Harckocsi páncélok és lőszerek

[krisss]

Polish armor of tanks and combat vehicles [ANALYSIS]​

https://defence24.pl/strona-autora/damian-ratka
A little-known fact, also in Poland, are national achievements in the field of ballistic shields for military vehicles. In this article, we will try to present Polish solutions in this specialized industry.

​

Many Polish solutions in the field of ballistic shields have been developed by a team led by prof. dr hab. Eng. Adam Wiśniewski at the Military Institute of Armament Technology.
WITU employees have created many different solutions, often very innovative for their times.

ERAWA-1
Let's start with the most famous achievement of our designers, which is the ERAWA ("Explosive Reactive Armor Wiśniewski Adam") family.

​

Work on the ERAWA shields began in the second half of the 1980s at the Military Institute of Armament Technology. These solutions were developed with the aim of modernizing the tanks in the Polish Armed Forces at that time, mainly of the T-72 family.
The first variant of the new ERAWA-1 shield was installed on the experimental T-72M2D Wilk, which can be considered one of the prototypes of the later PT-91 Twardy. ERAWA-1 is characterized by modules in the form of cassettes with dimensions of 150x150x26 mm and a weight of 2.9 kg.


The cassettes are bolted to brackets, which in turn are welded to the vehicle shell. In total, there were 394 ERAWA-1 modules on the tank, of which the front of the hull was protected by 118 cassettes, the turret by 108, and 84 cubes on the side skirts. The total weight of this set is 1144 kg. This is the so-called the first generation of reactive armor straight from WITU.
The module (cassette) is made of armored steel filled with explosives (TNT or TNT-hexogen). From the outside, the latter was covered with a plate made of armor steel of high hardness (about 500 BHN) and 6 mm thick.

​

During the tests, it turned out that ERAWA-1 can significantly reduce the possibility of penetrating homogeneous armor made of rolled steel. In the case of HEAT warheads of the PG-7 and PG-9 (RPG-7) types, the ability to perforate was reduced by 92%, in the 9M113 (Competition ATGM) - by 83%, and in the 3BK14M (125 mm tank shell) - by 94% .

ERAWA-1 modules do not detonate when hit by armor-piercing rounds fired from heavy machine guns, such as the common 14.5mm machine gun, artillery ammunition fragments, and munitions incendiaries such as napalm, thermite, or burning fuel.

It should be remembered that the ERAWA-1 does not provide protection against tandem HEAT warheads and kinetic armor-piercing ammunition such as APFSDS tank ammunition ("Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot").
ERAWA-2

These shortcomings were addressed with the introduction of an improved variant, which was named ERAWA-2. The dimensions of the ERAWA-2 cube are 150x150x46 mm, and the weight is 4.7 kg. The cassette has a sandwich construction. Beneath the layer of TNT or TNT-hexogen is a thin plate of high-hardness steel, under which another layer of explosive is placed, and on the bottom there is a plate of armor steel that closes the case.

ERAWA-2 cubes are mounted to the vehicle similarly to ERAWA-1. Over time, a new, modular assembly solution was introduced that allows for more efficient replacement of used cartridges.

204 ERAWA-1 and 92 ERAWA-2 modules were installed on PT-91 tanks. The whole has a mass of about 2014 kg. This variant is referred to as the second generation. There is also a third generation with a different mounting system. This system consists of 164 ERAWA-1 and 92 ERAWA-2 cassettes with a total weight of approximately 907 kg. This variant is mainly found on PT-91M Pendekar tanks for Malaysia.

​

As for the protective properties against single HEAT warheads such as 9M111 (Fagot ATGM), 9M113 (Competition ATGM) and 3BK14M (125mm tank round), the reduction in the penetrating ability of the HEAT jet is about 95%. In the case of explosively formed penetrators (EFP, "Explosively Formed Penetrator"), the reduction of the potential for armor perforation is 94%.

Against tandem HEAT warheads like the IT600 from the Panzerfaust grenade launcher, 3 ERAWA-2 modules reduce the armor penetration ability by about 50%. This is a very good result. The results of the ERAWA-2 armor tests were a surprise to the manufacturer of the grenade launcher, the German company Dynamit Nobel.

When it comes to protection against kinetic rounds, such as the aforementioned APFSDS, a lot depends on what type of ammunition is used. During the tests, the basic type of 125 mm APFSDS ammunition - 3BM15 - was used in the Polish Army. Its armor perforation potential was reduced by the ERAWA-2 modules by about 57%. This is a very good result, but mainly due to the fact that the 3BM15 is an obsolete ammunition.

Unfortunately, we do not know the ability to reduce penetration by more modern types of kinetic rounds, although ERAWA-2 modules were tested against the 120 mm DM33A1 ammunition. The German shell was unable to penetrate the T-72/PT-91 model of the frontal hull protected by the ERAWA-2. On this basis, it can be estimated that the offered level of penetration reduction of this type of ammunition is in the range of about 30-40%.

ERAWA-2 is certainly not able to provide sufficient protection against modern APFSDS ammunition, such as American M829A2, A3 and A4 with a depleted uranium core, German DM53, DM63, DM73 made of tungsten sinters, technically similar K279 and K279i from the Republic of Korea, or more modern Russian types, including the 3BM42, 3BM48, 3BM59 or 3BM60.

ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 cassettes were also covered with a 4 mm layer of radar wave absorber marked 1K2KS, and in the second variant 1KF2KS. These can absorb waves in the X and Ku bands with a frequency of 8-16 GHz, thanks to which the detection range of a vehicle protected in this way is reduced by about 50-60%.

Pangolin

During the International Defense Industry Exhibition in 2022, WITU presented the successor to the ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 explosive reactive armor. The new product was baptized in English as Pangolin. In Polish, it is a pangolin, a type of African mammal that is distinguished by tile-shaped scales covering the body. In this context, the name seems more than apt.

In general, the modules and cartridges of the Pangolin explosive reactive armor have dimensions practically identical to those in the ERAWA-2. The exception is the thickness, which in various variants of Pangolin can be 52 mm or 92 mm.

Another difference is the modular design of the cassettes. This means that in the case of the variants presented by the Military Institute of Technology during MSPO 2022, initially marked as model 1 and model 2, various basic armor protection solutions can be used.

The Model 1 has a single reactive layer containing 750 grams of explosive and a total mass of approximately 4 kg. Model 2, on the other hand, received two reactive layers, with an explosive with a total weight of about 1.5 kg, and the weight of the complete module is about 5.8 kg.

Thanks to the aforementioned modular construction of the cartridges, various fillings can be used, not only in the form of explosive reactive armor, but also, for example, passive steel-ceramic armor or a combination of many solutions.
What's more, Pangolin cassettes can directly replace ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 cassettes due to identical mounting points. They can also be combined to form a multi-layer reactive or passive shield, depending on the solutions used.

For the presentation during MSPO 2022, Pangolin successfully passed static tests. Dynamic tests were also planned. Unfortunately, little is currently known about this extremely promising solution.

 

[krisss]

CERAWA-1

Since the ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 explosive reactive armor cannot be used to protect light armored vehicles due to their weight, an alternative had to be found, especially due to the fact that the BWP-1 and BWP infantry fighting vehicles used in the Polish Armed Forces -2 have an insufficient level of armor protection.
WITU developed a new solution in the form of a passive-reactive shield, which was named CERAWA-1. The explosive used in this solution was to be identical to that in the ERAWA shields, but it was covered not with a steel plate, but with a layer of ceramics. This made the cassette lighter.



The dimensions of CERAWA-1 cassettes are 306x156x44 mm. The weight of the module with the mounting frame is 12.5 kg. CERAWA-1 is primarily intended to provide a high level of protection against 12.7 mm and 14.5 mm armor-piercing ammunition and PG-7 HEAT grenades, capable of penetrating approximately 260-300 mm of homogeneous rolled steel armour.
In addition, the CERAWA-1 is to make the vehicle immune to 23 mm armor-piercing rounds with a penetration capacity of approximately 30 mm of homogeneous steel armor, and against EFP charges that would penetrate 100 mm of armor.

​

CERAWA-1 was presented for the first time during MSPO 1995 on a modernized BWP-1 marked as BWP-95. There are a total of 72 CERAWA-1 modules with a total weight of about 900 kg on the vehicle.
CERAWA-1 was a prospective solution with high development potential as a cover for various types of lighter vehicles. This concerned not only the BWP-1, but also the Rosomak wheeled armored personnel carriers or self-propelled howitzers.

​

A development of CERAWA-1 in the form of CERAWA-2 and CERAWA-3 shields was also developed. The CERAWA-2 is designed to make the vehicle immune to penetration by 25 mm armor-piercing rounds, while the ability to protect against HEAT warheads and EFP charges is identical to the CERAWA-1 shield.
The CERAWA-3 is to provide protection against 30 mm caliber armor-piercing ammunition with a penetration of approximately 50 mm of steel armor, as well as the same resistance to HEAT warheads and EFP charges as CERAWA-1 and CERAWA-2.

CAWA-1
A family of composite passive armor based on ballistic ceramics has also been developed in Poland. The first such solution is CAWA-1. The purpose of this cover was to provide the appropriate level of resistance to lightly armored vehicles.



The CAWA-1 was to provide protection against 14.5 mm armor-piercing rounds at a distance of about 100-200 m and to protect the vehicle against incendiary agents. It is also possible to combine the CAWA-1 shield with other solutions, e.g. ERAWA-1 and 2. The designers have optimized the armor to facilitate serial production.
A variant designated as CAWA-1NA was also developed, which was to act as additional armor for objects without protection, e.g. containers adapted for outposts, buildings, civilian vehicles and helicopters. The CAWA-1NA protects against 7.62 mm and 12.7 mm armor-piercing rounds.

CAWA-2
The next stage of work was the development of composite armor based on ballistic ceramics. This time, the new design was intended for armoring MBTs and other heavily armored combat vehicles.

CAWA-2 is based on several planes of ballistic ceramics, which are placed between at least two layers of homogeneous armor steel. It was planned to use this system in the PT-97 tank, which was a further evolution of the PT-91. The successor of Twardy was to receive a new turret made of rolled armor plates.

​

Although the PT-97 was never built, prototypes of the CAWA-2 armor were tested in a configuration very similar to the frontal armor of the T-72M1 tank. The spatial arrangement of the trial solution consisted of: outer plates made of armor steel with a thickness of 60 mm, inner plates made of armor steel with a thickness of 50 mm, and six layers of ballistic ceramics with a total thickness of 120 mm between them. The thickness of the complete system was therefore 230 mm.

During testing, it was set at an angle of about 60 degrees. This means that the effective thickness of such a system is 460 mm. It should be remembered that this setting was adopted due to the desire to increase the credibility of the research. In tanks of the T-72 family, the front armor is sloped at an angle of 68 degrees, which would give an effective thickness of about 613 mm.

• 
  

The CAWA-2 armor was required, among other things, to protect against APFSDS armor-piercing tank ammunition with the ability to penetrate about 550 mm of homogeneous rolled steel armor. For the times when the CAWA-2 armor was being developed, achieving such parameters would put it at the forefront of the world.

Three configurations of the CAWA-2 armor were tested, most likely using Israeli 125 mm APFSDS M711 ammunition, known in Poland as Ryś. Its perforation capacity oscillates around 550 mm of homogeneous rolled steel armour.

​

In the case of model no. 1 the depth of the crater in the steel plate protected by the CAWA-2 armor was about 125 mm. In variant no. 2 it was 15 mm, and in variant no. 3 30mm. However, keep in mind that models were tested that may not necessarily reflect the final product. There is no doubt that in a consistently implemented, long-term research and development project, the cover would see further evolutions.



The CAWA-2 armor proved to have great potential. Placing it in much larger composite armor chambers, such as Western MBTs, where the total thickness of the system is often between 400mm and 1000mm (depending on the location), could achieve far better results in terms of ballistic protection, for a level close to the world's best constructions.
Today, there is also a large development potential for domestic armor for main battle tanks and vehicles with a similar level of protection. On the basis of the knowledge gained in the work on the CAWA-2 shield, it is possible to start research on a more modern, more effective solution.

CAWA-3 and CAWA-4
As part of the research and development project "Passive protection of mobile objects (air and land) against the impact of AP missiles", implemented in 2010-2012 by the scientific and industrial consortium PANCERMET composed of: Motor Transport Institute, Military University of Technology, Aviation Institute, Foundry Research Institute , Warsaw University of Technology, Air Force Institute of Technology, Military Institute of Armament Technology, Institute of Fundamental Technological Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences, AMZ-KUTNO Sp. z o. o. and AUTOSAN SA, three more passive shields based on ballistic ceramics were developed. They were designated as CAWA-3, CAWA-3+ and CAWA-4.


CAWA-3 is to provide level III protection according to the STANAG 4569 standard, i.e. against 7.62 mm armor-piercing ammunition. The CAWA-3+, on the other hand, is to protect at level III+ under the same standard, i.e. against 12.7 mm AP rounds. The most effective CAWA-4 reaches Tier IV, so it will protect the vehicle against 14.5mm AP rounds.
The CAWA-3 and CAWA-4 armours are characterized by a modular design, allowing for quick assembly or disassembly on various types of platforms: from light land vehicles, through containers, to more unusual applications, such as ballistic protection for helicopters. It can be said that the CAWA-3 and CAWA-4 armors are the direct successors of the CAWA-1 and CAWA-1NA shields.

IMMA Integrated Multi-Purpose Modular Armour
Lubawa SA has developed its own patent in the form of the Integrated Multispectral Modular Armour, code-named IMMA (Integrated Multispectral Modular Armor). The main element of this solution are the panels, which consist of two elements.

​

• 
  Lubawa presented IMMA modular armor. Integrated vehicle protection system at MSPO

The lower part of the composite consists of a ballistic shield that protects against projectiles and shrapnel generated during the explosion. The top layer, on the other hand, is camouflage, reducing the thermal spectrum by about 85%. It also provides two-way radar attenuation up to 20 dB, as well as effective masking in visible light and night vision. Publicly available information shows that IMMA components can provide protection up to level IV according to STANAG 4569.
The Lubawa Group also offers other solutions, including light modular armor developed within the framework of the National Center for Research and Development (the project was implemented in 2013-2017, led by the Institute of Non-Ferrous Metals) and protection systems for optoelectronic modules, also providing protection up to level IV according to STANAG 4569. It is worth noting that Lubawa's additional armor elements, integrated with mobile camouflage, found an export customer - Finland, which implemented them on modernized BMP-2s.

Summary
As you can see, Polish science has great achievements in the field of developing ballistic shields for various applications. This is a huge potential, which, unfortunately, often remains untapped in the domestic industry and the Armed Forces.

However, it should be remembered that the acquired knowledge does not have to be in vain. It can be used for further work, although the assumption should be to strive to implement native solutions.

 

[krisss]

The potential use of these measures is not limited to the Rosomak wheeled armored personnel carriers, Borsuk infantry fighting vehicles and the like. Many of the above patents could effectively increase the level of protection of self-propelled howitzers, such as Kraba and K9. This applies in particular to counteracting the threat posed by loitering munitions, which in the conflict in Ukraine is one of the most effective ways to neutralize enemy artillery.

The potential development variant of the CAWA-2 armor could also be used in main battle tanks as a replacement for foreign solutions. Since modern Western machines have armor of a modular construction, the introduction of domestic solutions in this field is quite possible.

Of course, the implementation of domestic ballistic shields would also require investment in the industrial base, especially in the case of CAWA and CERAWA armours, in order to build the capacity for large-scale industrial production of suitable ballistic ceramics.

Similarly, investment should be made in the development of Pangolin explosive reactive armour, which would allow for strengthening the protection of armored vehicles of various types against HEAT warheads. What's more, Pangolin could also become an attractive export product for various countries wishing to strengthen the protection of their armored vehicles in a cheap and simple way. At this point, again, attention should be paid to the information coming from Ukraine.

Of course, the above-mentioned solutions are only a few selected ones that are best described in the sources. Other types of armor were also developed, which unfortunately have not been extensively mentioned in the literature on the subject. One of such examples is the NERA armor (Non Energetic Reactive Armor) developed in Poland.

Ballistic shields are one of those areas worth investing in. The same should be true of active defense systems. Also in this field, Polish engineers have some achievements. There are solutions such as: WPL-1 Bobrawa, SSP-1 Obra-3, the development of the latter, i.e. Obra++, as well as the experimental "Hard Kill" ZASOP (Integrated Active Vehicle Defense System) active defense system. Work on the latter was most likely discontinued despite the promising results of initial tests.

 

[fip7]

Ha Kriss írását valaki ki szeretné egészíteni képekkel is:

Polish Explosive reactive armor: ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2

 

[LMzek 2.0]

Ha Kriss írását valaki ki szeretné egészíteni képekkel is:

Polish Explosive reactive armor: ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2

Pár hete volt egy viszonylag részletes leírás sok (félbemaradt/be-nem vezetett) hazai fejlesztésű haditechnikáról, köztük egy hazai ERA-ról is.
Nem raksz össze esetleg egy összehasonlítást ezzekkel az elég jól dokumentált (...és akár "koppintható"/"ihlet-adó" ) ERAWA változatokkal? ... ???

.

 

[bel]

egy hazai ERA-ról is.

Szia,

Legalabb 2 volt (vekony es vastag).

 

[fip7]

Pár hete volt egy viszonylag részletes leírás sok (félbemaradt/be-nem vezetett) hazai fejlesztésű haditechnikáról, köztük egy hazai ERA-ról is.
Nem raksz össze esetleg egy összehasonlítást ezzekkel az elég jól dokumentált (...és akár "koppintható"/"ihlet-adó" ) ERAWA változatokkal? ... ???

.

Ezzel kettő bajom van:
1. A legutóbbi írásom sem jelent meg, illetve másé sem. (Legalább pogánynak sikerült) Vagyis a cikk írásnak nem látom értelmét.
2. A magyar ERA fejlesztéssel nem igazán vagyok tisztában. A külföldieket össze tudnám hasonlítani, de kb. ugyan azt tudják, adott generációban, adott könnyű/nehéz kiépítésben.
+1: Elvi síkon táblázatban sok mindent össze lehet foglalni. Az ERA az pont nem ez a kategória. Legalábbis nagyon számít, hogy melyik ERA-t mi találja el. Meg ugye vannak a "legenda" gyártások az ERA gyártók és a fegyver gyártók részéről is.
Jó példa erre a linkelt lengyel weboldalon a tandem fejes PZF-3 tesztje.
A németek úgy mentek oda, hogy "nah, majd én most megmutatom a világnak"
Állították simán legyőzni a PZF-3 az ERA-t, mert a németek németesen kiszámolták. Azt a valóságban meg a második töltet erejének nagy részét is megette a lengyel ERA...
És számtalan ilyen példa van vica-versa.

Majd meglátom mi legyen. Lehet csak generációkat mutatnék inkább be. Csak hát ezt se nagyon érdemes, mert úgy is lesz aki szerint nem úgy van, mert van linkje egy ukrán laposföldeshez aki szerint az XY ERA szar, de a tök ugyan úgy működő, de más ország által gyártott meg nem.... Most per pill kicsit fáradt vagyok ehhez, aztán majd meglátjuk mi legyen.
Maga a téma felvetés, mint reaktív páncélok eléggé érdekes.
Például össze lehetne vonni a NERA-val is. Műanyag betétes, gumi betétes, robbanó szerrel vegyített gumi betétes, a "BDD" fém-polimer-fém blokk működése, a lencsés polimer NERA működése stb....
Aztán a köztes megoldások, az önkorlátozó reaktív páncélok, amik szilárd rakéta üzemanyagot használnak, a több lépcsős modern ERA-k , mint a relikt, az EFP alapú ERA-k, mint az ukrán "kés" stb...
Óriási nagy, nagyon érdekes témakör, szerintem.

 

[LMzek 2.0]

Ezzel kettő bajom van:
1. A legutóbbi írásom sem jelent meg, illetve másé sem. (Legalább pogánynak sikerült) Vagyis a cikk írásnak nem látom értelmét.
2. A magyar ERA fejlesztéssel nem igazán vagyok tisztában. A külföldieket össze tudnám hasonlítani, de kb. ugyan azt tudják, adott generációban, adott könnyű/nehéz kiépítésben.
+1: Elvi síkon táblázatban sok mindent össze lehet foglalni. Az ERA az pont nem ez a kategória. Legalábbis nagyon számít, hogy melyik ERA-t mi találja el. Meg ugye vannak a "legenda" gyártások az ERA gyártók és a fegyver gyártók részéről is.
Jó példa erre a linkelt lengyel weboldalon a tandem fejes PZF-3 tesztje.
A németek úgy mentek oda, hogy "nah, majd én most megmutatom a világnak"
Állították simán legyőzni a PZF-3 az ERA-t, mert a németek németesen kiszámolták. Azt a valóságban meg a második töltet erejének nagy részét is megette a lengyel ERA...
És számtalan ilyen példa van vica-versa.

Majd meglátom mi legyen. Lehet csak generációkat mutatnék inkább be. Csak hát ezt se nagyon érdemes, mert úgy is lesz aki szerint nem úgy van, mert van linkje egy ukrán laposföldeshez aki szerint az XY ERA szar, de a tök ugyan úgy működő, de más ország által gyártott meg nem.... Most per pill kicsit fáradt vagyok ehhez, aztán majd meglátjuk mi legyen.
Maga a téma felvetés, mint reaktív páncélok eléggé érdekes.
Például össze lehetne vonni a NERA-val is. Műanyag betétes, gumi betétes, robbanó szerrel vegyített gumi betétes, a "BDD" fém-polimer-fém blokk működése, a lencsés polimer NERA működése stb....
Aztán a köztes megoldások, az önkorlátozó reaktív páncélok, amik szilárd rakéta üzemanyagot használnak, a több lépcsős modern ERA-k , mint a relikt, az EFP alapú ERA-k, mint az ukrán "kés" stb...
Óriási nagy, nagyon érdekes témakör, szerintem.

A mivel a jelenlegi gondok sokadszorra nem lettek megoldva, megoldás "egyszerű":
Csinálni kell egy haditechnikai fórumot! +

A helyzet hasonlít egy "másikhoz", ahol szintén a visszájára fordult a helyzet, mert nincs a jó értelembe vett valódi konkurencia/alternatíva/verseny ezen(azon) a területen se!
Érdekes folyamatokat és érdekeket konteózok az események hátterébe.

Szívem szerint lenne helye ezen a szakterületen (is) egy külföldi szerveren lévő --biztos-ami-biztos--, magyar nyelvű fórumnak a 2+ évvel ezelőtti HTKA-t mintának véve. Más területen is van magyar érdekeket figyelő külföldi szerveres média, elkerülve ezzel --amennyire lehet-- mindkét oldal befolyásolását.
Khmmm...

Spoiler: U.I.:

.

...vagy visszatérni a korábbi --jól működő-- elvekhez és gyakorlathoz, a jelenlegi (média-)helyzethez igazítva azt!

.

Ez saját vélemény!

.

 

[LMzek 2.0]

Ezzel kettő bajom van:
1. A legutóbbi írásom sem jelent meg, illetve másé sem. (Legalább pogánynak sikerült) Vagyis a cikk írásnak nem látom értelmét.
2. A magyar ERA fejlesztéssel nem igazán vagyok tisztában. A külföldieket össze tudnám hasonlítani, de kb. ugyan azt tudják, adott generációban, adott könnyű/nehéz kiépítésben.
+1: Elvi síkon táblázatban sok mindent össze lehet foglalni. Az ERA az pont nem ez a kategória. Legalábbis nagyon számít, hogy melyik ERA-t mi találja el. Meg ugye vannak a "legenda" gyártások az ERA gyártók és a fegyver gyártók részéről is.
Jó példa erre a linkelt lengyel weboldalon a tandem fejes PZF-3 tesztje.
A németek úgy mentek oda, hogy "nah, majd én most megmutatom a világnak"
Állították simán legyőzni a PZF-3 az ERA-t, mert a németek németesen kiszámolták. Azt a valóságban meg a második töltet erejének nagy részét is megette a lengyel ERA...
És számtalan ilyen példa van vica-versa.

Majd meglátom mi legyen. Lehet csak generációkat mutatnék inkább be. Csak hát ezt se nagyon érdemes, mert úgy is lesz aki szerint nem úgy van, mert van linkje egy ukrán laposföldeshez aki szerint az XY ERA szar, de a tök ugyan úgy működő, de más ország által gyártott meg nem.... Most per pill kicsit fáradt vagyok ehhez, aztán majd meglátjuk mi legyen.
Maga a téma felvetés, mint reaktív páncélok eléggé érdekes.
Például össze lehetne vonni a NERA-val is. Műanyag betétes, gumi betétes, robbanó szerrel vegyített gumi betétes, a "BDD" fém-polimer-fém blokk működése, a lencsés polimer NERA működése stb....
Aztán a köztes megoldások, az önkorlátozó reaktív páncélok, amik szilárd rakéta üzemanyagot használnak, a több lépcsős modern ERA-k , mint a relikt, az EFP alapú ERA-k, mint az ukrán "kés" stb...
Óriási nagy, nagyon érdekes témakör, szerintem.

... + + + !

.

 

[fip7]

Csinálni kell egy haditechnikai fórumot!

Szerintem alapvetően ez egy jó fórum. Az oldal üzemeltetőinek meg joga van azt kitenni amit akarnak.
Csak így meg fölöslegesen nem dolgozik senki. Röviden ennyi a véleményem

 

[krisss]

Tank inflation. Why are tanks getting more expensive? [ANALYSIS]​

The huge purchases of tanks that Poland has been making recently are associated with significant costs, which sometimes provokes a heated discussion. However, when we compare them with the amounts that other countries spend on armored equipment, it turns out that it was cheap... already. It is worth explaining why this is so.

Main battle tanks are one of the most important directions of purchases of military equipment and armament by Poland. After handing over about 300 vehicles to Ukraine (the vast majority of which are T-72s, but small batches of Twardy and Leopard vehicles have also been delivered), it becomes necessary to urgently replenish the stocks. Not to mention the fact that the cars owned by Poland are mostly obsolete and not prospective.
Increasing the numerical potential in the heavy component is particularly important because allied European countries, including France, Great Britain and Germany, have carried out deep cuts in this area in the last two decades, and they are not in a hurry to rebuild it. They justify it in part by the fact that tanks are difficult to move to a threatened area in a short time, so they prefer to invest in "medium forces" on wheeled armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. Another argument is that purchases are needed (also) elsewhere, for example in the area of ground air defense, combat aviation, as well as support for space forces or the navy.


on the other hand, there is no doubt that modern tanks are needed when observing the course of the war in Ukraine. Although ZSU uses, for example, unmanned systems and the latest anti-tank agents on a large, even unprecedented scale, it is no coincidence that modern tanks - next to medium and short-range air defense systems, barrel and rocket artillery and fighters - are at the top of the list of weapons that Kiev is seeking.
Without heavy equipment, it is simply impossible to conduct effective joint operations in the Central and Eastern European environment, especially in a high-intensity conflict against a large Russian army. Of course, the mere possession of cars is only one element of this equation, and at the same time "a necessary condition, but not exhaustive of the subject", but it is a contribution to another analysis.

However, there is no doubt that in recent years tanks... have become much more expensive. And this applies not only to Polish purchases, but to all such contracts in general, including used equipment. Let's give some examples.

