ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

User avatar
SaitoHawkeye
First Sergeant
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon 18 Mar 2013 14:39
Contact:

ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby SaitoHawkeye » Thu 2 May 2013 13:40

Hey,

So I see a lot of discussion about the Soviet Union's infamous Kontakt-5 ERA here, which according to many citations rendered an old T-72 impenetrable to modern NATO armaments. In general, our national tank doctrine didn't call for much/any ERA so I don't know too much about it.

One thing I wonder - how does the 'brick' system work? I expected to find a youtube video or something but could not. Basically the question is - when an APFSDS or HEAT round hits an ERA-protected portion of the tank - as seen below - how many of the 'bricks' detonate? One, or two, or all of them? Does it depend on angle of the hit?

Image

Presumably a hit on the glacis will not detonate the turret ERA. But it also seems unlikely that each successful hit detonates just a single brick.

And then - can the tank crew replace their own ERA bricks, or does this require a specialized maintenance team.

It would be interesting to model this in game - perhaps units bearing ERA are impervious to the first significant AP shot in every instance, but not thereafter. Actually, Battlefield 3 models this nicely - if you select Reactive Armor specialization, you shrug off the first tank hit but an engineer can repair your tank and add back on.

Perhaps it could even be a munition - ERA plates left on the tank.

Anyway I'm sure someone with more knowledge of Soviet tank doctrine will be along to correct me sooN! :mrgreen:
Image

Literally Hilter
Corporal
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon 1 Apr 2013 13:35

Re: ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby Literally Hilter » Thu 2 May 2013 13:47

I won't answer your question, but add a few other dimensions.

ERA Bricks can sometimes come away when tanks encounter rough terrain, particularly driving through structures and dense hedgerows - not unlike the armour skirting of Panzer IV's coming away in the Bocage. You can find Syrian tank commanders complaining in interviews. about how the armour on their sides often is stripped in the urban environment because of weak fastenings. I don't propose this should be included in the game, I just mention it in passing.

I would also add that ERA explosions have the potential to kill and maim those closeby.


User avatar
SaitoHawkeye
First Sergeant
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon 18 Mar 2013 14:39
Contact:

Re: ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby SaitoHawkeye » Thu 2 May 2013 15:22

Romiros wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t459NbF5Vek#t=90s


Interesting! Clearly it's very effective stuff. Unfortunately, he didn't lay several bricks next to each other - I wonder if he'd shot at, say, a 5x5 matrix, how many of the plates would have gone off?
Image

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby ikalugin » Thu 2 May 2013 17:54

In game ERA (or even difference between the KE and CE protection, turret and hull protection) is not modeled.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

User avatar
Azaz3l
Brigadier
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat 1 Oct 2011 10:38
Location: Bus 410
Contact:

Re: ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby Azaz3l » Thu 2 May 2013 18:00

Romiros wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t459NbF5Vek#t=90s

That rather shows how the old Kontakt-1 works exept that it had 2 layers of explosives in one box.

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/kontakt5_.files/image001.gif

Kontakt-5 box on the other hand has a steel plate sandwiched between 2 explosive layers. When a stream from a shaped charge or a penetrator rod hits this "box", the first explosive layer goes off triggering after that the second one behind the steel plate; that creates a force that pushes the steel plate against the penetrator rod/stream decreasing its effectiveness. These boxes are placed with an angle and not perpendicularly, that grants the steel plate to either deflect the incoming penetrator (mostly APFSDS rods) either decrease it's effectiveness even more.
Image

User avatar
chrisnz
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Sep 2012 09:18
Contact:

Re: ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby chrisnz » Fri 3 May 2013 03:21

So the itow just uses its probe to detonate k1 brick before the main body comes in contact to send the heat warhead in?
"I ask her is it true and she sais like a horse shoe."

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby ikalugin » Fri 3 May 2013 04:18

chrisnz wrote:So the itow just uses its probe to detonate k1 brick before the main body comes in contact to send the heat warhead in?

Rather it detonates at a standoff range for a better focus distance.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

User avatar
trotskygrad
General
Posts: 6444
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 16:09
Location: две тысячи лет война
Contact:

Re: ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby trotskygrad » Fri 3 May 2013 06:08

standoff distance is the same reason why spaced armor skirts on panzer III/IV MAY have made Bazooka, etc more deadly to them :?
NEXT TIME I SEE A DAMN FLAMEWAR INVOLVING DARTH-LAMPSHADE, FROSTPOOKY, LONERIFLE, FADE2GRAY, TROTSKYGRAD AND/OR ANYONE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM I'M GOING TO HAND OUT BANS TO ANYONE USING ANYTHING LOOKING REMOTELY LIKE AN AD-HOMINEM

User avatar
urielventis
Sergeant Major
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 08:34
Location: Equestria/Region parisienne
Contact:

Re: ERA & Kontakt-5 - functionality question

Postby urielventis » Sat 4 May 2013 16:07

The canon fired missile of russian tank use shaped charge to penetrate armor, but reactive armor was less efficient against them because of the missile being build to withstand much larger pressure in the barrel of the gun.
So the missile casing hit the reactive brick and shatter it before the shaped charge (at the back of the missile for stand-off distance) ignite. An interesting side effect of a weapons conception.
ImageImage

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests