About the lousy "backpacks" with which our tanks went to the North Military District
Ideally, any combat vehicle and its equipment should serve as a model of reliability and balanced decisions, tolerating no errors during the development process. However, for one reason or another, it's not always possible to avoid them. A striking example of such, so to speak, flaws were backpacks—explosive reactive armor in a soft casing, which was widely installed on domestically produced vehicles. Tanks.
Instead of an introduction
As is well known, virtually all existing tanks—regardless of the country of manufacture—are designed using a differentiated armor design. This design places the main armor arrays in the frontal projections of the hull and turret, while the sides and other parts receive significantly less protection.
It can't be otherwise, unless you want to turn a tank into a 100-ton monster. But, unfortunately, this state of affairs imposes its own limitations: a combat vehicle becomes literally defenseless if fired at from a right angle (or close to it) to the side. This is especially true for the widely used hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers and portable missile complexes, that is, cumulative weapons.
A shot from a bush, trench, window, or basement can be devastating to a tank. What's even more unfortunate is that in such situations, especially for domestic tanks, even the standard dynamic protection (ERA) often proves ineffective. Its effectiveness is critically reduced when the shell hits at angles close to perpendicular to the ERA block/module surface.
A T-90M with "backpacks." A still from a Zvezda TV program.
This problem can be solved with a rather primitive solution. To do this, install dynamic protection elements (thrown plates with an explosive layer between them) at an angle relative to the vertical side surface. This way, they will be able to effectively and efficiently engage the shaped-charge munition, significantly reducing or eliminating its armor penetration.
Domestic tank design—both Soviet and early Russian—had many ideas on this subject. However, in the context of this material, a striking example of such an arrangement of elements is the attached photograph of the BMPT (the future "Terminator") with additional side "fittings" in the form of distinctive skirts with pockets. These are where the ERA is located, at an angle close to optimal for side impacts with HEAT munitions.
Bags or backpacks
Generally speaking, this design is quite feasible. Additional angled ERA, especially if placed over the standard ERA on the tank's side skirts, can indeed protect the vehicle from HEAT shells. However, the execution itself is clearly flawed: the fabric skirts simply won't survive multiple hits—at the very least, they'll be blown off and torn apart by explosions, never mind being torn off by any bush.
But it was bound to be a failure, since this option for equipping the tank with additional dynamic armor was never adopted for service and became more of a demonstration of how tank side protection could be improved in general and how to do it cheaply. If my memory serves me correctly, it had been demonstrated in various forms at proving grounds since the 1990s or early 2000s. Surely, all the shortcomings would have been taken into account in mass production?
As it turns out, no. They simply decided to replicate it more technologically, with almost the same zero survivability.
Several years before the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, our engineers developed a design for additional tank protection, which, among other things, included installing explosive reactive armor (ERA) containers in vulnerable areas—on the sides of the hull and turret. Everything seemed to be on point—the ERA containers were angled to meet an enemy grenade and maximize the impact of its shaped-charge jet. But nothing concrete was achieved in terms of survivability.
A T-80BVM with "backpacks." A still from a Zvezda TV program.
We're talking about the side "bags" or "backpacks" (explosive armor in a soft casing) on the sides of tanks. These voluminous, rectangular containers were made of wear-resistant, waterproof fabric and attached to the tank's side skirts over the standard explosive reactive armor with fabric straps and special loops. Inside, there were special plastic stops, somewhat reminiscent of egg crates, that ensured the correct angle of the explosive reactive armor elements.
They were standard equipment on the T-72B3 (2016 model), T-80BVM, T-90M, and even BMPT tanks. The tanks were also deployed with them to the special military operation zone—and the experience, as expected, was far from positive.
Yes, they did protect the tank from grenades and even anti-tank missiles. However, the very first hit from these shells could blow some of these "backpacks" off the side with the force of the explosion—and the resulting shrapnel could rip through their fabric casing, eviscerating their contents. And that's assuming the "backpacks" managed to survive and ride the tank until contact with the enemy.
Bushes, trees, uneven terrain, deep ruts, and other situations where the tank's side skirts come into contact with external surfaces became the number one problem for the "backpacks." Due to their strap-mounted design and the extremely fragile fabric shell, they easily tore or were completely torn off upon contact with obstacles. As a result, the internet was flooded with images of tanks severely damaged, not due to combat damage, with fewer than half the number of "backpacks" on their sides.
The only advantage of these "backpacks" was their relatively easy installation on side skirts, and, consequently, removal, as well as their light weight—such a ERA in a soft case is indeed light. But sacrificing durability for these advantages is, to put it mildly, a questionable idea, as confirmed not only by practice but also by a change in production policy, although not the first time.
Steel containers
During the special military operation, when the obvious shortcomings of the "bag" armor began to become apparent, our manufacturers switched to mass production of a new additional hull side protection system against shaped-charge warheads. More accurately, this system itself isn't new, as it had been demonstrated (at exhibitions) many years ago on some tanks, including the T-72 with its urban combat kit, but it hadn't been mass-produced before the SVO.
Unlike the "backpacks," it consisted of a set of rectangular steel containers, in which the dynamic protection elements were arranged in a similar manner—at an angle. And there was a grain of rationality in this, as steel walls can withstand greater external impacts when striking obstacles. Moreover, if an incoming munition detonates, adjacent steel containers would suffer significantly less damage than fabric ones.
Moreover, the steel walls of the container also serve as a good arming screen, reliably detonating the munition at some distance from the dynamic protection elements, increasing their effectiveness. And all seemed well—certainly better than fabric "bags"—but then a problem with the mounting arose.
The fact is that the steel containers were initially secured to the tank's side skirts with clamps. The fastening was extremely simple and didn't require any special tools, which would have been necessary for removing or reattaching the containers. Furthermore, the fastening allowed the container to be tilted upward, allowing for easy manipulation of both the container itself and the side dynamic armor, for example.
However, no mobility was provided for the container when any force was applied to its end. This meant the situation was, in a sense, repeated: while the tank was moving, the containers could easily be torn off upon contact with trees, uneven terrain, ruins, man-made obstacles, and other obstacles. As a result, even with these containers, the tanks were highly susceptible to "balding," even outside of combat.
Clamp mounting
It wasn't until the second half of 2023 (or early 2024, it's hard to say for sure) that steel containers for additional hull side protection were put into production. They were secured with chains (the chains are attached to the side skirts with hooks), allowing for completely free movement in any direction. Thanks to the chains, when the containers encounter obstacles, they can slide almost to the level of the fender, "politely" allowing the obstacle to pass before returning, significantly increasing their survivability both on and off the battlefield.
As part of this project, the side screens of the tanks were also supplemented with steel triangular bumpers in the area of the idlers (guide wheels) in the front section, deflecting trees and other vegetation from the ends of the containers, further increasing their survivability.
Containers are on chains, a fender is installed in the bow
In short, there's a huge gap between what was and what has become. This isn't just in terms of improvements, but also in terms of time. Side "backpacks" emerged as a large-scale project for additional tank protection almost ten years ago. For over five years, their presence elicited no complaints, as these items weren't actually used en masse in combat. It was only during a special military operation that this type of hull protection was more or less perfected.
Of course, one could say that everything is learned through practice—and that wouldn't be a mistake, since, like the military, designers, who haven't had this experience for years, often rely on past conflicts and theories like "it works technically and well, the main thing is that the military accepts it." This is typical even of the most advanced countries, including the United States—it's quite the same. history remember with the Booker.
But reality gives a strong impetus to action - we need to respond to changes in the situation without delay and not rely on chance.
Information