due to costs. In the meantime Americans developed M829A3, Germans DM-53, British L-28 etc. @ThePerfectRed ERA won't explode without enough physical force to ignite explosives inside, so MGs can't. As for autocannons it all depends on armors design.
In reality, its the ducktape which is absorbing 95.6% of the force in the warhead.
Stop using ducks as armor or I will call PETA!
+morti271 hahaha bravo! great stuff!
I wonder how the guy who came up with this managed to convince others it was a good idea.
"Hey, what if we covered the tank in high explosives so that it doesn't get blown up!"
I guess that as shown in the video, by showing the result in both cases. Simple empirical proof.
He blowed whole thing and thats why in the end it was used first on actual tank by someone esle long after he invented the idea.
He visited the battlefields of the 1967 arab israeli war and fired at thank with heat shells. He found that when he hit ammo and it detonated, the shell would penetrate less.
He chose to talk to other people with intelligence and understanding of physics.
He also said, if a tank gets hit with a HEAT, the guys inside are dead and your multi million tank destroyed. Now, I know this sounds weird at first, but it will keep those boys alive after a direct hit. Are you interested in keeping them alive?
No? Well, thats ok, I can easily find people who are interested, for example that guy who has cut eyeholes in his upside down edition of last months Pravda.
Reminds me of active camouflage using lights to match the sky around an aircraft. Whoda thunk it would work?
Reactive armor, great for protecting the tank, not so much for any friendly infantry nearby.
+TaintedMojo then again a rocket exploading in the same place w/o reactive armor still is going to cause problems for any friendly infantry nearby, caught up in the explosion and/or now they are missing a tank and tank crew.
+sithalo ...They now build a long stick with several warheads, the first detonate the reactive armor while the next penetrate. That's why nobody bother with reactive armor...OBSOLETE!
hotspur666 sources
hotspur666 i didnt mean sources as in what fires the weapon i meant it as in website/s that talk about all countries not using Reactive Armor anymore.
although only the "Infantry?" part of your comment actually made any sense
well back in the days of world war 2 the infantry nearby WAS the armor of the russian tanks :D
You people argue about everything... I knew as soon as I scrolled down to the comments it would be nothing but bullshit...
Its standard for military stuff. Because most people will never see any serious danger in their lives all they can do is speculate, and speculation is infinite.
I got's enough real danger right here
If you dont like "bullshit" then dont watch National Geographic... For example they babling here that metal was superheated and that it was molten. Superheated is term for liquids not for metals and copper in jet of shaped charge is heated to something like 600 °C so its far from copper melting temperature(1085 °C)...
don't argue about people arguing then...
That moment when the crew realizes: "My tank protects me because it's wrapped in explosives!"
It's absolutely insane... but it works. Because awesome.
That's about as metal as it gets
2:02 why does the cameraman do that tho, 2000s shows eh
"OK I NEED YOU TO STAY THERE LOOKING SOMEWHERE WHILE I RUN AROUND YOU IN CIRCLES A FEW TIMES OK!?"
Michael Bay was the cameraman
.
"I'm fucking invincible!"
-Sundowner, after using the same type of armor
LIKE I SAID JACK, KIDS ARE CRUEL. AND VERY IN TOUCH WITH MY INNER CHILD!
"FKING INVINCIBLE"
Duct_tape.exe
If handsome=0 then handy=1
Sundowner isn't real he can't hurt you
Sundowner:
GOLDEN RAYS OF THE GLORIOUS SUNSHINE
@@wicked_death2859 SENDING DOWN SUCH A BLOOD RED LIGHT
@Paul Martin arid breeze across the mountain giving flight to birds of prey when the machines come to transform Eden day by day
And hi again
holy shit, it's literally sundowner's exploding shield
When the wind is slow
When the fire's hot
@@Destro65 and the vulture waits to see what rots
Like I said, Jack, kids are cruel, and I'm very in touch with my inner child
You: *hit the tank*
Tank: I'M FUCKING INVINCIBLE!
like i said, kids are cruel
and i loove mines
Out of curiosity, what if they hit the same place twice?
*****
I'm guessing if they get hit once and survive because of this, would they just return fire or drive away?
+Captain Swing Glad they didn't start talking about their days in the army or their favorite pet, we Americans are notorious for inane small talk.
Agent Smidt
Lol, I've been cornered by a few before while traveling in Ithaca, New York. Not that I mind, I'm more than happy to oblige in conversation when I'm out. A pleasant exchange of cultures is never a bad thing in my book.
R.I.P tank&crew!
A bit late, but as galaxiesaver said, the round would probably pierce the armour. What are the chances of hitting the same spot twice? Very slim, but Tandem HEAT rounds were created to defeat ERA. It consists of a 2-stage HEAT projectile. The first charge detonates the ERA. The second charge penetrates the armour.
The flyer plate has practically no effect on the jet, which has all gone through the hole it made in the plate and is on the other side before the plate has moved an inch. Put simply, what happens is the explosive sends a shock wave through the jet, causing it to spread out and hit the armor over a much larger area. The flyer plate, (the thick kind in this video, as early ERA had 5mm thick ones) is meant to mangle the front of long rod penetrators.
Reactive armor is Russian tech , wow Americans are desperate :D
Lol sure kid
every countries use other tech that they can find. people like you always happy when it comes to make USA looks bad. in term of copy cat, china is #1
And yet they operate in completely different ways... I bet you didn't even do research on either and you just talked crap too talk crap
johnny C. Believe it or not they actually have a impressive reactive armor platform
It blows up a rocket within 10ft of the tank
This tech isn't the only form of "reactive armour". At Fort Halford in Kent they have "Electromagnetic Reactive Armour". If you're into your military tech (and live in Britain) you should go there for work experience!
The latter is not AT ALL directed at you guys :P
Does only one square blow up or is their a chain reaction from the explosion and the whole side blows?
Joe m one square. However, depending on how the round hits, multiple panels within the area can explode.
i found this intriguing while researching my tank build on BF3. best game ever.
NO ! BF4 is.
Sundowner had some badass shields
Funny thing I was just watching his boss fight not too long ago
for those wondering the difference between low explosives and high explosives is generally the reaction required to detonate them, low explosives can actually be more dangerous as their detonation can be caused by impact or combustion. whereas high explosives are actually more stable and less likely to be detonated by accident.
See the port of Beirut for details.
Completely wrong but alright.
@@shrekrab smd wrong go google it
Not sure video is exactly correct. Papers I have read say that: 1) The 'jet' is not actually molten copper - it is plastically-deformed copper, and consequently 2) the 'jet' penetrates the armor purely by kinetic energy, not by melting the armor. It is just a copper fist punching through.
It’s not correct. It doesn’t melt the armor. It focuses on a tiny area, slices through and releases shrapnel everywhere inside.
Remind me never to walk next to a tank
Same as walking/working next to a 'loaded' Jet/Chopper (or ammo warehouse) mate.
I doubt militants have access to modern RPGs. They were invented in like 2003-2006, and the militants are using old surplus stockpile crap from the cold war. I bet the Syrian army has these, though. You never know when the Israelis may come knocking on your door, and from what I understand the RPGs were specifically designed to take out Israeli tanks.
good work yankies, you discovered a technology that was already used in the 60's on russian tanks.
Innovation!
The Soviets just had the idea, they never actually did it.
Tyler Hamilton *cough* T-90
justtelling
1- i'm not russian
2 - i indirectly pointed out the fact that this video is bullshit because it presents reactive armor as a new tech, which it's absolutely not
3 - don't invert roles. US always like to pretend it's first, the best...
Funny by how tanks and modern military weapons cause butt-tons of flame wars.
what if the shooter is a KV2? :)
EmmethPearce Too much war thunder/world of tanks ? To answer your question,the same thing as in the video
+EmmethPearce Well, with the old ass ammunation it will do nothing but shake the crew like in a old ass moskvich.
+EmmethPearce KV-2 could'nt pierce a tank. Its granade has really slow velocity and is made to destroy bunkers,fortifications and buildings, not tanks.
KV-2 is meant to for close range support not head on assault.
kv2 main gun shoot HE and have bad accuracy
It just takes one shot per panel, but lasting one or 2 shots longer is very helpful.
It's very difficult to hit a tank in the same spot twice
Reactive armour is only effective against heat, hesh or similar he munitions. Against a sabot kenetic penetrator or similar AP shells it is less effective. Not to mention ERA is only effective against one hit. A second round hitting the same space will defeat the unprotected armour underneath.
Some forms of ERA, Relikt and Kontakt5 can heavily reduce the power of APFSDS, so much so, that the composite armor underneath could stop the remaining power of the round. Speaking of composite armor which is found on all modern MBTs. Even if you lose your ERA, HEAT and other chemical warheads are still really ineffective against it depending on power of course. The Abrams', T-90, and Leopard 2s all have really strong turrets and front plates where most chemical and even some kinetic projectiles are just useless.
So we finally copied the old ERA invented by the Soviets during the cold war.
Reactive armor weighs up to a ton... considered light to the tank weight.
''it only detonates when hit by rocket or missile'' - interesting...
reactive armor is meant to reduce the power of incoming explosive projectiles that PIERCES through armor
not meant for HE-rounds in other words it is an anti-piercing armor
What about the APFSDS? can it even block this kind of shell?
@@c4ezar No, absolutely not, and probably doesnt even react to it.
HE : just standard explosive, like a stick of dynamite.
HEAT: a shaped charge which causes a shaped explosion. The explosion does not pierce the armor. APEX, armor piercing explosive would not be affected by reactive armor, but would likely be deflected by tank armor. Its just a canister with a bomb inside.
What HEAT does, is shape the explosion itself to be a directed jet towards the armor, using a metal rod which melts and is projected forwards.
So what HEAT is, is a super fast stream of extremely hot liquid metal that cuts through the armor. As such, a counter explosive can defeat it, as its basically just liquid, same as if someone sprays you with a hose, you can use another hose to deflect the force of the incoming water. You will still get wet, but you can avoid most of the water pressure.
@@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681 That is not true, modern Russian ERA can reduce the penetrative power of APFSDS by up to 20%. It would also react regardless because the penetrator would create sparks as it went through the metal.
@@hedgehog3180 Not necessarily. ERA is designed not to ignite on just anything. Specifically the explosives are designed to explode on being hit by that superheated jet but remain inert even when the neighbouring block of ERA explodes.
Only the most modern kind of Russian ERA can reduce APFSDS effectiveness, not the ERA 1 kind that is most commonly used. Though ur absolutely right that there exists ERA that can reduce APFSDS effectiveness. Though it probably doesnt work exactly as shown right here.
Sundowner irl
We dont have that kind of technology in the Philippines but our army survived an RPG attack by covering the APC by woods! There's a UA-cam video about it.
@martydrooo Merk is slow, S Korean tank is about 2x the cost and unreliable, Leopard is a cheap alternative but not very survivable if penetrated, also has less upgrade potential. Only the Merkava is close to the M1's survivability.
Tanks are typically useless in urban combat. The Abrams is an exception to that; the TUSK II Abrams has done surprisingly well in urban combat. This is why it's going to be in service even though the US was about to get rid of it.
so why is this better than spaced armor? i may be green on that so like don't rape me
+Xsidon I guess you'd need a lot of (spaced or not) armor to stop the liquid copper jet - and as mentioned in the video at the end it would weigh (and probably also cost) much much more.
but spaced armor is designed to detonate the warhead and by the time the molten copper jet reaches the 2nd layer of armor it cools down in betwen them to a point where it is not capable of penetrating it
I believe I can explain why... It's because the solid (I'll get back to this later) copper jet is traveling so fast (Sometimes upwards of 2-3 miles/second, if it were to continue it's acceleration it would reach light speed in 1.5 seconds) that, due to the principle of "Hyper velocity" it acts like a liquid, and everything it hits starts to act like a liquid as well. At this high of a speed the armor physics start to break down... the jet of copper literally punches through steel like wet tissue paper.
