timk@egvideo.uucp (Tim Kuehn) (01/25/89)
In article <3370@cbnews.ATT.COM> ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) writes: [much stuff deleted] > tanks get thicker armor - more standoff armor - and develop anti-anti-tank > missile tactics. ^^^^ This reminds me about an article I saw about a year ago about reactive armor for tanks which provided protection by producing a counter-explosive force against incoming missles. Basically all it was is a cover of explosive materials placed/hung over the outside of the tank. Could any of the netters out there comment on this? How effective is it? How could it be circumvented/defeated? +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Timothy D. Kuehn timk@egvideo | |TDK Consulting Services !watmath!egvideo!timk | |871 Victoria St. North, Suite 217A | |Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2B 3S4 (519)-741-3623 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
military@att.att.com (01/25/89)
timk@egvideo.uucp (Tim Kuehn) writes: >This reminds me about an article I saw about a year ago about reactive armor >for tanks which provided protection by producing a counter-explosive force >against incoming missles. Basically all it was is a cover of explosive >materials placed/hung over the outside of the tank. > >Could any of the netters out there comment on this? How effective is it? >How could it be circumvented/defeated? Reactive armor is currently in use with the Israeli Army who, I beleive, pioneered it's use, and with the Soviet Army (and, presumably, those it equips). The principle is intended to counter hollow charge (aka HEAT) projectiles, which compose nearly all lightweight antitank weapons and missiles (LAW, RPG, Sagger/TOW/Milan, Dragon, etc) and are also one sort of ammunition carried by tanks. The HEAT round works by detonating a conical or hemispherical "shaped charge" of explosives, with the open end of the sphere/cone pointed toward the armor. The hollow is lined with a thin layer of copper, which is compressed by the explosion into a thin stream of rapidly moving metal (very rapid; over 10000fps). This impacts the armor and penetrates, entering the tank with a shower of sparks and hot gases. Reactive armor attempts to defeat the shell by counter-exploding; this interferes with the formation of the copper slug, and taps off much of its velocity (at least, in theory). I cannot comment on its effectiveness; I don't know. But the Soviets have fitted all of their first-line tanks with brackets for reactive armor (the armor itself, being explosive, is somewhat dangerous for peacetime use), so they seem convinced. If it works, we could suddenly find our TOW and Dragon missiles, vital for our antitank defense, virtually useless. The best way I can think of to circumvent this armor would be to shower the vehicle with small HE charges to detonate all the reactive armor before attempting to engage with HEAT warheads. I have heard, though, of plans to redesign the TOW with increased standoff (i.e., the missile has a long "probe" in the nose, to detonate it further away from the armor) to enhance penetration against reactive armor. Finally, reactive armor offers virtually no added protection versus kinetic energy penetrators (APDSFS, etc). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu