In order for dynamic protection to save the tank, you need to set it correctly

37
In order for dynamic protection to save the tank, you need to set it correctly

Today we will talk about the hinged "Contact". However, this material will not be a lengthy roll of text about why dynamic protection is needed, how it affects certain types of ammunition and other nuances that are important in theory, but not in practice. Everything is much more prosaic here. It’s just that the media and other sources of information have made such a contribution to the elimination of illiteracy of the broad masses that the opinion has become too strong that the very presence of reactive armor is already a panacea for all ills, well, or for most of them. Anyhow I stuck it on the car, and then at least the grass does not grow. Like, it will still work and protect. Work something - it will work, but it will not fully protect.

Yes, and among the military sometimes there is a misunderstanding, because it often happens that they do not pay attention to the marking of containers of dynamic protection, or it does not exist at all. Meanwhile, it is the correct installation of these "bricks" that affects their protective properties.




Tilt angles


Surely many of those who were interested in dynamic protection (DZ), in particular "Contact", at a level slightly higher than "some kind of exploding bricks on the armor", know that in the block (container) of this reactive armor on the struts there is a wedge-shaped two items installed. They consist of projectile steel plates and an explosive that detonates when a cumulative jet penetrates. At the same time, both the energy of the explosion and the plates flying and crossing its trajectory have an impact on this very cumulative jet.

As a result, those parts of the jet that interact with dynamic protection are subjected to powerful deformation and rupture, losing their integrity and penetrating ability. On this, in fact, the principle of explosive reactive armor is based.

Marking on blocks of dynamic protection "Contact"
Marking on blocks of dynamic protection "Contact"

By the way, in order not to languish for a long time, you need to put the Contact containers as it is signed on the photo attached below. Parallel to axis tank. Often they are marked with a letter and an arrow indicating the direction of installation.

"Polarity" of the dynamic protection unit
"Polarity" of the dynamic protection unit

Why - let's talk further. Including why there are two explosive elements in the block.


It seems that the answer to this question about the number of elements of dynamic protection in the block is extremely simple and can only be that two elements are better than one. Two layers of explosives, more throwable plates - stronger and the impact on the attacking cumulative jet. So right? That's right, there can be no disputes in this regard, but such a design has other functionality. And the angles of inclination under which you need to put the DZ are to blame for everything.

The bottom line is that any serial domestic complex of dynamic protection, be it the "Contact" that we are talking about, or the universal "Contact-5", and even more so the modern "Relic" - gizmos that are very reluctant to work at right angles to offensive ammunition. A very hypothetical example can be given.

If you fix the block of the same “Contact” on a strictly vertical surface and shoot it at a right angle from some kind of grenade launcher with a monoblock grenade penetrating 500 mm, then the DZ will be able to reduce its penetrating ability by a maximum of half or so, and then with a successful combination circumstances. This is due to the small contact area of ​​the missile plates acting on the cumulative jet under such conditions.

"Sixty-four" with a good location of dynamic protection "Contact"
"Sixty-four" with a good location of dynamic protection "Contact"

But the dynamic protection installed at an angle of 60–70 degrees for the same projectile can already “shave off” about 90% of penetration due to the larger area of ​​\u72b\u1bcontact between the plates and the cumulative jet, which essentially make a side impact on it. That is why on the frontal parts of the Kontakt tanks they are placed at a large angle from the vertical: on the forehead of the hull this is obvious, since it itself has the desired slope, but on the forehead of the tower it is wedge-shaped with the help of metal structures. A kind of anti-example here can only be the T-1985B / BXNUMX model of XNUMX, in which the tower is plastered with DZ anyhow.

T-72B1 with an unfortunate location of dynamic protection on the frontal part of the tower
T-72B1 with an unfortunate location of dynamic protection on the frontal part of the tower

Edge effect and gaps


Why this passage with angles of inclination and how is it connected with two elements of dynamic protection in blocks?

Firstly, there are gaps within 40 millimeters between the blocks located at an angle anyway. If they had only one horizontally mounted element with missile plates, these gaps could serve as an excellent lure for a cumulative jet if the projectile hit the edge of the cover located below the block. Therefore, the second - standing at an angle - element overlaps the weakened zones, excluding such a possibility as much as possible. That is why "Contact" cannot be placed "upside down" or in any other way - the efficiency will immediately drop significantly.

The trajectories of cumulative jets, which, with the correct installation of the blocks of dynamic protection "Contact", at an angle and one after another, cross at least two elements of dynamic protection. The probability of getting into the gaps is minimal
The trajectories of cumulative jets, which, with the correct installation of the blocks of dynamic protection "Contact", at an angle and one after another, cross at least two elements of dynamic protection. The probability of getting into the gaps is minimal

Secondly, the Contact block itself, standing alone on the armor, albeit at the desired effective angle (60 degrees, for example), is far from uniform in terms of protective ability over its entire area. This is called the edge effect in the scientific literature on armored vehicles. Back in the 80s, D. A. Rototaev described such a contraption with colleagues - the man thanks to whom dynamic protection appeared on our tanks in general.

Conventionally, the upper and lower parts of the block of dynamic protection "Contact"
Conventionally, the upper and lower parts of the block of dynamic protection "Contact"

The essence of this effect is that when a cumulative projectile hits not in the center of the block, but closer to the edges, the effectiveness of reactive armor decreases sharply. Hitting the lower parts of the block leads to the fact that a very small area of ​​the thrown plates and their fragments interacts with the cumulative jet. In the event of a projectile hitting the upper part of the block, only one explosive element of dynamic protection is in contact with the jet, while the second, lower, is actually inactive.

The test results are shown below. They used a dynamic protection unit at an angle of 60 degrees from the vertical and a combat cumulative part of an anti-tank grenade of 93 mm caliber.

Points of fire of the block of dynamic protection. Residual penetration of the cumulative jet when it hits the upper part of the block: C - 274 mm, F - 376 mm. Residual penetration when hit in the middle part of the block: B - 37 mm, E - 86 mm. Residual penetration when hitting the bottom of the block: A - 241 mm, D - 292 mm.
Points of fire of the block of dynamic protection. Residual penetration of the cumulative jet when it hits the upper part of the block: C - 274 mm, F - 376 mm. Residual penetration when hit in the middle part of the block: B - 37 mm, E - 86 mm. Residual penetration when hitting the bottom of the block: A - 241 mm, D - 292 mm

Here, in general, the “Contact” design again proves its usefulness precisely with the correct installation - as in the case of gaps, the lower parts of the “superior” neighbors overlap, due to which the edge effect is partially leveled. In such conditions, the cumulative jet in any case passes through at least two elements of dynamic protection, or even three, with a corresponding decrease in penetration.

All of the above about the gaps and the edge effect applies to the sides of the combat vehicle: you need to put "Contact" on the side screens according to the same rules. It is then that reactive armor will most fully work against attacking ammunition in the heading angles of the tank's maneuvering. Correctly set - increased the chances of survival in combat conditions, both for the crew and for the equipment itself.

In fact, these are common truths that, in theory, any employee of the repair units, as well as the tank crew, should know. But in the current conditions, when there are simply no clear rules for handling dynamic protection (sometimes there is information that in disputes about the correct installation of remote sensing sometimes it comes to a massacre), knowledge seems to be not entirely useless. Moreover, handicraft flourishes with might and main, when reactive armor is molded anyhow, and even sometimes it or its components are made to order by volunteers ... Whether there is marking or not ... In short, what is written can come in handy.

Information sources:
"Influence of the edge effect on the dynamic protection of the tank". A. I. Anisko, S. V. Bodrov and others.
Tank Defense. V. A. Grigoryan, E. G. Yudin and others.
"Means of destruction and ammunition". A. V. Babkin, V. A. Veldanov and others.
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    31 May 2023 03: 45
    But in the current conditions, when there are simply no clear rules for handling dynamic protection (sometimes there is information that in disputes about the correct installation of remote sensing sometimes it comes to a massacre), knowledge seems to be not entirely useless.

    I'm afraid that the article is not interesting to high ranks in stripes, and it is not particularly accessible to those directly interested in protection and there is simply no time to read it. Here in the Telega, on more or less popular channels, to place squeezes ...
    1. 0
      4 June 2023 16: 44
      Usually those who install do not go into battle themselves .. therefore they don’t fool around too much .. Unless, of course, the crew itself installs, it has a direct interest in doing everything as expected
      1. 0
        18 July 2023 02: 48
        For some reason, this does not prevent those who make tanks for the Armed Forces of Ukraine from putting DZ as it should, but in Russia everything is through one place, they cannot put DZ, gratings, or KAZ on armored vehicles.
  2. +2
    31 May 2023 03: 56
    Edward, why is the Relic "reluctant to work at a right angle"? Perhaps because it was originally planned to place blocks with an angle of inclination so that the protection was effective?
    1. +13
      31 May 2023 04: 04
      Edward, why is this Relic "reluctantly working at a right angle

      You answered your own question. All the dynamic protection systems listed in the text are most effective only at an angle. Shooting perpendicular (or so) to the block can be very sad for a combat vehicle. For something that flies, for example, at a right angle to the side, there are mounted KDZs in bags or steel boxes, where the EDS are at an angle to the side.

      What you mentioned is exclusively the prerogative of protecting the forehead and sides in the heading angles of the tank's maneuvering. The listed DZ was made for this, so put it differently in within heading angles and standard equipment cars are a dangerous business.
  3. -5
    31 May 2023 04: 34
    Dynamic protection is not the best way to protect a tank. There was a commentary on this topic:

    Quote from Kojote21

    So I think that with DZ it's not so simple. Firstly, I don’t think that absolutely the entire tank is covered with it. Secondly, there are shells that can easily cope with remote sensing: shells with a tandem warhead or armor-piercing shells. Thirdly, even if the DZ stopped the projectile and destroyed it, then in order to destroy the tank, it is enough to send another projectile to the same place where the projectile was sent, since the DZ reacted to the previous projectile and detonated, and therefore, the tank in this the place is no longer protected. In the field, this is not easy, but in the conditions of urban battles it is quite possible [1]. Although, I may be wrong.


    [1] This is my third statement.

    PS However, there is no method that would protect the tank in all 100% of cases.
    1. +5
      31 May 2023 04: 51
      Maybe not the best, but one of the ways. With the correct use of the passive and active protection of the tank, the survival rate increases significantly ...
    2. +3
      31 May 2023 05: 23
      Voice your options for tank protection superior to existing ones, please. Very interesting.
      1. 0
        31 May 2023 08: 09
        Quote: Eugen Alpine
        Voice your options for tank protection superior to existing ones, please. Very interesting.

        Can you tell me, please, what is the British Challenger 2 in the entire history of use received only two armor penetrations? But it turns out that he has such a very interesting armor, the composition of which has not yet been announced. This is suspicious...
        And than. I did not say that dynamic protection should be abandoned.
        Of course, this is not the best way to protect the tank, but not the worst either.
        However, I repeat, there is no ideal option for protecting a tank.
        1. +2
          31 May 2023 10: 11
          Quote from Kojote21
          Can you tell me, please, what is the British Challenger 2 in the entire history of use received only two armor penetrations?

          Maybe because they didn’t fire at him with adequate weapons?
          1. 0
            31 May 2023 12: 48
            No, just Abrams and Leopards from RPG-7 burned the same. RPG-7s were fired upon by the Challengers, but they remained intact. What's the matter?
            1. +2
              31 May 2023 15: 39
              No, just Abrams and Leopards from RPG-7 burned the same

              burned, but only they were set on fire with cardboard boxes thrown into the hatch and cornets into the tower.
              in hand-to-hand combat (from RPG-7), they didn’t seem to be beaten much.
              and the challenger has no problems, because there are no statistics - he didn’t fight anywhere

              at the entrance to Pristina airport


              in Iraq, the challengers were hiding in the desert, they blasted one another from a cannon (friendly fire), they shot down one car from an RPG-7 (he poked his head into the city somewhere) and two cars didn’t make it through, that’s all the statistics - three shots (Poles for $ 300 ) - and one wrecked tank.
              and then it’s not clear from what in the last photo - roofing felts from a failed RPG (armor has nothing to do with it)


              [/ Center]
              with 70 tons, miracles can be done, especially since the Iraqis most likely had old shots for RPGs - with lower armor penetration. and they jump from 250 to 500 mm to more recent
            2. 0
              1 June 2023 04: 31
              Quote from Kojote21
              RPG-7s were also fired upon by the Challengers, but they remained intact. What's the matter?
              As many as 5 and a half times fired? So-so statistics. And is it possible to count the RPG shots of the 60-70s. adequate to the tank of the 90s? Obviously not. T-72 in Chechnya received up to 7 hits without loss of combat capability. What, we take a single case and declare the T-72 invulnerable?
            3. +1
              1 June 2023 08: 33
              Now compare how many conflicts and how intensively Challenger participated, and with how many and in which Leo and Abrasha ...
              Hence the great stats.
    3. +2
      31 May 2023 14: 47
      Quote from Kojote21
      Firstly, I don’t think that absolutely the entire tank is covered with it

      The main thing is to cover the areas of armor where "arrival" is statistically most likely.
      Quote from Kojote21
      Secondly, there are shells that can easily cope with remote sensing: shells with a tandem warhead or armor-piercing shells.

      In the "Large-caliber Trouble" program, a tandem warhead (4 RPG-3 and 7 Panzerfaust) was fired 1 times at a tank without remote sensing - the ammunition did not work NEVER. "Relic" and "Contact-5" also work on BOPS.
      Quote from Kojote21
      it is enough to send another projectile to the same place where the projectile was sent

      Show me a "magician" who can hit 2 times in one block of dynamic protection
      1. 0
        31 May 2023 20: 25
        Show me a "magician" who can hit 2 times in one block of dynamic protection

        from 100-150 meters - even without a bipod, even with a light wind, it is quite possible to saw concrete pillars - the native sight is good.

        In the "Large-caliber Trouble" program, a tandem warhead (4 RPG-3 and 7 Panzerfaust) was fired 1 times at a tank without remote sensing - the ammunition never worked

        how did you see it. He himself there and said - wrong storage.
        in general pg-7vr - he has at least two issues.
        summer issue - leading charges work.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5Aa_p65EE&t=512s
        winter edition (from 34 minutes) - even the leading ones do not work
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcKdTAp4UNI

        I think the problems are with the pg-7VR fuse.
        the shot itself has been produced since 1988. they shot at the troops a little, so they stale
        1. 0
          20 August 2023 05: 38
          I am amazed at sofa snipers. Only a sofa sniper can hit a 20 by 40 cm square on a maneuvering moving tank from a grenade launcher twice in a row in battle! And nothing will stop him. No bullets, no fragments, no smoke from explosions, no shock waves, no loud noises.. Fantastic! That's who the SVO is missing!
    4. 0
      4 June 2023 16: 48
      In Grozny, a destroyed tank received an average of 8 to 12 hits .. therefore, if you shoot 10-15 times from a grenade launcher, or fire at the OFS with shells from an automatic cannon, then you can probably undress from the DZ enough armor area to defeat. The question is, will they let you do it.
    5. 0
      10 June 2023 00: 09
      stupid quote. against tandem ammunition there is the same Relic, which works according to OBPS.

      to get to the place where the dz worked??? Yes, the author of this opus is just a dreamer! here it would be to get into the tank itself, and not through the window 20 by 20 cm.

      couch analyteG
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +3
    31 May 2023 05: 58
    The author does not teach Topvarovites how to hang K-1, they will figure it out without you wink
    1. +9
      31 May 2023 06: 22
      At an angle to weigh - half the battle. It is still necessary to fasten his face to the enemy, which he wrote about.
  6. +1
    31 May 2023 06: 03
    The arrow on the block is the direction "toward the enemy"?
    1. +6
      31 May 2023 06: 25
      Theoretically - yes. But the marking can be different, or even without it. Therefore, in the cut: the tip of the < wedge elements in the block to the opponent. In the photos of the article "on the nose" is signed.
  7. -2
    31 May 2023 06: 19
    Well, given that the suckers even welded upside down on the "exhibition" copy of Leo, and we can find such clowns.
    PiSi - the article should have appeared in 2014, otherwise the collective farm rode horseback on the collective farm))) What DZ? They couldn't find who could shoot from a mortar
    1. +2
      31 May 2023 07: 01
      Quote from Bingo
      Well, given that the suckers even welded upside down on the "exhibition" copy of Leo, and we can find such clowns.

      We put the sensors on the rocket upside down (when Rogozin commanded Roscosmos).
      * * *
      "DZ", "KAZ" ...
      "FUCK"!!!
      Too lazy to look for an article on "VO", where they clearly depicted protection from boards, nets and other applied materials.
      Tank armor should be armor that Russian developers are after, stuffed with all sorts of additional tungsten and other crap.
      And all this should be in combination with "DZ" and "KAZ" ... Sorry, but releasing tanks with such body kits on the battlefield, where it can be hit by the same "Javelin" - is ordinary nonsense, in the hope that "Don't feel sorry for the soldiers, women still give birth"...
      We don't thank God...
      The T-14 is the best tank in the world, but that's why they don't let it fight. which is too expensive...
      The Su-57 is the most inconspicuous and maneuverable aircraft of the 5th generation, but there are no engines for it...
      The coalition shoots accurately and far, but there are problems in manufacturing (for sure - the barrel and the power plant) ...
      TOS is the most terrible non-nuclear weapon, but the firing range is such that every time the crew has to hope to "survive during counter-battery" firing ...
      And then there are the problems of "friendly fire", protection against thermal imagers, equipment, reliable communications, power plants for the fleet, air defense systems for it, locators, air-to-air missiles, means of combating UAVs, the production of UAVs themselves, etc. .d. and so on....
      We pick at old "sores" and hope in this way to draw attention to the patient, stricken with gangrene, forgetting. that weapons are not created for parades and biathlons, but for war. It is in a combat situation that its quality and suitability for its intended purpose are checked, and not at all by the number of ruined crews and crews ... For this, there are training grounds and various design bureaus ...
      They say that earlier the architect of the bridge stood under it during the opening of the movement ... Where did this useful tradition go?
      1. +2
        31 May 2023 14: 43
        We put the sensors on the rocket upside down (when Rogozin commanded Roscosmos)
        you are wrong. not with him

        TOS is the most terrible non-nuclear weapon, but the firing range is such that every time the crew has to hope to "survive during counter-battery" firing ...
        during the NWO, the range was increased from 5 to 8 km. although the bell rang back in Syria.
        and "counter-battery" - this means he has already fired back and left. you are probably confusing it with shelling BEFORE a salvo - I'll tell you - this is due to the well-established round-the-clock Ukrdron intelligence, at least. without even taking any satellites and avaxes into account. you need to cover up the TOS calculations with electronic warfare - extinguish the sky, interact.
        Well, the wheeled TOS was in development - the cars were shown at the parade three years ago

        The T-14 is the best tank in the world, but that's why they don't let it fight. which is too expensive...
        so they run in, even in the "nailing nails with a microscope" mode, as you require.
        the tank apparently still has no one to integrate with into a single system of the battlefield, and there is nothing through it - more satellites and ground, air equipment and reconnaissance equipment are needed
      2. +2
        31 May 2023 14: 44
        Excuse me, but releasing tanks with such body kits on the battlefield, where it can be knocked out by the same Javelin, is ordinary nonsense