+Xsidon because spaced armor only dissipates the steam somewhat because of the further distance it has to travel to hit the armor. The armor underneath still has to be somewhat thick to absorb the hit unless it's like an ancient weak RPG-7 PG-7V rocket . While ERA essentially prevents any armor from being hit and can stop the heavy punch of the powerful HEAT warheads from modern tanks and what not
+Xsidon Also the copper is not actually molten, it just acts like molten copper in a liquid manner because it is going so fast that the metal atoms can't hold themselves together like a solid anymore
Love the way they make it seem like the US came up with ERA as new tech when it was the soviets who came up with it in 1949.
How do they make it look like the US invented it?
Did they edit in duct tape ripping sound? 4:30
Ok Lets try putting it up against the newly made and improved German Leopard 2A7 MBT.
Give U.S.(my country) a run for there money. ;)
(American-German descent)me but cant complain.
this would be a Great and interesting show.
Holy shit why isnt this a feature in world of tanks
andrew decker Dumb@ss
***** World of Tanks is fun.
andrew decker Several factors, they didn't have this kind of anti tank weapons, their technology wasn't as advanced as ours now and their armor was very different from armor on modern tanks, even for modern standards the M1 abrams uses quite special armor "depleted uranium armor" but that's as far as my knowledge goes...
The developers of world of tanks said that they stopped making tanks at around the same time ERA was invented
+eddy Masson No, it was when smoothbores are into introduced. That's why the T-62A exist and the normal T-62 doesn't. T-62 has a 115mm smoothbore gun. Also, WoT has tanks pre-war, WWII, and post-war tanks so this technology doesn't exist.
I used the explosions to neutralize the explosions.
The amazing shape charge.
Useless tech anyways, a simple tandem RPG bypasses this garbage, time to develop something new there folks - not that this is new.
+sacr3 OK tank expert... UA-cam keyboard know it alls.
+Sinbreaker He is right though
Although I question the rather naive model used in this test (with a heavy vertical flyer plate in a static test), the result is certainly impressive. What irritates me is that, when I was a kid in the 80s, there was an awareness of ERA but never any really good explanations of why it worked. I suppose we were considered simple retards back then.
Anyhow, it's good to see armour technology keeping pace with projectiles when some voices have been suggesting for years that the race was lost and that tanks were history.
There is an asymmetry of cost and rate of design refresh that favors the antitank weapon. The tank is a million dollar vehicle that needs to stay in use for thirty years. It represents a "fixed target" and a comparatively cheap antitank rocket can always be engineered to penetrate it. It is cheaper and faster to design and build a new RPG than a new tank.
bcaulf I agree with your cost/benefit analysis re: ATGWs, which are heavier and more complex than RPGs, but still lightweight and inexpensive compared to MBTs. However, the experience of Challenger 2's armour package in Iraq vs RPGs would seem to confirm the effectiveness of contemporary first-line armour.
Actually, as a humourous aside, your comment reminded me of the words of Sir John Fox Burgoyne in 1860; "'I have no great confidence in iron-plated vessels. I think that improvements in artillery will go faster than improvements in fortifying the sides of ships." How prophetic his words were proved: one hundred years later, armoured fighting machines were phased out of the British RN.
ha ha ha, interesting bit of perspective
And now in 2022, tanks are indeed history, at least in urban combat against ATGMs.
I came here because of Bleach chapter 638. Lol
Twinflame Byond me too!!! lol
the first explosive was stuck to the piece of armor
the second explosive was kinda 20cm away from the plate and a lot of the energy from the copper jet was dissipated and sprayed on the plate... "SEE IT WORKS ! ! !" What a shame!.
