BMP-3. Long-awaited protection from... the past
November 11 the news there was a message that Kurganmashzavod began to install the latest dynamic protection on the BMP-3. All this was covered during a visit to the plant by Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev. Naturally, all this was taught as a thoughtful concern for our Army, which is fighting in Ukraine.
Well, that's noble. It is perceived positively.
How was it received by the Army itself? Sad smile.
Does the old proverb that “until the thunder breaks out, the Russian peasant does not cross himself” lives so strongly in our genetic code? Or is this a simple excuse, and the whole point is in elementary ill-conceivedness and, again, in primordially Russian “it will do”?
Well, of course, an attentive lover of the “zomboyaschik” will object, because it was only in September of this year that the news announced the creation of this newest armor! There was even a video from the Alabino training ground with the shelling of a DZ block with a 4S24 element with a PG-7VS shot!
And now, in November, they put it on the BMP-3. In just two months. Well, what are you really talking about "everything is lost"! See how well the tower will now be protected. Five mounts to the right and left of the gun pair.
And the head of the GABTU of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Major General Shestakov, said that additional protection kits were also created for the BMP-2, BTR-82A, BTR-80 and more:
"... deliveries of these complexes to the troops are ensured, primarily to the areas of the special military operation ..."
(RIA Novosti 11.11.2022)
Something like this was told to me by one television patriotic comrade. Not a bad person, in principle, an ordinary civilian who draws information from the most mass sources.
The very first question I asked him puzzled him a little:
Why just the tower? Will they put it on the body too?
– I don’t know… The news only talked about the tower.
Looked. And exactly. Everywhere only about the tower. Well, maybe it's just that one journalist did not listen to the end, while others "sang" his words. It's normal for them.
How do you know about the corpus?
– So this development is already 20 years old.
- Twenty?
Not so long ago, I published material on the VO about the dynamic protection of domestic armored vehicles. It was covered in great detail. story its creation, theory of application and practice in the form complexesstanding on equipping our tanks.
Already at the very end of the article, a small amount of material was collected about KDZ for light armored vehicles. It was really short, since the size of the article already exceeded all limits, and these complexes did not appear in the Russian troops.
Now it's time to remember about the "newest" protection, announced in September of this year...
By the beginning of the 2006st century, various “tank” KDZs had long been in service in Russia. This is both "Contact" and "Contact-V", in XNUMX "Relic" went into the series.
Was there a question about equipping DZ light armored vehicles?
Undoubtedly. But it was impossible to simply take and rearrange the developed blocks on the BMP. The very composition of the armor, and most importantly its thickness, did not allow this.
With the joint detonation of the EDZ with the PTS, the armor of the armored object received serious damage, and the superimposed shock waves inflicted an almost “open” shell shock to the crew and landing force.
BMP-2 board with a standard DZ unit after firing from an RPG-7
The PG-9V grenade smashed the left block of sections from the "classic" EDZ 4S20. Photo: Research Institute of Steel
We needed other elements of explosives and a different principle of countering cumulative ammunition.
This element was the EDZ 4S24. It contains two times less explosives, providing the same level of anti-cumulative protection as 4S20 KDZ "Contact".
To prevent destruction of the lightly armored hull, dynamic protection elements are located in a container between layers of foamed polymer material, which ensures smooth braking of metal plates scattered by detonation, which destroy the armor of light armored vehicles. But the plates at the same time continue to fulfill their main purpose - they “cut” the cumulative jet, reducing its penetrating ability.
By the way, this solution turned out to be effective in another issue - when a certain KDZ block is initiated, its “neighbors” do not detonate, as happened in the Kontakt KDZ.
Tests of KDZ with 4S24 elements on the BMP-3
In the developed KDZ for light armored vehicles, it was possible to ensure not the transfer of detonation between the elements of dynamic protection, but most importantly, protection against slippage of the leading part of the cumulative jet.
The risk of slippage of the leading part of the jet can be reduced by using highly sensitive explosives, but this increases the risk of EDZ ignition when fired by heavy machine guns or detonation when exposed to 23-30 mm rounds. The Research Institute of Steel managed to solve these problems and bind the unbound in this complex.
But why are blocks for LBT much larger than classic "tank" blocks? Is it only because of a special, "braking" filler?
Not really. More precisely, not at all.
If we recall the theory of the effectiveness of countering the DZ to the action of a shaped charge (described it in the article by reference), then the cumulative jet receives the greatest destruction when it meets the EPD at an angle of 68–70 degrees. It is at this angle of "meeting" that the armor penetration of the "intruder" drops by 75%.
Remember tank turrets equipped with remote sensing - that's exactly the "angle" of two blocks and creates the most effective angle of encounter with ammunition.
And on VLD dynamic protection is laid close to 68 degrees.
Even inside the KDZ "Contact" block, two EDZ 4S20 missile plates are located at an angle to each other, both to cover the space between adjacent blocks and to increase the likelihood of a cumulative jet meeting at the most effective destructive angle.
Element 4S20 KDZ "Contact"
By the way, in the late 80s and early 90s, the Kontakt KDZ was mounted on the T-72 tower in different ways. On the T-72A, they were attached precisely at an angle to a structure welded to the tank.
T-72AV with KDZ "Contact"
And on the T-72B, they were simply installed on the tower to meet with the cumulative at an ineffective angle of 90 degrees.
T-72B with KDZ "Contact"
The fact is that the T-72A (object 172M) and the T-72B (object 184) were fundamentally different from each other, including seriously in terms of booking.
At that time, it was believed that the T-72A needed the maximum possible protection against the action of a cumulative ammunition, and for the T-72B it would even be ... redundant. Well, as for me, there is never a lot of protection on a tank, they could hang it with a “corner”. Well, who asks us, fuel oil? Nobody.
No, I'm not going away from the topic by turning to my own tanks, it's just that the meaning of the layout of the EDZ in the block for lightly armored vehicles will be clear. They are placed exactly at the maximum possible effective angle for the destruction of the cumulative jet.
A sort of “side of a triangle” inside the block itself.
Photo: BTVT.narod.ru
All this was akin to a revolution in the protection of light armored vehicles. And this miracle was developed in the early 2000s. And even (!) Adopted in 2006.
The following KDZs were designed at the Research Institute of Steel on the basis of the 4C24 element:
"Frame" and "Frame-2" for BMP-3,
"Berezhok" for BMP-2,
"Typhon" for BTR-90.
The well-known photo of the EDZ 4S24 test on the BTR-90
These complexes provide very decent protection against a monoblock cumulative shot of any weapons. However ... for unknown fabulous reasons, these KDZ did not appear in the troops. Although they were mass-produced and ... delivered abroad.
Ага.
The fact is that, as in the case of the creation and birth of the Pantsir air defense system, the glorious Arabs managed to accidentally benefit our military-industrial complex and the country's defense. While the specialists of SKBM and the masters of Kurganmashzavod were bringing to mind the BMP-3 BMP-XNUMX, which were damp at that time (frankly speaking), delivered in the UAE, the children of the desert became interested in the developments of the Research Institute of Steel and bought sets of this KDZ for their combat vehicles.
But we are not.
Why? Probably because we did not need such protection.
The whole world feverishly began to equip lightly armored vehicles in DZ. In America, it is decorated with Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and M113 and Stryker armored personnel carriers. The Germans dress "Puma", and the impudent Saxons "Warrior". And this is the BMP.
M2 Bradley body kit KDZ
Italy, France, Israel, Spain, Poland can boast of having protection for "light ladies".
In the West, the requirements for the protection of the LME are defined by special standards. One of them - the NATO Standard "LME Protection Levels" (STANAG 4569 "Protection Level for Occupants of Logistic and Light Armored Vehicles") - defines 5 levels of protection for the LME. The maximum level 5 provides protection against 25 mm APDS projectiles and fragments of high-explosive fragmentation shells.
This standard was adopted in May 2004, but at the moment it has already become obsolete, and many designers of light armored vehicles have already received more serious protection requirements. The requirements for all-round (!) LME protection against 30-mm small-caliber cannon shells, as well as protection against cumulative ammunition with an armor penetration level of up to 400-450 mm, have already begun to be considered basic.
And we have our own way of development. Create and ... do not put in the troops.
Interestingly, but for those who then made SUCH a decision, have they at least inserted a peak now? Well, maybe they at least hiccup?
Ah, I get it. This, the current, DZ complex is the “newest”. How is it different from what was developed 20 years ago? Probably the fact that in the TV box of R & D "Karkas" was called "Cactus". There are no other differences.
I give data on "both" developments in one line, because it makes no sense to compare them, all word for word:
DZ based on EDZ 4S24
Provides increased protection of thinly armored projections from single-block cumulative ammunition.
For BMP-3, the additional protection overlap area:
Hull board 62%
Forehead hull 36%
Tower 70%.
Latticed screens cover the rear projection of the tower and sides with MTO.
The total weight of the set is 4 kg.
Characteristics of element 4S24: Weight 1,36 kg. Dimensions 251,9x131,9x13. Efficiency to initiation from -50 to +55 degrees. FROM.
In addition to protection against single-block shaped charges, the complex successfully protects against B-32 armor-piercing bullets, 23-mm BZT shells and 30-mm armor-piercing shells.
The inertness of explosives in 4S24 is chosen in such a way that the blocks do not detonate when hit by BZT bullets, shells up to 30 mm, large-caliber OFS fragments and various incendiary mixtures up to napalm.
That's why the "armored ones" had a sad smile when M.A. Medvedev was shown the "newest" protection.
By the way, on the sides of the hull there really are no bonnets for attaching the KDZ, as on the towers.
Welded to the next visit of the "high" inspector? What year?
I understand that this is now a mockery in my performance, but it categorically seems to me that we, fuel oil and LBT crews, have the right to do so. It will come true from ours, after only 20 years they can only install it on the tower.
What are our infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers riding in Ukraine now?
With nothing.
The fact that KDZ "Contact" blocks are welded is the hull. They are either empty or filled with rubbish. At least some additional protection from bullets, fragments and the hope of a failure in the formation of a cumulative jet.
No sane deputy commander of the unit will put explosives in them.
By the way, what am I, terry fuel oil, why do I include myself in the glorious cohort of BMP crews about KDZ for lightly armored vehicles?
Yes, we just use it too. Yeah.
T-72B3M sample 2016 remember? And the T-80BVM? Have you seen large boxes in the posterolateral part of the tower?
T-72B3M rev. 2016
T-80BWM
These are DZ containers with 4C24 elements, only they are without foamed polymer material between them. This is still tank armor, not infantry fighting vehicles. But the EDS and the principle of placement are the same.
By the way, the Research Institute of Steel claims that these KDZ blocks with 4S24 elements will be extremely effective when closing the sides of the hull of the tanks themselves. Maybe it will be more practical "bags" with the same elements? And even more so current screens?
And we still have a very solid option!
And most often like this:
Nothing has changed since the 90s...
Of course, I am not in a claim to manufacturers, they "set" exactly what they are told and paid for.
So the question is:
whom do you need to come to Uralvagonzavod so that thoughtful (!) KDZ sets are installed on the T-72 (90)?
But suppose whom you need to come to other factories and armored personnel carriers so that KDZ appear on the BMP-2 and BTR-80, even ...
I can not…
Information