        But what, are there tanks in the world that hold the blow of a javelin or an artillery shell from above? there are no such.
        yes, KAZ can cover with smoke from the upper hemisphere, but this apparently increases the cost greatly, and is very unreliable in terms of breakdown (disabling) in these conditions.
        put a radar on the roof - it will only make it worse - the javelins will become radar-guided, but they won’t stand up for the price - they will print
        they are working on optical sensors instead of the KAZ radar and new smoke, they are looking for a balance in the form of visors and other additional iron on the roof, it is pointless to further increase the cost of the tank - there has been a sea of ​​​​tank weapons in recent decades.

        The Su-57 is the most inconspicuous and maneuverable aircraft of the 5th generation, but there are no engines for it...
        Yes, planes bake like pies! at several new factories! The Su-57 is only more thrust-armed - what will it give you against the background of the fact that the other day they just threw free-falling bombs from the new SU-34s from a low-level machine guns?
        why drive horses here when new heat-resistant materials are on the way, newer than new? planes make enough for the tasks at hand. now they are deciding the performance characteristics of missiles in the sky, and you can launch them from any aircraft - for Ukrainian moments, they weld pylons in the form of suitable pieces of iron and go ahead - guidance without you is feasible.
        1. 0
          4 June 2023 15: 58
          Well, of course, also put a passive radar seeker on Javelin. Where are you sticking it to? Or do you want to remove the GOS that is now worth it? So KAZ will not stand on all armored vehicles. And KAZ is put on all modern tanks and infantry fighting vehicles of Western countries, and we plan to put it on the bulk. So your visors are a purely temporary solution, a test to protect yourself from a blow from above all sorts of things. There is also the ancient KAZ "Rain" and "Barrier", which Ukraine put it on and the Turks like. So, it’s quite possible for us, on top of the tower, to put this on top of the MTO.
      3. +2
        31 May 2023 21: 45
        Quote: ROSS 42
        We put the sensors on the rocket upside down (when Rogozin commanded Roscosmos).

        Rogozin has nothing to do with it, and there is no article "sabotage" in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
  8. -1
    31 May 2023 07: 48
    While still studying as a cadet, almost 20 years ago, I read a smart article about our dynamic protection. It was originally designed on the basis of incorrect intelligence about the penetration of Western shells and anti-tank missiles. She lags behind by 150-200mm, when they realized this, everything was already serial, approved, awards received. Since then, everything seems to be lagging behind. How not to put it, hope only for good luck!
    1. 0
      20 August 2023 07: 12
      A smart article was written by an idiot journalist apparently. And contact-1 was developed on the basis of penetration of Soviet grenades.
  9. +3
    31 May 2023 10: 32
    It would be interesting to read a similar article on intumescent armor (NERA).
  10. +2
    31 May 2023 11: 37
    It is interesting that on the t-72AV the dynamic protection was placed with a Christmas tree, but on the t-72b it was placed, but how, why it’s not clear to me, maybe someone knows will explain.
    1. +3
      31 May 2023 21: 43
      The T-72B had a significantly higher protection against PTS in the frontal projection than the T-72A. Therefore, a simpler version of the NDZ Contact installation was used on the T-72B. On the upgraded version of the T-72B, the VDZ Contact V was installed.
  11. +1
    31 May 2023 18: 07
    Thank you for the article. Someone else would have analyzed the experience and developed sensible instructions for installing dynamic protection elements for tanks of all types used in NVO AND SENT IT TO REPAIR UNITS AND DIVISIONS.
  12. +1
    31 May 2023 22: 10
    Good article. Respect to the author. It is desirable that there be more such articles on VO.
  13. 0
    4 June 2023 16: 52
    Not so long ago they wrote that a batch of fake DZ was found without explosives inside ... and armor with cardboard inserts stuffed with sand for weight.