An RPG explodes on impact not 1 meter away from the target.
Or maybe they were doing it for the MONEY! ???
The Singapore 🇸🇬 Military SAF and Mindef Must see this Actual Real video about Reactive Armour that Can protect Main Battle Tanks such as Leopard MBT M2A4 from Enemy Tank Rounds and certain Anti Tank Missiles seen on the Ongoing War between Russia 🇷🇺 against Ukraine 🇺🇦.
This explanation is bull st#t. I'm sure but this is not plausible. The description of a molten piece copper penetrating modern armour, which has to be, at most 129mm thick, hardened & modern, hits on the 10" slant.
10", that's close
of solid, hardened .
10", that's close (250mm panzer 5 type steel).? That is 2" under a Foot thick.
Perhaps I've got things wrong??, I do not want to miss lead..
Neither do I wish to see misdirection of others, get your ruler out & so your own calculations
I would like to help with designs... Take that design and place it into a smaller scale. So you can coat the whole take with the peice's. Also maybe a new texture to our tanks and other armored ground vehicles. Similar to the structural designs used on these new Ford, Nissan, Toyota, etc.
It's an X-in a Box sort of....and would all for placement of concentrated Extinguishing Elements as well.
Does this work with Depleted uranium High Velocity Sabot? Or Thermite Sabot?
+Katch Dance Some do, if they're good enough. The Soviets developed their own type of ERA called Kontakt 5 which was capable of defeating the American M829A1 APFSDS-T round. Kontakt 5 quickly lost relevance however, the M829A1 was quickly replaced with the M829A2 which was capable of defeating it. These rounds and armor were used a while ago though, today the Americans are using the super powerful M829E4 round and the Russians aren't really even bothering with ERA anymore.
+Mr556x45mm Relikt
Toma Chinelada Right, Relikt. Forgot about that. The M829E4 was introduced about a month or two after the Armata which uses Relikt, if I'm not mistaken.
+Toma Chinelada iirc the M829A4 is segmented and is specially designed to counter Relikt
Nope.. Only Chemical ammo.
Lol, not exactly a fair test, in the first instance, the shaped charge is right up against the 'armour' whereas in the test with the ERA, is is a couple of inches away. The shaped charge will have an optimal stand off distance (which is why rpgs have hollow noses). Moving the charge a few inches away will reduce the effect of the charge anyway.
ERA is much more effective with two plates at an angle anyway, like on the front/turret.
The sundowner boss fight in a nutshell
Like I said, Jack, kids are cruel, and I'm very in touch with my inner child
@@wicked_death2859 *[RED SUN INTENSIFIES]*
You aren't really even debating with me. You're just insulting me and posting a bunch of non sequiturs. You didn't even respond to what I said, that tandem rockets don't work against nonexplosive reactive armor. Also, destroying a tank is a LOT more difficult than shooting a guy. Tanks have escorts, boots on the ground, drones in the sky, helicopters scouting the area, all before they are even deployed. Not to mention even holding an RPG is a good way to get yourself shot.
the HMMWV is faster and still more maneuverable... the bushmaster weighs more, it is much taller making it easier to spot and a much easier target... a bushmaster was designed to take up to 9 men and all of there equipment, fuel, supplies for 3 days and take them right into the action... The HMMWV was designed primarily for personnel and light cargo transport behind front lines, not as a front line fighting vehicle, so I do not know why you are comparing the two...
Don`t tell bullshit! Good IED can destroy everything: any military vehicle, any tank.About 20 kg (44 pounds) of TNT is for any tank and then the details of the tank fly at 1 mile away. Noone created unconquerable tank yet. You should know for example, in the city a tank is easy target and it`s easy to destroy by everything. In real battlefield when enemies have modern weapons, the life of a tank is about 15 minutes.