Tanks today - in Poland​

In the last several months, Poland has signed three contracts for the purchase of armored equipment. 250 M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 tanks in a configuration adapted to the requirements of the Polish Armed Forces, along with technical recovery vehicles and self-propelled bridges, a package of support for operation and training, and ammunition, is to cost USD 4.74 billion .

Poland pays PLN 3.43 billion for 180 South Korean K2s, retrofitted with domestic communications, with an operation support package, simulators and ammunition. On the other hand, 116 older M1A1 Abrams, with zero service life, technical support vehicles and bridges, as well as training and support packages (some elements of support for the entire Polish Abrams fleet), amount to 1.4 billion, of which approximately 200 million is covered by American funds.

This list directly shows that the cost of a single tank, if we take into account the supply of ammunition, parts, support elements, is ... several million dollars. At first glance, that seems like a lot. So what is the situation in other countries?

Allied countries​

It can be said ironically that "luckily" several allied countries decided to buy tanks, so we have material for comparison. And so, Norway pays 19.7 billion crowns, or 1.84 billion dollars , for the Leopard 2A7NO, including ammunition, operational support, etc. It is not entirely clear whether the given amount applies only to the basic order (54 tanks) or also to options (72 tanks in total). However, in each case, the unit price is ... even higher than in the case of purchases made by Poland, because it amounts to over USD 25 million. Of course, individual programs may differ, for example in terms of support packages. Nevertheless, the amounts of the contracts give some incentive for comparisons.
44 Leopard 2A7s, in one package with 24 PzH 2000 howitzers, lease of twelve Leopard 2A4 training vehicles and support vehicles on tracked and wheeled chassis, were purchased by Hungary at the end of 2019 . The value of the contract was not disclosed, but the total amount mentioned in the permits issued in 2019 by the German government for exports to the country is 1.783 billion euros, or 1.94 billion dollars. Of this amount, 78 percent, i.e. the equivalent of over USD 1.51 billion, are - according to official documents - "main battle tanks, self-propelled howitzers, sapper tanks, recovery vehicles, self-propelled bridges, driving school tanks, trucks, off-road vehicles", and related parts. Another 5.9 percent,or over $100 million, are "fight and drive simulators". More details were not provided, but based on this information, it can be assumed that the price of a single tank or self-propelled howitzer, including support vehicles, was close to $20 million.


Recently, there have been reports of a plan to purchase Leopard tanks in the new 2A8 version by Germany. 18 such vehicles, along with operational support, a training package and a 5-year warranty, will cost EUR 525 million, or USD 570 million. As for the total amount of the framework contract for 123 vehicles, Reuters and Bloomberg reports mention the amount of EUR 2.9 billion, or USD 3.15 billion. It is not entirely clear whether it includes 105 tanks or 123, but in both cases the average value of a tank exceeds $25 million. Even if we take into account that the cars have advanced configurations, probably with active protection, and the contract may include R&D works, this is a significant amount, not lower than that spent by Poland.
Or maybe reach for a cheaper solution - used tanks? Denmark and the Netherlands give us the answer here. The package including 14 Leopard 2A4s for Ukraine, probably with modifications including the replacement of obsolete elements, a large stock of parts and ammunition (after all, tanks will literally go to war), was planned for EUR 165 million, i.e. USD 179 million. That's almost $12.8 million for a single tank. For the package of 31 Abrams in the M1A1 version (first a depleted M1A2 was planned) for Ukraine, probably with zero service life, along with extensive support, parts, training and ammunition, the US administration allocated USD 400 million, so there is almost USD 13 million for a single vehicle .


The above list directly shows that the price of a used tank is several million dollars, and the bill for a new machine (including support elements) may exceed 20 million. Why are the amounts so high? Part of the answer is, of course, inflation caused by i.a. the economic effects of the pandemic and the turmoil on the hydrocarbon market. Back in 2017, the German Ministry of Defense suggested in one of the official reports that the price of the Leopard 2 in the latest configuration was around EUR 13-15 million (or USD 15-17 million). For comparison, in 1979 the first Leopard was supposed to cost - of course, taking into account the conversion to today's value of the currency - 1.38 million euros. Now these amounts are even higher than a few years ago, according to the values listed in the article.

Leopard 2A4; photo chor. R.Mniedło/11 LDKPanc.
But the increase in tank prices has happened before. This is related - apart from the effects of inflation - on the one hand to the increase in their complexity (composite armor, more electronics), on the other hand - to ... earlier reductions. Simply, when a maximum of several dozen tanks are produced per year, and often less, the share of fixed costs in the price of a single tank, whether new or even thoroughly renovated, is proportionately much higher than when, for example, 100 or 200 tanks were produced per year . To this must be added the increase in labor costs(because, after all, employees of armaments factories also have to earn money). And if the situation in a given country is good from the point of view of employees (low unemployment), these costs will only grow.

​

 

[krisss]

"Cheap" tanks - "once", until time​

It is worth quoting a few more amounts here. Two transactions concerning used Leopard 2s were completed about a decade ago . In 2013, Poland bought 105 Leopard 2A5s and 14 Leopard 2A4s with support vehicles from Germany for EUR 180 million (about USD 200 million), and Finland bought 100 Leopard 2A6s from the Netherlands for PLN 200 million. million euros. Compared to the amounts currently paid for used tanks, these values are very small. However, we must remember that back then, the last tanks produced in large series during the Cold War were still being bought, and today ... they simply do not exist. Because if they were, the Netherlands and Denmark would not buy older cars for Ukraine for several times more (per a single machine).
A separate issue is the cost of renovation and modernization of equipment acquired as used. Here, too, prices... are rising. Poland is to pay PLN 3.29 billion gross, i.e. almost USD 800 million, for the renovation and modernization of 142 ( de facto 128) Leopard 2A4 tanks to the Leopard 2PL standard, so the cost of modernization of one tank is at least USD 6 million.The main contract was signed in 2015, the last known addendum increasing the value was initialed four years later. And although the price includes 23% VAT, on the other hand, it does not include new communications (because it is not mentioned), ammunition (it is purchased separately) or technical recovery vehicles and bridges (as above). Let's add that Poland purchased the Leopard 2A4 for a "symbolic zloty". To other allies, these tanks were sold for around $1 million each. And while they were purchased with a certain supply of service life, ammunition and parts, the support was enough for about a decade. The complete withdrawal of the Leopard 2A4s from the Bundeswehr and the gradual liquidation of the logistical support that Poland could use, including the ex-Cold War stocks, only made matters worse.



The increase in costs is visible even in the case of the modernization of post-Soviet equipment, carried out by the forces of domestic industry. In 2002-2003, the modernization of the T-72A/M1 tank to the PT-91 Twardy standard was estimated at around PLN 3-4 million. A dozen or so years later, refurbishment and modification to the T-72M1R standard, unlike the old Twardy which did not include a new fire control system, reactive armour, laser beam warning system, engine upgrade to the S-12U standard and other elements, are already paid - calculated - on average about PLN 6-8 million, so twice as much. If, instead of modifications, even a limited modernization of the tank was carried out, it would cost at least several million zlotys, according to estimates from 2019, which today should be "valorized" by a minimum of 20-30 percent.they are higher.
All this proves that for many reasons, including the increase in labor costs, the complexity of tanks, but also high fixed costs, as well as the need to rebuild production capacity after reductions, tank prices are and will remain at a high level. It's just that all the reserves that remained after mass production from the Cold War era are already - at least in Europe - used up, and the potential needs to be restored. In different economic, demographic, legal (environmental regulations) and technological conditions it must cost money.

It is all the more important to ensure proper training of crews and the use of tanks in the combined arms system together with the acquired tanks . So, taking into account their protection against threats such as unmanned aerial vehicles and modern ATGMs, appropriate communication, providing ammunition allowing for full use of capabilities, also for destroying targets beyond sight, etc. One thing is certain, however. The peace dividend will have to be paid back in part, and rising tank prices are just one symptom of that. A separate issue is how to prepare the economy and public finances to bear these costs, not only at the time of purchase, but also in the life cycle.

 

[fip7]

Szép teljesítmény az öreg T-10M-től:

 

[fip7]

Egy kis érdekesség. Valós méretvastagságokkal:

 

[dudi]

Egy kis érdekesség. Valós méretvastagságokkal:

A Leopardnal a lövegpajzs mögött van még 200mm vastag (valószínűleg szerkezeti)acél tömb, mint ahogy a rajzon is látszik.

 

[ghostrider]

 

[Aladeen]

Harckocsi lőszerek fejlődése a híres Bovingtoni Tank Múzeum előadásában.

 

[fip7]

Szimuláció, T-80UD toronypáncél (K5 nélkül) vs. M829A2-es:

T-80UD turret front armor: ~100mm cast armor + 30mm air gap + 25mm steel + 40 mm SIC + 25mm steel + 40mm SIC + 50 steel armor + 50mm Semi Hardened Steel (+400 BHN RHA) + 190mm cast armor at angle of impact (800mm LOS) 120mm muzzle velocity (M829A2) - 1680 m/s. 1620 m/s refers to a distance of approximately 1.4 km

 

[fip7]

EFP töltet működése:

 

[Negan]

EFP töltet működése:

Az ütőtányéros fenékakna is egy EFP töltetes akna.De az oldal elleni aknák is régóta használják.Magyar neve, lövedék képző töltet.