Tank armor. Tanks whose protection is active

Very often you can hear how armor is compared in accordance with the thickness of steel plates 1000, 800mm. Or, for example, that a certain projectile can penetrate some "n" - number of mm of armor. The fact is that now these calculations are not objective. Modern armor cannot be described as equivalent to any thickness of homogeneous steel. There are currently two types of threats: projectile kinetic energy and chemical energy. A kinetic threat is understood as an armor-piercing projectile or, more simply, a blank with great kinetic energy. AT this case it is impossible to calculate the protective properties of armor based on the thickness of the steel plate. Thus, projectiles with depleted uranium or tungsten carbide pass through steel like a knife through butter, and the thickness of any modern armor, if it were homogeneous steel, would not withstand such projectiles. There is no 300mm thick armor that is equivalent to 1200mm of steel, and therefore capable of stopping a projectile that will get stuck and stick out in the thickness of the armor plate. The success of protection against armor-piercing shells lies in the change in the vector of its impact on the surface of the armor. If you're lucky, then when you hit there will be only a small dent, and if you're not lucky, then the projectile will go through all the armor, regardless of whether it is thick or thin. Simply put, armor plates are relatively thin and hard, and the damaging effect depends largely on the nature of the interaction with the projectile. The American army uses depleted uranium to increase the hardness of armor, in other countries tungsten carbide, which is actually harder. About 80% of the ability of tank armor to stop blank projectiles falls on the first 10-20 mm of modern armor. Now consider the chemical effects of warheads. Chemical energy is represented by two types: HESH (Anti-tank armor-piercing high-explosive) and HEAT (HEAT projectile). HEAT - more common today, and has nothing to do with high temperatures. HEAT uses the principle of focusing the energy of an explosion into a very narrow jet. A jet is formed when a geometrically regular cone is surrounded by explosives from the outside. During detonation, 1/3 of the energy of the explosion is used to form a jet. She's on account high pressure(not temperature) penetrates armor. The simplest protection against this type of energy is a layer of armor set aside half a meter from the hull, which results in dissipation of the energy of the jet. This technique was used during the Second World War, when Russian soldiers lined the hull of the tank with a chain-link mesh from the beds. Now the Israelis are doing the same on the Merkava tank, they use steel balls hanging on chains to protect the stern from ATGMs and RPG grenades. For the same purposes, a large aft niche is installed on the tower, to which they are attached. Another method of protection is the use of dynamic or reactive armor. It is also possible to use combined dynamic and ceramic armor (such as Chobham). When a jet of molten metal comes into contact with reactive armor, the latter is detonated, the resulting shock wave defocuses the jet, eliminating its damaging effect. Chobham armor works in a similar way, but in this case, at the moment of the explosion, pieces of ceramic fly off, turning into a cloud of dense dust, which completely neutralizes the energy of the cumulative jet. HESH (High-Explosive Anti-tank Armor-Piercing) - the warhead works as follows: after the explosion, it flows around the armor like clay and transmits a huge momentum through the metal. Further, like billiard balls, the armor particles collide with each other and, thereby, the protective plates are destroyed. The booking material is capable of injuring the crew, scattering into small shrapnel. Protection against such armor is similar to that described above for HEAT. Summarizing the above, I would like to note that protection against the kinetic impact of a projectile comes down to a few centimeters of metallized armor, while protection against HEAT and HESH consists in creating a set aside armor, dynamic protection, as well as some materials (ceramics).

At one time, an attempt to introduce dynamic protection systems based on the use of a small amount of explosive on armored combat vehicles was met with hostility by tankers. How is it even possible to place explosives on the armor?! However, through numerous experiments, it was proved that if the projectile does not hit the armor, but into TNT containers hung over it, the consequences of hitting the tank are minimized. Over time, such protection systems have undergone significant changes, embodying both numerous scientific innovations and proven elements. Not so long ago, footage of a guided missile hitting the anti-tank complex in the T-90 tank of the Syrian army. The shooting shows how the ammunition reaches the target, explodes, but ... fighting machine remains on the move, and its crew is unharmed. Journalist Alexei Egorov will tell about what means of protection are used on modern Russian tanks, how they work and what innovations are possible in these systems in the future in the next issue of the program on the Zvezda TV channel. Reactive armor The time when tankers relied only on the thickness of the armor of their combat vehicles as protection is long gone. Somewhere during World War II. According to the head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Lieutenant General Alexander Shevchenko, a graduate of the tank engineering school and the Military Academy armored forces, the thickness of the armor on heavy tanks during the Great Patriotic War sometimes reached 25 centimeters. We are talking, for example, about the famous vehicles under the KV and IS brands - Klim Voroshilov and Joseph Stalin. - Subsequently, lattice screens have proven themselves well: there is a 50% chance that they "remove" a hand-held anti-tank grenade. That is, they really make a contribution, and a worthy one, to the protection of the machine. ”However, over time, reactive anti-tank grenades appeared (like our RPG-26), which also overcame these systems. Really, in the face of numerous means of destruction, the tank should have remained “naked”? To protect the so-called "light-armored" projections of the tank hull and turret from cumulative ammunition, dynamic protection systems were invented. In fact, this is an explosive placed in a metal case, destroying the cumulative jet by dispersing it. By the way, this is why it is sometimes called "reactive armor". Outwardly, it is a small container attached to the body of a combat vehicle. Such devices on the armor modern tank you can see more than a dozen. Two or three plates with explosives are placed inside, laid at a certain angle. Nikolai Dorokhov, Chief Specialist in Dynamic Protection at JSC Research Institute of Steel, explains the principle of the system operation in this way: when a projectile hits a container, its fuse is triggered, the cumulative jet detonates and undermines the elements of dynamic protection. That, in turn, destroys the jet, which in the end is unable to penetrate the armor. When the risk is worth it The first examples of dynamic protection were developed in our country, although, for example, the Israelis insist on their authorship of this device, referring it to 1982. However, there is evidence that Research Article, published on this topic in one of the specialized Soviet publications back in 1948. True, the path of dynamic protection to the systems of equipping Soviet tanks was thorny. The fact is that the then head of the tank forces of the Soviet army, Marshal Azamasp Babadzhanyan, did not like the innovation. “Not a single gram of explosive will be on the tank! - he harshly summed up when he was presented with an innovative development. “I won’t let anything blow up!” However, time has shown that this approach was wrong. When the right to life for dynamic protection was proved, it became almost the key means of salvation for entire generations of armored combat vehicles. Today, explosive processes and methods of protection against them are being studied at the JSC "NII Steel". This is the leading domestic enterprise for the development of integrated means of protection for armored vehicles and personnel- dynamic protection, composite armor panels, electromagnetic and anti-radiation protection, bulletproof vests, armored helmets. A unique laboratory of explosive processes has been created here. It was at its base, or rather in a special explosive chamber, that back in the 1950s, tests were carried out to develop the first samples of dynamic protection, which eventually became the prototype of serial elements used in built-in dynamic protection systems for tanks up to the T-90. Protection without compromise During the experiment, which will be carried out in an explosion chamber with the participation of the Zvezda film crew, the testers will break through a plate of armored steel 20 millimeters thick. The jet will sew through this barrier through and through. But the same plate with a dynamic protection container attached to it (weighing, by the way, only 370 grams) will remain intact. There will be no through penetration, the “rear” will remain clean. It is this protection, says the head of the GABTU, General Alexander Shevchenko, that saved the life of the crew of the Syrian tank. By the way, after a while, the car hit by an ATGM shot was able to start up and even leave the battlefield on its own. It is also known that after a short time this crew on the same (!) Vehicle continued to participate in hostilities. In turn, as Nikolai Dorokhov says, he has facts from the history of our operations in the North Caucasus, when the tank withstood successive hits of six anti-tank grenades. At the repair base, where the car then reached (also under its own power), it only took ... to replace the disabled dynamic protection containers! In general, as Lieutenant General Alexander Shevchenko emphasizes, a tank with dynamic protection is 2–2.5 times more protective than a conventional vehicle. It should be noted that the explosives used in this system are not subject to undermining as a result of external fire. That is, if the same Molotov cocktails hit the body, the tank will not explode. It was checked at the Research Institute of Steel: the explosive burns out, but does not detonate. "Curtain" over the tank Lieutenant General Alexander Shevchenko responsibly declares: there are no tanks in the Russian army today that are not equipped with such means of cover. “Dynamic defense in its development has stepped very far,” notes the head of the GABTU of the Russian Ministry of Defense. - We can proudly say that our defense has the highest parameters. And this is recognized all over the world: our vehicles are considered the most protected. ”At the same time, which is important, in addition to this system, Russian tanks are covered with a whole range of other protective technologies. Take, for example, the Shtora system. This electro-optical complex "jamming" anti-tank missile guidance systems. As a result, the enemy projectile "blinds" and instead of the tank crashes into the ground or flies away. Another system that creates a line of defense around a combat vehicle is called the Arena. It is installed in the most vulnerable place - on the tower. The Arena radar detects an anti-tank missile at a distance of 50 meters. The electronic brain instantly determines the type, speed, direction of flight, and calculates the expected location of the hit. When the enemy projectile is only two meters away from the target, the Arena fires its own protective ammunition, hitting the incoming target with composite fragments flying at a speed of two kilometers per second. It is important that this system works in automatic mode: the participation of a person with his not always prompt reaction not required. Detection and tracking of targets with an overview of the space in the entire protected sector is provided by its own multifunctional radar. The complex is all-weather, all-day, hits targets in any conditions, including when the car is moving and when turning the tower. According to calculations, the "Arena" even in an offensive battle doubles the survival of the tank. One of the developers of this system, the head of the advanced research department of the Research and Production Corporation "Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering" Vladimir Kharkin, notes that foreigners for a long time could not believe in the very existence similar technology. “Until the 2000s, there were no developments abroad, now they are actively working,” the Russian engineer notes. – In Israel, one of the complexes active protection even adopted.

Introduction

The eternal theme of projectiles and armor has received a new breath due to the large spread of one game in which tanks stupidly go at each other, and the strength of the armor allegedly directly depends on the amount of money the player has.
I want to talk about the true state of things. After all, armor can be very different, the thickness of pierced armor depends not only on initial speed projectile, but also on its quality. At the same time, we will figure out why the shells of our forty-five millimeter cannons did not always penetrate the armor of German tanks thirty millimeters thick. And how the Germans fought with our tanks with an anti-tank gun of thirty-seven millimeters.

Armor

Armor must have two mutually exclusive qualities - hardness and toughness. Against a small caliber projectile, just very hard armor is enough. With an average caliber of the projectile, the armor should be not only hard but also viscous. For a large-caliber projectile, the viscosity of the armor comes out on top. Because a large caliber projectile can simply split the armor part of a turret or hull if it does not have enough viscosity. Therefore, oddly enough, the hardness of tank armor during the Second World War was decreasing all the time. It's just hardness and toughness are hard to match.

Here are photos of German tanks. The top photo shows traces of shells of different types (more on that below) and different calibers. From projectile holes large caliber cracks diverge, small-caliber shells simply pierced the armor.
On the middle photo no cracks, a large-caliber projectile simply destroyed the tank turret.
In the bottom photo, a one hundred and fifty-two millimeter caliber projectile hit the very edge of the tank hull under the turret. The shell just beat off the edge of the hull and flew away. And the part of the body that just fell out from this blow is circled in chalk. If you look at the contour circled in chalk, then the hit was in the upper right corner. Part of the hull in that place flew away with the projectile. The shooting distance is written next to it - one thousand two hundred meters. That is, the speed of the projectile was no longer very high, but fifty kilograms of weight did their job.

The photo shows the turret of our tank. For the purpose of the experiment, they shot at it from a German anti-aircraft gun caliber one hundred and twenty-eight millimeters, there was simply nothing more powerful at hand. Through holes and no cracks.

You can combine high hardness and viscosity by making armor from two layers. The upper hard layer gradually turns into a viscous wrong side. Such armor is called heterogeneous. The secret to producing such armor is very simple. The surface of the metal is simply saturated with carbon and then hardened. But this is simple in words, but in reality carbon penetrates the metal very slowly. To do this, the sheet is heated in an oven, sprinkled with a composition containing carbon and wait. And wait a week if not more. Have you calculated how much gas will burn in a week and what will it cost?
So the armor of German tanks in the initial period of the war was just that. Quality German armor was the highest in the world.
The composition of the armor is no secret, it is iron with the addition of carbon and manganese, about three percent nickel, up to two percent chromium. The quality depends on the presence (or rather their absence) of harmful impurities such as sulfur and phosphorus. Nickel and chromium increase the viscosity and accelerate the process of saturation of steel with carbon. Molybdenum and especially vanadium are even more effective as alloying elements, but where do you get them? The Germans had almost run out of nickel by the end of the war, which is why the turrets of their tanks split, and not because our guns were very powerful.
Armor obtained by rolling or forging is of higher quality than cast. The gain in thickness with equal resistance is about ten percent. Cast armor is prone to cracking. Rolled armor has a different problem. If a turret or a tank hull is welded from its sheets, then in the area of ​​​​the seam the strength drops by ten percent.

Armor-piercing shells

Armor-piercing shells are of three types. Ordinary solid steel blank. An ordinary blank on which a ballistic tip is put on, which improves the aerodynamics of the projectile. An ordinary blank on which an armor-piercing cap and a ballistic tip are put on.

When a projectile hits at a ninety-degree angle, all projectiles have almost the same effectiveness. But that doesn't happen in real life. Therefore, a projectile with an armor-piercing tip becomes the most effective. The tip itself is a soft metal cap. In case of an oblique hit, it sticks to the armor and prevents the projectile from sliding off. At the same time, the process of turning the projectile to the vertical occurs. Moreover, the longer the projectile, the more active the turning is. Another armor-piercing tip to some extent prevents the destruction of the armor-piercing core.
A small historical digression. The armor-piercing cap was invented in Russia. But the shells in the Red Army were the simplest - blanks hardened for high hardness. This was even given a rationale. German tanks didn't have sloped armor, which is why we made simple shells. In fact, the reason was the lack of production. Not many people know that the production of shells takes many more resources than the guns themselves. We blanks and then barely managed to do. When the war began, it turned out that the shells did not penetrate the German armor, they simply split on impact. They began to talk about the violation of the technological process of hardening. Someone was shot. But it seems to me that the whole thing was in excellent German armor. She had an abnormally hard top layer and a soft underside. For shells of forty-five millimeters of available quality, it was simply too tough. The exit was found quite unexpectedly. They began to make not deep circular grooves on the shells. In the photo they are marked with the number seven. In some way completely incomprehensible to me, they began to prevent the destruction of the body of the projectile.

Here are German armor-piercing shells. Ballistic tip and armor-piercing cap are all available. Of course, the gun itself was rather weak, but the main thing is the desire. Type on the Internet MACHINE GUN UTYOS and you will be told how one militiaman knocked out two Ukrainian T-64 tanks from it. The most important thing is that the Germans almost immediately stopped firing at our tanks in the forehead. When studying wrecked tanks, there were practically no traces of hits on the frontal armor. The tanks simply let them into the dense and fired at the side. Since our tanks were practically blind and often went on the attack without infantry support, the losses were significant. The Germans fired even when they were sure that the shells would not penetrate the armor. What for? Numerous hits jammed the turret, smashed not numerous observation devices, and quite often pierced the gun. Why do you think the tiger got gun armor? It's just that the Germans took into account the statistics of their hits on our tanks.
True, the German anti-tank guns also got it. This was the only type of gun in which the Germans suffered catastrophic losses in the initial period of the war.

Here is the entire range of German armor-piercing shells. As you can see, there are simply no blanks in principle.

Here are our shells of eighty-five millimeters. At best, there is a ballistic tip.

Here are our shells of 122 mm caliber. On the left, a simple blank on the right, slightly, I emphasize slightly, improved. The first pierced the frontal armor of the tiger at a distance of one thousand two hundred meters, the second at a distance of one thousand eight hundred meters. Here is a clear example of the different capabilities of projectiles of different designs.

Sub-caliber armor-piercing projectiles.

The whole effect of a sub-caliber projectile stems from a physical formula that states that the energy of a projectile depends on its speed twice as much as on its weight. Therefore, the weight and diameter of the armor-piercing core was reduced, and a light pallet led it along the barrel. At first, the pallets were not detachable, and after the projectile left the barrel, they immediately began to slow it down. Therefore, during the war, sub-caliber shells pierced a large thickness of armor only at short distances.

Here is the same photo of the tower again. Places of hit by sub-caliber armor-piercing shells can be recognized by specific marks - a small crater on the armor (from a pallet hit) with a small-diameter hole in the center.
For armor-piercing cores of sub-caliber projectiles, there was a problem with the quality of the metal from which they were made. At high speed, the cores simply split without having time to break through the armor. The best was a tungsten core (heavy, durable) with the addition of nickel and copper to increase viscosity. But everything, as usual, rested on the price. Can you imagine how many light bulbs you need to break in order to collect tungsten for one armor-piercing core? Another option is depleted uranium. I thought for a long time how this uranium was depleted? It turned out that it was just waste from the production of nuclear weapons. Uranium from which radioactive isotopes have been extracted is called depleted.
Armor-piercing cores have become long and thin. An armor-piercing cap is required. Sometimes it simultaneously serves as an aerodynamic cap. Modern armor-piercing cores of sub-caliber projectiles with a detachable pallet practically do not react to the slope of the armor.
On average, at a distance of two thousand meters, armor three hundred millimeters thick, set at an angle of sixty degrees, breaks through. The defense once again lost to the attack.

There is a separate article about cumulative shells on the site.

Reservation of modern domestic tanks

A. Tarasenko

Layered combined armor

In the 1950s, it became clear that a further increase in the protection of tanks was not possible only by improving the characteristics of armored steel alloys. This was especially true of protection against cumulative ammunition. The idea of ​​using low-density fillers for protection against cumulative ammunition arose during the Great Patriotic War, the penetrating effect of a cumulative jet is relatively small in soils, this is especially true for sand. Therefore, it is possible to replace steel armor with a layer of sand sandwiched between two thin sheets of iron.

In 1957, VNII-100 carried out research to assess the anti-cumulative resistance of all domestic tanks, both serial production and prototypes. The protection of tanks was assessed based on the calculation of their shelling with a domestic non-rotating cumulative 85-mm projectile (in terms of its armor penetration it surpassed foreign cumulative shells of 90 mm caliber) at various heading angles provided for by the TTT in force at that time. The results of this research work formed the basis for the development of TTT to protect tanks from HEAT weapons. The calculations performed in the research showed that the most powerful armor protection was possessed by an experienced heavy tank"Object 279" and medium tank"Object 907".

Their protection ensured non-penetration by a cumulative 85-mm projectile with a steel funnel within the course angles: along the hull ± 60 ", the turret - + 90". To provide protection against a projectile of this type of other tanks, a thickening of the armor was required, which led to a significant increase in their combat weight: T-55 by 7700 kg, "Object 430" by 3680 kg, T-10 by 8300 kg and " Object 770" for 3500 kg.

An increase in the thickness of the armor to ensure the anti-cumulative resistance of the tanks and, accordingly, their mass by the above values ​​was unacceptable. The solution to the problem of reducing the mass of armor specialists of the VNII-100 branch saw in the use of fiberglass and light alloys based on aluminum and titanium, as well as their combination with steel armor, as part of the armor.

As part of combined armor, aluminum and titanium alloys were first used in the design of the armor protection of a tank turret, in which a specially provided internal cavity was filled with an aluminum alloy. For this purpose, a special aluminum casting alloy ABK11 was developed, which is not subjected to heat treatment after casting (due to the impossibility of providing a critical cooling rate during quenching of the aluminum alloy in a combined system with steel). The “steel + aluminum” option provided, with equal anti-cumulative resistance, a reduction in the mass of armor by half compared to conventional steel.

In 1959, the bow of the hull and the turret with two-layer armor protection "steel + aluminum alloy" were designed for the T-55 tank. However, in the process of testing such combined barriers, it turned out that the two-layer armor did not have sufficient survivability with repeated hits of armor-piercing-sub-caliber projectiles - the mutual support of the layers was lost. Therefore, further tests were carried out on three-layer armor barriers "steel+aluminum+steel", "titanium+aluminum+titanium". The gain in mass was somewhat reduced, but still remained quite significant: the combined armor "titanium + aluminum + titanium" compared to monolithic steel armor with the same level of armor protection when fired with 115-mm cumulative and sub-caliber projectiles provided a reduction weight by 40%, the combination of "steel + aluminum + steel" gave 33% weight savings.

T-64

In the technical project (April 1961) of the "432 product" tank, two filler options were initially considered:

· Steel armor casting with ultraforfor inserts with initial horizontal base thickness equal to 420 mm with equivalent anti-cumulative protection equal to 450 mm;

· a cast turret consisting of a steel armor base, an aluminum anti-cumulative jacket (poured after casting the steel hull) and an outer steel armor and aluminum. The total maximum wall thickness of this tower is ~500 mm and is equivalent to ~460 mm anti-cumulative protection.

Both turret options resulted in over one ton of weight savings compared to an all-steel turret of equal strength. A turret with aluminum filler was installed on serial T-64 tanks.

Both turret options resulted in over one ton of weight savings compared to an all-steel turret of equal strength. A tower with aluminum filler was installed on serial tanks "product 432". In the course of accumulating experience, a number of shortcomings of the tower were revealed, primarily related to its large dimensions of the thickness of the frontal armor. Later, steel inserts were used in the design of the turret armor protection on the T-64A tank in the period 1967-1970, after which they finally came to the turret with ultraforfor inserts (balls), which was considered initially, providing the specified resistance with a smaller size. In 1961-1962 the main work on the creation of combined armor took place at the Zhdanovsky (Mariupol) metallurgical plant, where the technology of two-layer castings was debugged, various types of armor barriers were fired. Samples (“sectors”) were cast and tested with 85-mm cumulative and 100-mm armor-piercing projectiles

combined armor "steel+aluminum+steel". To eliminate the “squeezing out” of aluminum inserts from the body of the tower, it was necessary to use special jumpers that prevented the “squeezing out” of aluminum from the cavities of the steel tower. . Before the advent of the Object 432 tank, all armored vehicles had monolithic or composite armor.

A fragment of a drawing of a tank turret object 434 indicating the thicknesses of steel barriers and filler

Read more about the armor protection of the T-64 in the material - Security of the tanks of the second post-war generation T-64 (T-64A), Chieftain Mk5R and M60

The use of aluminum alloy ABK11 in the design of armor protection of the upper frontal part of the hull (A) and the front of the turret (B)

experienced medium tank "Object 432". The armored design provided protection against the effects of cumulative ammunition.

The upper frontal sheet of the hull "product 432" is installed at an angle of 68 ° to the vertical, combined, with a total thickness of 220 mm. It consists of an outer armor plate 80 mm thick and an inner fiberglass sheet 140 mm thick. As a result, the calculated resistance from cumulative ammunition was 450 mm. The front roof of the hull is made of armor 45 mm thick and had lapels - “cheekbones” located at an angle of 78 ° 30 to the vertical. The use of fiberglass of a selected thickness also provided reliable (in excess of TTT) anti-radiation protection. The absence in the technical design of the back plate after the fiberglass layer shows the complex search for the right technical solutions for creating the optimal three-barrier barrier, which developed later.

In the future, this design was abandoned in favor of a simpler design without "cheekbones", which had greater resistance to cumulative ammunition. The use of combined armor on the T-64A tank for the upper frontal part (80 mm steel + 105 mm fiberglass + 20 mm steel) and a turret with steel inserts (1967-1970), and later with a filler of ceramic balls (horizontal thickness 450 mm) made it possible to provide protection against BPS (with armor penetration of 120 mm / 60 ° from a distance of 2 km) at a distance of 0.5 km and from COPs (penetrating 450 mm) with an increase in armor weight by 2 tons compared to the T-62 tank.

Scheme of the technological process of casting the tower "object 432" with cavities for aluminum filler. During shelling, the turret with combined armor provided full protection against 85-mm and 100-mm HEAT shells, 100-mm armor-piercing blunt-headed shells and 115-mm sub-capiber shells at firing angles of ±40 °, as well as protection against 115- mm of a cumulative projectile at a heading angle of fire of ±35 °.

High-strength concrete, glass, diabase, ceramics (porcelain, ultra-porcelain, uralite) and various fiberglass were tested as fillers. From tested materials the best performance had inserts made of high-strength ultra-porcelain (the specific jet-extinguishing ability is 2–2.5 times higher than that of armored steel) and fiberglass AG-4S. These materials were recommended for use as fillers in combined armor barriers. The weight gain when using combined armor barriers compared to monolithic steel barriers was 20-25%.

T-64A

In the process of improving the combined protection against the tower with the use of aluminum filler, they refused. Simultaneously with the development of the design of the tower with ultra-porcelain filler in the VNII-100 branch at the suggestion of V.V. Jerusalem, the design of the tower was developed using high-hard steel inserts intended for the manufacture of shells. These inserts, heat-treated by the differential isothermal hardening method, had a particularly hard core and relatively less hard but more ductile outer surface layers. The manufactured experimental tower with high-hard inserts showed the hall during shelling even top scores in durability than with filled ceramic balls.

The disadvantage of the tower with high-hard inserts was the insufficient survivability of the welded joint between the retaining plate and the tower support, which, when hit by an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile, was destroyed without penetration.

In the process of manufacturing an experimental batch of towers with high-hard inserts, it turned out to be impossible to provide the minimum required impact strength (high-hard inserts of the manufactured batch during shelling gave increased brittle fracture and penetration). Further work in this direction was abandoned.

(1967-1970)

In 1975, a corundum-filled turret developed by VNIITM was put into service (in production since 1970). Reservation of the tower - 115 steel cast armor, 140 mm ultra-porcelain balls and the rear wall of 135 mm steel with an angle of inclination of 30 degrees. casting technology towers with ceramic filling was worked out as a result of the joint work of VNII-100, Kharkov Plant No. 75, South Ural Radioceramics Plant, VPTI-12 and NIIBT. Using the experience of working on the combined armor of the hull of this tank in 1961-1964. The design bureaus of the LKZ and ChTZ factories, together with VNII-100 and its Moscow branch, developed variants of hulls with combined armor for tanks with guided missile weapons: "Object 287", "Object 288", "Object 772" and "Object 775".

corundum ball

Tower with corundum balls. The size of the frontal protection is 400 ... 475 mm. The stern of the tower is -70 mm.

Subsequently, the armor protection of Kharkov tanks was improved, including in the direction of using more advanced barrier materials, so from the end of the 70s on the T-64B, steels of the BTK-1Sh type were used, made by electroslag remelting. On average, the resistance of an equal-thickness sheet obtained by ESR is 10 ... 15 percent more than armored steels of increased hardness. In the course of mass production until 1987, the turret was also improved.

T-72 "Ural"

Booking VLD T-72 "Ural" was similar to booking T-64. In the first series of the tank, turrets directly converted from T-64 turrets were used. Subsequently, a monolithic tower made of cast armored steel was used, with a size of 400-410 mm. Monolithic towers provided satisfactory resistance against 100-105 mm armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles(BTS) , but the anti-cumulative resistance of these towers in terms of protection against shells of the same caliber was inferior to towers with a combined filler.

Monolithic tower made of cast armor steel T-72,

also used on the export version of the T-72M tank

T-72A

The armor of the front part of the hull was reinforced. This was achieved by redistributing the thickness of the steel armor plates in order to increase the thickness of the back plate. Thus, the thickness of the VLD was 60 mm steel, 105 mm STB and the back sheet 50 mm thick. At the same time, the size of the reservation remained the same.

The turret armor has undergone major changes. In serial production, cores made of non-metallic molding materials were used as a filler, fastened before pouring with metal reinforcement (the so-called sand cores).

Tower T-72A with sand rods,

Also used on export versions of the T-72M1 tank

photo http://www.tank-net.com

In 1976, UVZ made attempts to produce turrets used on the T-64A with lined corundum balls, but it was not possible to master such technology there. This required new production facilities and the development of new technologies that had not been created. The reason for this was the desire to reduce the cost of the T-72A, which were also massively supplied to foreign countries. Thus, the resistance of the tower from the BPS of the T-64A tank exceeded the resistance of the T-72 by 10%, and the anti-cumulative resistance was 15 ... 20% higher.

Frontal part T-72A with redistribution of thicknesses

and increased protective back layer.

With an increase in the thickness of the back sheet, the three-layer barrier increases resistance.

This is a consequence of the fact that a deformed projectile acts on the rear armor, which partially collapsed in the first steel layer.

and lost not only speed, but also the original shape of the warhead.

The weight of three-layer armor required to achieve the level of resistance equivalent in weight to steel armor decreases with decreasing thickness.

front armor plate up to 100-130 mm (in the direction of fire) and a corresponding increase in the thickness of the rear armor.

The middle fiberglass layer has little effect on the projectile resistance of a three-layer barrier (I.I. Terekhin, Research Institute of Steel) .

Frontal part of PT-91M (similar to T-72A)

T-80B

Strengthening the protection of the T-80B was carried out through the use of rolled armor of increased hardness of the BTK-1 type for hull parts. The frontal part of the hull had an optimal ratio of three-barrier armor thicknesses similar to that proposed for the T-72A.

In 1969, a team of authors from three enterprises proposed a new bulletproof armor of the BTK-1 brand of increased hardness (dotp = 3.05-3.25 mm), containing 4.5% nickel and additives of copper, molybdenum and vanadium. . In the 70s, a complex of research and production work for BTK-1 steel, which made it possible to start introducing it into the production of tanks.

The results of testing stamped boards with a thickness of 80 mm from BTK-1 steel showed that they are equivalent in terms of resistance to serial boards with a thickness of 85 mm. This type of steel armor was used in the manufacture of the hulls of the T-80B and T-64A(B) tanks. The BTK-1 is also used in the design of the filler package in the turret of the T-80U (UD), T-72B tanks. The BTK-1 armor has increased projectile resistance against sub-caliber projectiles at firing angles of 68-70 (5-10% more compared to serial armor). As the thickness increases, the difference between the resistance of the BTK-1 armor and serial armor of medium hardness, as a rule, increases.

During the development of the tank, there were attempts to create a cast turret from steel with increased hardness, which were unsuccessful. As a result, the design of the turret was chosen from cast armor of medium hardness with a sand core, similar to the turret of the T-72A tank, and the thickness of the armor of the T-80B turret was increased, such turrets were accepted for serial production from 1977.

Further reinforcement of the armor of the T-80B tank was achieved in the T-80BV, which was put into service in 1985. The armor protection of the frontal part of the hull and turret of this tank is fundamentally the same as on the T-80B tank, but consists of reinforced combined armor and hinged dynamic protection "Contact-1". During the transition to mass production of the T-80U tank, some T-80BV tanks of the latest series (object 219RB) were equipped with towers of the T-80U type, but with the old FCS and the Cobra guided weapon system.

Tanks T-64, T-64A, T-72A and T-80B According to the criteria of production technology and the level of resistance, it can be conditionally attributed to the first generation of the implementation of combined armor on domestic tanks. This period has a framework within the mid-60s - early 80s. The armor of the tanks mentioned above generally provided high resistance to the most common anti-tank weapons (PTS) of the specified period. In particular, resistance to armor-piercing projectiles of the type (BPS) and feathered armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles with a composite core of the type (OBPS). An example is the BPS L28A1, L52A1, L15A4 and OBPS M735 and BM22 types. Moreover, the development of the protection of domestic tanks was carried out precisely taking into account the provision of resistance against OBPS with an integral active part of the BM22.

But corrections to this situation were made by the data obtained as a result of the shelling of these tanks obtained as trophies during the Arab-Israeli war of 1982, the M111 type OBPS with a tungsten-based monoblock carbide core and a highly effective damping ballistic tip.

One of the conclusions of the special commission to determine the projectile resistance of domestic tanks was that the M111 has advantages over the domestic 125 mm BM22 projectile in terms of penetration at an angle of 68° combined armor VLD serial domestic tanks. This gives grounds to believe that the M111 projectile was worked out mainly to destroy the VLD of the T72 tank, taking into account its design features, while the BM22 projectile was worked out on monolithic armor at an angle of 60 degrees.

In response to this, after the completion of the ROC "Reflection" for tanks of the above types, during the overhaul at the repair plants of the USSR Ministry of Defense on tanks since 1984, additional reinforcement of the upper frontal part was carried out. In particular, an additional plate with a thickness of 16 mm was installed on the T-72A, which provided an equivalent resistance of 405 mm from the M111 OBPS at a speed of the standard damage limit of 1428 m / s.

The fighting in 1982 in the Middle East also had an impact on the anti-cumulative protection of tanks. From June 1982 to January 1983. During the implementation of the development work "Contact-1" under the leadership of D.A. Rototaeva (Scientific Research Institute of Steel), work was carried out to install dynamic protection (DZ) on domestic tanks. The impetus for this was the effectiveness of the Israeli Blazer-type remote sensing system demonstrated during the hostilities. It is worth recalling that DZ was developed in the USSR already in the 50s, but for a number of reasons it was not installed on tanks. These issues are discussed in more detail in the article DYNAMIC PROTECTION. THE ISRAEL SHIELD WAS FORGED IN... THE USSR? .

Thus, since 1984, to improve the protection of tanksT-64A, T-72A and T-80B measures were taken as part of the ROC "Reflection" and "Contact-1", which ensured their protection from the most common PTS of foreign countries. In the course of mass production, the T-80BV and T-64BV tanks already took into account these solutions and were not equipped with additional welded plates.

The level of three-barrier (steel + fiberglass + steel) armor protection of the T-64A, T-72A and T-80B tanks was ensured by selecting the optimal thickness and hardness of the materials of the front and rear steel barriers. For example, an increase in the hardness of the steel front layer leads to a decrease in the anti-cumulative resistance of combined barriers installed at large structural angles (68 °). This is due to a decrease in the consumption of the cumulative jet for penetration into the front layer and, consequently, an increase in its share involved in deepening the cavity.

But these measures were only modernization solutions, in tanks, the production of which began in 1985, such as the T-80U, T-72B and T-80UD, new solutions were applied, which can conditionally be attributed to the second generation of combined armor implementation . In the design of VLD, a design with an additional inner layer (or layers) between the non-metallic filler began to be used. Moreover, the inner layer was made of high-hardness steel.An increase in the hardness of the inner layer of steel combined barriers located at large angles leads to an increase in the anti-cumulative resistance of the barriers. For small angles, the hardness of the middle layer has no significant effect.

(steel+STB+steel+STB+steel).

On the new T-64BV tanks, additional armor for the VLD hull was not installed, since the new design was already

adapted to protect against new generation BPS - three layers of steel armor, between which two layers of fiberglass are placed, with a total thickness of 205 mm (60 + 35 + 30 + 35 + 45).

With a smaller overall thickness, the VLD of the new design in terms of resistance (excluding DZ) against BPS was superior to the VLD of the old design with an additional 30 mm sheet.

A similar VLD structure was also used on the T-80BV.

There were two directions in the creation of new combined barriers.

The first one developed in the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Institute of Hydrodynamics named after Lavrentiev, V. V. Rubtsov, I. I. Terekhin). This direction was a box-shaped (box-type plates filled with polyurethane foam) or cellular structure. The cellular barrier has increased anti-cumulative properties. Its principle of counteraction lies in the fact that due to the phenomena occurring at the interface between two media, part of the kinetic energy of the cumulative jet, which initially passed into the head shock wave, is transformed into kinetic energy environment that re-interacts with the cumulative jet.

The second proposed Research Institute of Steel (L.N. Anikina, M.I. Maresev, I.I. Terekhin). When a combined barrier (steel plate - filler - thin steel plate) is penetrated by a cumulative jet, a dome-shaped buckling of a thin plate occurs, the top of the bulge moves in the direction normal to the rear surface of the steel plate. This movement continues after breaking through the thin plate during the entire time the jet passes through the composite barrier. With optimally selected geometric parameters of these composite barriers, after they are pierced by the head of the cumulative jet, additional collisions of its particles with the edge of the hole in the thin plate occur, leading to a decrease in the penetrating ability of the jet. Rubber, polyurethane, and ceramics were studied as fillers.

This type of armor is similar in principle to British armor. Burlington, which was used on Western tanks in the early 80s.

Further development of the design and manufacturing technology of cast towers consisted in the fact that the combined armor of the frontal and side parts of the tower was formed due to a cavity open from above, into which a complex filler was mounted, closed from above by welded covers (plugs). Turrets of this design are used on later modifications of the T-72 and T-80 tanks (T-72B, T-80U and T-80UD).

The T-72B used turrets with filler in the form of plane-parallel plates (reflective sheets) and inserts made of high-hardness steel.

On T-80U with a filler of cellular cast blocks (cellular casting), filled with polymer (polyether urethane), and steel inserts.

T-72B

Reservation of the turret of the T-72 tank is of the "semi-active" type.In front of the turret there are two cavities located at an angle of 54-55 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the gun. Each cavity contains a pack of 20 30mm blocks, each consisting of 3 layers glued together. Block layers: 21mm armor plate, 6mm rubber layer, 3mm metal plate. 3 thin metal plates are welded to the armor plate of each block, providing a distance between the blocks of 22 mm. Both cavities have a 45 mm armor plate located between the package and the inner wall of the cavity. The total weight of the contents of the two cavities is 781 kg.

The appearance of the T-72 tank reservation package with reflective sheets

And inserts of steel armor BTK-1

Package photo J. Warford. Journal of military ordnance. May 2002,

The principle of operation of bags with reflective sheets

The VLD armor of the T-72B hull of the first modifications consisted of composite armor made of steel of medium and increased hardness. The increase in resistance and the equivalent decrease in the armor-piercing effect of the ammunition is ensured by the flow rate at the media separation. A steel type-setting barrier is one of the simplest design solutions for an anti-ballistic protective device. Such a combined armor of several steel plates provided a 20% gain in mass compared to homogeneous armor, maybe with the same overall dimensions.

Later, a more complex booking option was used using "reflective sheets" on the principle of functioning similar to the package used in the tank turret.

DZ "Contact-1" was installed on the tower and hull of the T-72B. Moreover, the containers are installed directly on the tower without giving them an angle that ensures the most efficient operation of the remote sensing.As a result of this, the effectiveness of the remote sensing system installed on the tower was significantly reduced. A possible explanation is that during state tests of the T-72AV in 1983, the test tank was hit due to the presence of areas not covered by containers, the DZ and the designers tried to achieve a better overlap of the tower.

Starting from 1988, the VLD and the tower were reinforced with the DZ "Kontakt-V» providing protection not only from cumulative PTS, but also from OBPS.

The armor structure with reflective sheets is a barrier consisting of 3 layers: plate, gasket and thin plate.

Penetration of a cumulative jet into armor with "reflective" sheets

X-ray image showing lateral displacements of jet particles

And the nature of the deformation of the plate

The jet, penetrating the slab, creates stresses leading first to local swelling of the back surface (a) and then to its destruction (b). In this case, significant swelling of the gasket and the thin sheet occurs. When the jet pierces the gasket and the thin plate, the latter has already begun to move away from the rear surface of the plate (c). Since there is a certain angle between the direction of motion of the jet and the thin plate, at some point in time the plate begins to run into the jet, destroying it. The effect of the use of "reflective" sheets can reach 40% in comparison with monolithic armor of the same mass.

T-80U, T-80UD

When improving the armor protection of tanks 219M (A) and 476, 478, various options for barriers were considered, the feature of which was the use of the energy of the cumulative jet itself to destroy it. These were box and cellular type fillers.

In the accepted version, it consists of cellular cast blocks, filled with polymer, with steel inserts. Hull armor is provided by optimal the ratio of the thicknesses of the fiberglass filler and steel plates of high hardness.

Tower T-80U (T-80UD) has an outer wall thickness of 85 ... 60 mm, the rear - up to 190 mm. In the cavities open at the top, a complex filler was mounted, which consisted of cellular cast blocks poured with polymer (PUM) installed in two rows and separated by a 20 mm steel plate. A BTK-1 plate with a thickness of 80 mm is installed behind the package.On the outer surface of the forehead of the tower within the heading angle + 35 installed solid V -shaped blocks of dynamic protection "Contact-5". On the early versions of the T-80UD and T-80U, the NKDZ "Contact-1" was installed.

For more information about the history of the creation of the T-80U tank, see the film -Video about the T-80U tank (object 219A)

Reservation of VLD is multi-barrier. Since the early 1980s, several design options have been tested.

How packages work "cellular filler"

This type of armor implements the method of so-called "semi-active" protection systems, in which the energy of the weapon itself is used for protection.

The method proposed by the Institute of Hydrodynamics of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences and is as follows.

Scheme of action of cellular anti-cumulative protection:

1 - cumulative jet; 2- liquid; 3 - metal wall; 4 - shock wave of compression;

5 - secondary compression wave; 6 - collapse of the cavity

Scheme of single cells: a - cylindrical, b - spherical

Steel armor with polyurethane (polyetherurethane) filler

The results of studies of samples of cellular barriers in various design and technological versions were confirmed by full-scale tests during shelling with cumulative projectiles. The results showed that the use of a cellular layer instead of fiberglass can reduce the overall dimensions of the barrier by 15%, and the weight by 30%. Compared to monolithic steel, a layer weight reduction of up to 60% can be achieved while maintaining a close dimension to it.

The principle of operation of the armor of the "split" type.

In the back of the cellular blocks there are also filled polymeric material cavities. The principle of operation of this type of armor is approximately the same as that of cellular armor. Here, too, the energy of the cumulative jet is used for protection. When the cumulative jet, moving, reaches the free rear surface of the barrier, the elements of the barrier near the free rear surface under the action of the shock wave begin to move in the direction of the jet. If, however, conditions are created under which the material of the obstacle moves onto the jet, then the energy of the elements of the obstacle flying from the free surface will be spent on the destruction of the jet itself. And such conditions can be created by making hemispherical or parabolic cavities on the rear surface of the barrier.

Some variants of the upper frontal part of the T-64A, T-80 tanks, the T-80UD (T-80U), T-84 variant and the development of a new modular VLD T-80U (KBTM)

T-64A tower filler with ceramic balls and T-80UD package options -

cellular casting (filler from cellular cast blocks filled with polymer)

and metal package

Further design improvements was associated with the transition to towers with a welded base. Developments aimed at increasing the dynamic strength characteristics of cast armor steels in order to increase anti-ballistic resistance, gave a significantly smaller effect than similar developments for rolled armor. In particular, in the 80s, they were developed and ready for serial production new steels of increased hardness: SK-2Sh, SK-3Sh. Thus, the use of towers with a rolled base made it possible to increase the protective equivalent along the base of the tower without increasing the mass. Such developments were undertaken by the Research Institute of Steel together with design bureaus, the tower with a rolled base for the T-72B tank had a slightly increased (by 180 liters) internal volume, the weight increase was up to 400 kg compared to the serial cast turret of the T-72B tank.

Var and turret ant of the improved T-72, T-80UD with a welded base

and ceramic-metal package, not used in series

The tower filler package was made using ceramic materials and steel of increased hardness or from a package based on steel plates with "reflective" sheets. Worked out options for towers with removable modular armor for the frontal and side parts.

T-90S/A

With regard to tank turrets, one of the significant reserves for strengthening their anti-projectile protection or reducing the mass of the steel base of the tower while maintaining the existing level of anti-projectile protection is to increase the resistance of steel armor used for towers. The base of the T-90S / A tower is made made of steel armor of medium hardness, which significantly (by 10-15%) surpasses cast armor of medium hardness in terms of projectile resistance.

Thus, with the same mass, a tower made of rolled armor can have a higher anti-ballistic resistance than a tower made of cast armor, and, in addition, if rolled armor is used for a tower, its anti-ballistic resistance can be further increased.

An additional advantage of a rolled turret is the possibility of ensuring a higher accuracy of its manufacture, since in the manufacture of a cast armor base of a turret, as a rule, the required casting quality and casting accuracy in terms of geometric dimensions and weight are not ensured, which necessitates labor-intensive and non-mechanized work to eliminate casting defects, adjustment of dimensions and weight of the casting, including adjustment of cavities for fillers. Realization of the advantages of the design of a rolled turret in comparison with a cast turret is possible only when its anti-ballistic resistance and survivability at the locations of the joints of rolled armor parts meets the general requirements for anti-ballistic resistance and survivability of the turret as a whole. Welded joints of the T-90S/A turret are made with full or partial overlapping of the joints of parts and welds from the side of shell fire.

The armor thickness of the side walls is 70 mm, the frontal armor walls are 65-150 mm thick; the turret roof is welded from separate parts, which reduces the rigidity of the structure during high-explosive impact.On the outer surface of the forehead of the tower are installed V -shaped blocks of dynamic protection.

Variants of towers with a welded base T-90A and T-80UD (with modular armor)

Other armor materials:

Materials used:

Domestic armored vehicles. XX century: Scientific publication: / Solyankin A.G., Zheltov I.G., Kudryashov K.N. /

Volume 3. Domestic armored vehicles. 1946-1965 - M .: LLC "Publishing House" Zeikhgauz "", 2010.

M.V. Pavlova and I.V. Pavlova "Domestic armored vehicles 1945-1965" - TiV No. 3 2009

Theory and design of the tank. - T. 10. Book. 2. Comprehensive protection / Ed. d.t.s., prof. P. P . Isakov. - M .: Mashinostroenie, 1990.

J. Warford. The first look at Soviet special armor. Journal of military ordnance. May 2002.

Tank T-34E with additional armor screens

Mounted tank armor

Mounted armor - additional armor for tanks. It can be in the form of armor plates, stampings, castings, tracks, etc., hung using fastening devices (screws, bolts, studs, factory fasteners) on the hull or turret in order to increase their security. A similar type of protection is shielding. The most modern hinged armor can be attributed to Dynamic protection. The principle of operation of dynamic protection is that containers with explosives installed on top of conventional tank armor explode towards a projectile penetrating this armor. In itself, additional booking could be carried out by the artisanal method by the crew, in a field repair shop or in factory conditions (be officially adopted).

The purpose of mounted tank armor is to detonate certain types of projectiles (cumulative for example) in order to reduce or avoid damage to the main body. For effective application anti-cumulative screens are installed at a certain, rather large distance from the tank.

Another reason for installing hinged armor plates is a way to strengthen the armor of the car, without a major upgrade. It was relatively easy to increase the armor of one or another part of the tank hull, bringing the armor to the desired total thickness. Similarly to hinged armor, welded armor was also used, for example, on the Ferdinand technique, where the forehead of the hull was protected by an additional armor plate weighing 4500 kg, mounted on 12 bolts. Projectile ricochet is possible from hinged sheets.

T-34-85 with mesh screens (nicknamed beds) in Berlin. End of World War II.

Interaction with projectiles

Mounted armor interacts differently with different types of projectiles. Tank ammo in the game

Description of the interaction between projectiles and mounted armor in decreasing order of its effectiveness:

HEAT rounds Mounted armor most effectively protects against the action HEAT shells. A jet of melt escaping from the projectile easily penetrates the hinged armor, but dissipates between it and the main armor without causing any damage to the tank. Particularly effective against the cumulative jet are the side screens of hinged sheet armor and dynamic protection.

High-explosive shells Hinged armor plates are just as effective in stopping HE shells. They explode on it, causing much less damage to the main armor. Usually after hitting a fairly large HE of the projectile, as opposed to hitting cumulative, hinged sheets fly off. Because the effectiveness of mounted armor against HE shells slightly lower than vs. cumulative.

Armor-piercing shells The effectiveness of protection against chamber shells with hinged armor is very ambiguous. Depending on the thickness of the sheet and the fuze, the projectile may or may not explode. If the projectile explodes, then no damage is done to the tank, almost no damage is done to the hinged armor. If the projectile does not explode on the hinged armor, then it only slightly reduces its speed, and hence the armor penetration of the main sheet by the chamber projectile, which usually plays a small role.

Armor-piercing, sub-caliber shells Added armor effect applied to projectiles that do not respond to armor touch, such as sub-caliber and armor-piercing(empty) is to slightly slow them down and, possibly, change the trajectory of the projectile. The effect of hinged sheets on such shells is the smallest.

PZ.IVH with hinged armor screens

Application tactics

The main tactics of playing on vehicles with hinged armor is no different from conventional vehicles. If the opponent uses HEAT rounds, then it is worth putting under attack precisely the hinged elements that are on the sides, and not the frontal armor. However, this rule usually does NOT apply if against you, for example, SU-122. Shells with a penetration of 160 mm can penetrate the shielded side of the Panther and Tiger tanks, not to mention the PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV tanks. The penetration of the main armor will be, if after breaking through the screen there is enough penetration of the jet (and if the main armor is quite thin). But 5mm side plates can undermine early Soviet shells with an MD-5 fuse (it can burst between the additional armor and the main one).

The principle of the hinged side screen is to disperse the cumulative jet (reducing its penetration). In case of high-explosive fragmentation- after the first shot, you will lose hinged armor and, possibly, caterpillars or a barrel. Mounted armor takes the impact of the fragments (which usually do not usually have strong penetration anyway), after which the fragments may no longer be enough to penetrate the main armor.

ERA and side shields will protect against HEAT rounds and high explosives, but will hardly help against other projectiles. Because this protection was mainly developed against cumulative projectiles. That is, it is a highly specialized protection. Reactive Armor detonates even when hit by bullets. Powerful cumulative ATGMs can still penetrate dynamic defenses (if the residual penetration is enough to break through the main armor).

Fighting mounted armor

Based on the interaction with projectiles, there are two ways to deal with mounted armor.

M60A1 RISE (P) with hinged protection - dynamic protection units (DZ)

1. Use projectiles that do not react to mounted armor. Such projectiles are Armor-piercing and sub-caliber. Possible use chamber shells, but depending on the penetration thickness of the mounted armor (which depends on the mounted armor itself and the angle of attack), such shells can behave differently. This means that at an angle of attack of 10 degrees, a projectile may not explode on mounted armor, but at an angle of attack of 50 degrees, it may explode on it.

2. Shoot down mounted armor plates with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile. Almost all tanks have high-explosive fragmentation shells in their ammunition load. One of them can be used once to knock down the hinged armor from the enemy. No damage will be inflicted to the enemy from the HE shell, but the hinged armor will most likely fly off. This method of dealing with hinged sheets is most suitable for equipment with a sufficient rate of fire.

3. Shoot down dynamic protection with machine gun shots, after which already send a cumulative to an open place. Dynamic protection is very sensitive, because it is configured to respond when hit by a cumulative projectile (and in fact any large projectile, including bullets). But powerful cumulative ATGMs can still overcome dynamic defense (if the residual penetration is enough to break through the main armor).

Ways to help understand what projectile the enemy is using

1. Most opponents (but not all) know what to shoot at mounted armor cumulative or high-explosive fragmentation shells are not needed. But in order to change the projectile to the desired one, for example armor-piercing or sub-caliber, the enemy still needs to shoot a charged projectile. Let's try to find out what projectile the enemy has.

2. One way to find out what kind of projectile the enemy is shooting is to look at the effect of the projectile hit.

• High-explosive fragmentation projectile- when it hits the ground (location) a big explosion. If the tank is hit, the hinged armor and equipment fly off, the caterpillar and the barrel are often damaged.
• HEAT projectile- when it hits the ground (location), a medium explosion. When hitting a tank, a module located at a great distance from the hit point cannot be damaged. Most often, opponents use cumulative projectiles when firing at long distances, because. armor penetration of a cumulative projectile does not depend on distance.
• Chamber projectile- when it hits the ground (location) a small explosion. When hitting a tank, damage is caused not only to modules on the projectile flight line, but to neighboring modules / crew from the explosion of the chamber.
• Armor-piercing, sub-caliber projectile- when it hits the ground (location) there is no explosion, only clouds of smoke. Such shells are most often used by opponents when trying to destroy heavily armored vehicles, or simply to break through thick armor.

3. You can always ask your allies in the chat what projectile a particular player uses in battle.

4. You can see / learn the types of shells available to the enemy at this level. This will eliminate the possibility, for example, that they have HEAT rounds.

5. If the enemy cannot extinguish or repair, most likely he has not researched the main modifications of the equipment. Most likely, he also did not have shells from 3-4 levels of modifications open.

6. Some equipment that mainly uses high-explosive fragmentation, cumulative shells.

High-explosive fragmentation	Cumulative
Sturmhaubitze 42 Ausf. G	Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. A
KV-2 (1939)	Pz.IV C
ISU-152	Pz.IV E
SU-122	Pz.IV F1
M4A3 (105)	and many other machines.

Application history

During the Second World War, the issue of increasing the protection of armored vehicles became acute. As you know, the power of anti-tank guns grew much faster than the armor protection of tanks, new individual anti-tank weapons appeared (rocket-propelled grenade launchers, magnetic mines and grenades, etc.), so armor that is quite sufficient today could be too weak tomorrow. In combat conditions, it is impossible to completely remove obsolete types of tanks from service and replace them with new ones. The development of modifications to existing vehicles takes time, while good armor is needed all the time. Because of this, along with the development of new tanks, the armor of existing types of equipment was strengthened. The German military was the first to understand this almost immediately after the start of the campaign against the USSR. Most of the German tanks had insufficient armor and low gun power. The T-34 and KV-1 were a real test for the German tankers, because it took much more time and shells to defeat them. Accordingly, the Germans themselves needed to be under fire longer. An urgent strengthening of the armor protection of tanks was required, and the Germans were the first to massively shield their tanks in the factory with side sheets of thin armor, against, as they thought, Soviet cumulative shells (which the Red Army did not have). And from ordinary shells, such shielding was almost useless. From that moment on, the race for armor protection in World War II began. All armies and individual tankers tried to strengthen their vehicles.

After the war, this evolution of additional armor grew into dynamic hinged armor and an improvement in the use of anti-cumulative screens. All these elements are still used and modernized.

Additional reservations were made in several cases:

• when it was necessary to urgently strengthen the armor.
• to bring the tank or self-propelled guns to the required indicators at the level of armor protection at the level of a new modification.
• when additional armor was in itself a constructive solution against a specific type of weapon or ammunition (for example, an anti-cumulative screen).
• when the complete re-equipment of parts with new types of equipment was either impossible or too expensive

There are several types and methods for installing hinged tank armor:

• Hanging additional armor plates over the main ones

The most common method of additional armor, which became widespread during the war.

On the German technology additional sheets were screwed on with bolts (often at a certain distance from the main armor). Such fastening can be explained in two ways - on the one hand, the properties of armored steel deteriorated at the welding point, and on the other hand, German armor was generally very poorly welded. But for non-permanent protection, designed to withstand the attack and save the tank, this was not critical.

The artisanal increase in armor was not at first welcomed by the German authorities at the beginning of World War II, but already on September 28, 1941, at a meeting with Hitler, the issue of urgently strengthening the armor protection of tanks and self-propelled guns was considered. As a result, modifications of vehicles with thicker armor appeared, and old vehicles began to be gradually equipped in field workshops with bolted armor plates. And later in the factory.

The Soviet army also resorted to additional armor by attaching additional armor plates. It should be noted that on Soviet tanks, additional armor was usually welded by electric welding, and not bolted.

The Allies often put additional bolted plates, but did not refuse welding either.

• Hanging caterpillar fragments

Hetzer, the weak side of which is additionally protected by a roller.

Almost any tank caterpillar is made of fairly strong steel, and if you hang a fragment of it on the armor, you get good protection. The Germans hung their tanks with caterpillars especially actively, since mounted tracks were considered a regular means of enhancing protection and were located in the most affected places. Wherever possible, not only caterpillars were hung, but also road wheels. Protective tracks even hit the heavily armored Royal Tigers tanks.

The Allies did not disdain to cover the tanks with caterpillar fragments. Many, many American Shermans were hung with tracks and road wheels in search of protection from both enemy tanks and individual anti-tank weapons.

In the Soviet army, trucks began to be hung only at the end of the war. For example, on the SU-100, a caterpillar fragment was officially supposed to be mounted on the front plate.

• Bulwarks (diversity shielding)

The chassis is the most vulnerable spot, so bulwarks were used to protect it. The bulwark was used to protect against sub-caliber cores, cumulative projectiles, grenades and varieties of faustpatrons. The bulwarks were initially protected by the chassis, and then they began to cover the rest of the tank. The principle of operation was that the running gear was covered with a steel sheet on the side. When hitting a protective sheet, a sub-caliber projectile or armor-piercing bullet could change the trajectory or decrease energy. As a result, the blow to the running gear turned out to be weakened or at an unfavorable angle of attack.

American tanks were rarely shielded by bulwarks, unlike the British. For example, at English Matilda and the Churchills, the shielding of the undercarriage was provided constructively. However, in addition to additional protection, additional problems appeared. Often in the cold season between the screens and the road wheels, the clogged dirt froze and made the tank immobile. The shielded undercarriage required careful maintenance on the European theater of operations.

In the USSR, the undercarriage was shielded from pre-war T-35s. In 1942, they also tried to shield the T-34. Nearly 60 T-34s were shielded at factory #112. Then the tanks were reduced to a separate brigade and experimentally sent to the front line. However, the T-34s were fired not by sub-caliber and HEAT shells, but with conventional armor-piercing. Naturally, the screens could not prove themselves, besides, the brigade suffered big losses, which is why they decided to abandon the screens.

The appearance in the German army of all kinds of faustpatrons forced us to turn again to the screens. Re-screening of Soviet tanks was resorted to only when Soviet army involved in stubborn urban battles. In the cramped streets, the tanks turned into easy prey for the Faustniks and suffered unreasonably high losses. Before entering the city, special mesh screens were mounted on the tanks. There is a popular belief that even bed nets were sometimes installed. There is no documentary evidence of this, but it is known that there were regular specially designed mesh screens. Often put trophy screening, which was in abundance. Kurchatov developed rod screens, but things did not go further than experiments.

The most popular shielding was in the German army. They covered not only the chassis, but the entire side projection, including the tower. Mostly light (Pz III) and medium tanks and self-propelled guns were shielded. At the same time, because of the screens, it became very inconvenient for tankers to use the numerous onboard evacuation and landing hatches.

The use of screens by the Germans was rather unintelligible and chaotic. For example, sheet screens protected well from armor-piercing cores and cumulative projectiles. But for some reason they were abandoned in favor of a purely anti-cumulative grid. But the threat of getting a sub-caliber on board has not decreased. It is possible that the shortage of armor steel, which began to be especially acute from the middle of 1944, was forced to switch to grids.

• Sandbags and boxes with sand, logs

This method was used by all armies. Bags were an emergency and short-term measure, since the fabric was easily damaged in battle by fragments and bullets - the sand spilled out. More often, the bags were wrapped around the tanks standing on the defensive. Shell boxes looked preferable, because they were filled not only with sand, but also with gravel. Bags could protect against cumulative faustpatrons, grenades, shells, and boxes of gravel from armor-piercing ones. Such protection was never placed above the engine compartment, so that sand would not get from the punched bag onto the mechanisms.

Logs could serve both for additional protection and for self-pulling.

• Concrete

Concrete as an additional protection was used mainly by German and American tankers. Concrete blanks were usually cast in the field and fastened to the most threatened places.

AT Soviet troops they gravitated towards concrete in the first half of the war, when there were serious problems with the quality and quantity of armored steel. In the USSR, the option of replacing armor with concrete was studied, but these developments did not go beyond prototypes.

M48 Patton "Magah" with remote sensing "Blazer"

• Dynamic protection (DZ)

The first examples of dynamic protection were developed in the USSR at the end of the 1950s by the research institutes under the leadership of Academician Bogdan Voitsekhovsky. But they were not implemented in the USSR because the scientist fell into disgrace in the 1970s-1980s. In addition, some doubted this method of protection - they did not understand how they could hang explosives on the tank themselves (and the tank was often used as a means of infantry transportation). For a number of reasons, such as an adequate level of protection Soviet armored vehicles by the time the dynamic protection was created, its production did not begin until the mid-80s. And in the mid-60s, similar developments were carried out in Germany by research engineer Manfred Held - the MBB-Schrobenhausen concern. For the first time, dynamic protection, created on the basis of German experience, was installed on Israeli tanks during the 1982 Lebanon War. DZ is still used in many armies of the world, and has already gone through 4 generations of improvement.