@GAYAN89 well, in general, if you're not someone's enemy, and you can pay, you can buy their guns. Israel isn't backed by the US over the arabs because we like them, they're backed because they buy our guns and they have good credit! While I can't blame the Russians for selling guns, selling them to people who would inevitably turn on Russia is just silly. But we had to learn that one ourselves in the 80s.
@redreaper2020 Muslims don`t drink alcohol. Allah forbids,,,This is dirty policy, USA has sold arms to Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan when Russia has waged war with them. Russian has sold arms when States has waged war in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. But as I know USSR has sold arms to Iraq till 1980 when Iraqi-Iranian War has been begun. Iran has bought some military vehicles and anti aircraft systems till 2010
@quickzilver333 what? It adds protection. That's all it has to do. You can add spaced armor over some newer forms of ERA, but even with tandem charges, that charge will hit something. Besides which, many weapons are still single-charge, and it does have an effect against HEAT shells and even some longrod shots. In the simplest words, "can't hurt".
Just get out of here, I can already see the shitstorm in the comments you've left.
@quickzilver333 no i no im a tank mechanic, they just started puting v3 upgrades on the tanks now, the a3 is not even production, the a3 is going to be a huge overhaul and the army cant afford it right now so they are settling for a few upgrades here and then rather then spend billions on a total redesign
because hummers are useally used for scout and recon and need to be fast and manuverable as much... they do have armor on them but just because of the tires and engine you cannot have to much weight... they have much better vehicles for what you are talking about...
They'll need to add reactive armor plates behind the turret...
watch?v=fGd1Zjtvr8Y
They actually start adding reactive armor behind the turret? Add 2-4 guys with AK-74s with armor piercing rounds and then shoot the RPG with armor piercing incendiary.
@redreaper2020 Yes...It`s RPG-29 "Vampire and RPG-32 "Hashim''. RPG-29 were sold to Palestina. They`ve destroied many Merkava tanks. Some of that came to Iraq where insurgents were destroying some Abrams tanks. There are some videos of that in internet
the ERA has to be a low explosive. High explosive detonates, sending shockwaves throughout its surrounding medium. Low explosive deflagerates, similar to gunpowder, pushing the plate out.
THought i'd leave taht little tidbit there...
yea a IED does not have the piercing force that the warheads in this video have... IED are mainly used for say hummers and infantry... I have seen some videos tho from IED explosions so big that it could toss a tank
Send these tanks in Afghanistan! The graveyard of might so called rage and rouge dictatorial powers.
Send the tanks, we have our tech to test on your tanks!
what would happen if a car hits the tank from side in an accident?
7:58 dat name
@quickzilver333 of course composite will offer better protection. But not having a precursor round hitting at the same point as your main round is certainly not a bad thing. Duh.
This plays out like a Bosnian ape society video but it's fucking real lmao
gotta love this propaganda not like the tanks gonna get fucked over if a t90 gets to it you people need new tanks like come on its still using its first production hull thats insanely weak and the t64 upwards to the t90 can penetrate both turret cheeks and the lower hull
when the wind is slow, and the fires hot, the vulture waits to see what rots, oh how pretty, all the scenery, this is nature's sacrifice! when the air blows through, with a brisk attack, the reptile tail ripped from its back, when the sun sets, we will not forget the red sun over paradise
I call that, argument by adjective. Instead of actually refuting anything I say, you just dismiss it. Really juvenile actually, hardly dignifies a response. You bore me.
"fast and manuverable"... you will not get that from heavy armored vehicles that is why they used the hummer -_-; ... the hummer will protect them from bullets just fine...
BF3
soviets when they realize they dont get credit for making the original :
This is where you lack of reading comprehension comes in. This video is about reactive armor. That's what we're debating. Next time, read the video title maybe?
@quickzilver333 its not going to be an a3 just an a2 sep v3 just minor upgrades like a belly plate camera and a air conditioning system for the crew
Which is why I saw this tank got damage from anti tank missile, rpg rocket 🚀 launcher and more...
in the philippines we dont need scientist we only need carpenter to install wood frame for our tank!,RPG could not penetrate any wood frames!
/watch?v=u0hgGDrCO2Q&feature=relmfu
Did noone destroy Abrams tank? Even this hell IED? There were about 44 pounds of TNT or other....
~Continued:- And the transport jeeps in the middle east right now are mainly M998, it has a fully armored body with bullet resistant glass
a lot of people are saying how this is useless against tungsten dart rounds and tandem warheads and though that is true, I'd rather have reactive armour than no reactive armour
Anti tank missile = $100,000. Tank = $10,000,000, minimum. The missile will destroy the tank more times than not. The missile can be fired from pretty much any platform. Boat, airplane, helicopter, hand held devices, light vehicles, heavy vehicles. Destroying a tank on a modern battle field is trivial against any modern military force. Meaning USA, Russia, China, Isreal, Germany, England, France, et cetera. The tank is being phased out as we speak.
Well, this type of armor is defeating a complicated mechanism using a very simple, half assed mechanism. It only makes sense that this armor would be bested by an equally simple, equally half assed mechanism. It took the Russians like 1-2 years to invent these superior RPGs, and now the entire world uses them. They best essentially every type of reactive and active armor types. The age of the tank is basically over.
Uh, no. Few things wrong with that idea.
1) Tanks are rarely deployed in areas where there are known RPG threats. They make pretty damn sure the area is clear of those kind of threats before moving in a very valuable piece of equipment.
2) On the off chance the tank does take a hit, I'm guessing they'd get it the hell out of there before risking any more hits.
3) The RPG shooter would have to land a shot into the exact same 1x1 ft. area, which would be almost impossible.
@quickzilver333
Also the Abrams has been penetrated by enemy combatants. Again another fail on your parts. If you would simply utilize the internet to do some reading you can go ahead and figure that out yourself. I'll give you a clue since you might not be able to piece that last sentence together, google History of M1 Abrams, enjoy reading, if you can read that is. You might need someone to read it for you LOL!
@quickzilver333
I'm asking you to back up your point, cite your points. The Russians entered the first chechen war with only 230 tanks, and the chechens at the time had 50. The Chechens used Guerilla warfare, similar to what the Taliban are using against the USA in Afghanistan, if you know anything of warfare you will know that guerilla tactics are very effective. I've said it from the beginning, the Russians were barely ready, they didnt even have their ERA filled. You fail.
@acidburn134 LOL! You are asking me for a data and you write commenst on you tube. It's just shows how much effort you put in looking for information. The Chechen hunter killer team are ambushing the T-80s/T-72s in a narrow roads and streets. Therefore they were able to affectively attack the same spot with multiple RPGs. This is the same tactics that the Iraqi inssurgents use against the Abrams. The Abrams did well protecting it's crew. While the Russians are nice and crispy inside T-80s/T-72s!
@quickzilver333
They were unprepared, it doesn't matter how many tanks you have, if they are ill equipped there is going to be issues. You see they used ERA in the second war that's why you still haven't found me that data have you? Also they would have to hit the exact same spot multiple times for ERA to be ineffective. So again find me a document that states how many tanks Russians lost. I don't really think you can lol, there goes your whole fail argument.
@quickzilver333
If you had listened you would have known that most of the those reactive armor plates had no explosive charges in them, so learn about reactive armor and them main component in needs to be effect. Even an Abrams would go down in this situation. Where is that tank loss report? You still haven't found one. You are arguing yourself in a circle and your facts are incorrect, you can google it, I know you won't you don't seem that intelligent.
@quickzilver333
Of course the T-80s and T-72s are inferior to Abrams, the Abrams is better in just about every way because most Abrams are pretty up to date. The Abrams has reactive armor that works, the Russians didn't have that when they went in to Chechnya. Also where is the stats for tank losses can you find me those? Or are you just going to keep arguing in a circle, bring some real facts to the table. Again, learn about the wars in Chechnya, you seem clueless about them.
@acidburn134 It's simple Russian T-80s and T-72s are inferior. You were saying that if it was the Abrams during the Chechen war it would have the same result. "WRONG" The Abrams has taken multiple hits by RPGs, ATGMs and Shot at by Iraqi tanks. The Abrams were dissabled but "NO PENETRATION ALL THE WAY INSIDE THE CREW". The Abrams crew survived while the Russians in there mighty T-80s and T-72s are nice and crispy...LOL!
@acidburn134 The T-90 is not even battle tested. It's another claim from the Russians that they are superior just like what they said about the NON-EXPORT T-72s and T-80s. The Abrams is not the best tank in the world but it is battle tested and so far NO CREW WAS EVER LOST DUE TO ENEMY ATTACK WITH RPGs and ATGMS. The M1A3ABRAMS is coming out soon and far superior than any Russian tanks.
@acidburn134 LOL! The T72s and T80s with K3/K5ERA were also getting sliced open by Chechen Rebels. They would attack the ERA with multiple RPGs until the section is expose. ERA is obsolete a one hit wonder. The Chechen didn't have alot of tanks and the ones they have were Soviet made not Russian. The Chechen tank hunter killer team equiped with RPGs and anti-tank missiles are slicing open the might T-80s and T72s...LOL! Do your research again!...LOL!
@quickzilver333
The Gulf war was barely over a month long and it wasn't a type of conflict where the USA had to invade someone's homeland and held territory there. They did that in the Iraq war and that's the reason they lost tanks. You can do the research yourself on the Chechen war because it seems you are a bit misinformed. During the first war a lot of T72 had empty bricks which means their armor was pretty much ineffective.
@acidburn134 LOL! did you even bother to research of how much casualities has been inflicted by the Chechen rebels against the mighty Russian made T-72 and T-80?The M1A1 Abrams Armor during the 1st Gulfwar has never been penetrated by RPGs and ATGMs all the way through the crew compartment until now. IEDs and Snipers doesn't count.The Rusian T-80s and T-72s during the Chechen war in 96 is an upgraded version better armor better systems. Yet they were all slice like butter by the Chechen rebels.
@SilentEagles
The T90MS is one of the most armored tanks in the world, maybe you should do a little research and see what they did with the T90MS, they imported electronical systems from other countries but pretty much everything else is their design. If you think I'm lieing you can contact a man by the name of Viktor Ivanovich Murakhovsky. Also the Russians and the Chinese both have 5th gen jets.
@acidburn134
HA! T-90 tank best in the world? What a Joke! Nice tried fool the best tank in the world is the German Leopard 2A7. T-90MS in nothing new is just copying US/NATO tank back square turret. T-90MS is just garbage. T-90MS is using French Thermal Sight and Israeli Environmental control system. The M1A2 SEP TUSK can take out T-90MS. The Abrams tank go news weapons like XM1111 Mid Range Munition to defeat Active protection system like ARENA.
@Talshet K5ERA is worthless as a matter of fact ERA is worthless. It is a one hit wonder. Look at what happend to the Russian Tanks equipped with the K5ERA in Georgia vs Russian conflict. A bunch of them got destroyed during the initial phase of the conflict. These are NON- Export model Russian tanks also which they claim to have better armor than export models. T-90 is not even mass produce the main Russian Armor is T-72 and T-80. NATO has better defensive system for any hard or soft kill.
@thiagolck Kontakt-5 is obsolete now. Unsuprisingly, as it's 80's tech, and in fact M829A2 was developed to defeat it. To counter it Russians developed Kaktus and Relikt ERA, but never installed them on production grade vehicles, probably due to costs. In the meantime Americans developed M829A3, Germans DM-53, British L-28 etc.
@ThePerfectRed
ERA won't explode without enough physical force to ignite explosives inside, so MGs can't. As for autocannons it all depends on armors design.
So some guy thought "what if we blow up the explosions?"